Warning: Directory /var/www/legal-marketing-experts.com/oc-content/uploads/ not writable, please chmod to 777 in /var/www/legal-marketing-experts.com/oc-includes/htmlpurifier/HTMLPurifier/DefinitionCache/Serializer.php on line 179

Warning: Directory /var/www/legal-marketing-experts.com/oc-content/uploads/ not writable, please chmod to 777 in /var/www/legal-marketing-experts.com/oc-includes/htmlpurifier/HTMLPurifier/DefinitionCache/Serializer.php on line 179

Warning: Directory /var/www/legal-marketing-experts.com/oc-content/uploads/ not writable, please chmod to 777 in /var/www/legal-marketing-experts.com/oc-includes/htmlpurifier/HTMLPurifier/DefinitionCache/Serializer.php on line 179
High court sides with Google in copyright fight with Oracle - Legal Marketing Experts

High court sides with Google in copyright fight with Oracle

U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court sided Monday with Google in an $8 billion copyright dispute with Oracle over the internet company’s creation of the Android operating system used on most smartphones worldwide.

To create Android, which was released in 2007, Google wrote millions of lines of new computer code. But it also used 11,330 lines of code and an organization that’s part of Oracle’s Java platform.

Google had argued that what it did is long-settled, common practice in the industry, a practice that has been good for technical progress. And it said there is no copyright protection for the purely functional, noncreative computer code it used, something that couldn’t be written another way. But Austin, Texas-based Oracle said Google “committed an egregious act of plagiarism,” and it sued.

The justices ruled 6-2 for Google Inc., based in Mountain View, California. Two conservative justices dissented.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote  that in reviewing a lower court’s decision, the justices assumed “for argument’s sake, that the material was copyrightable.”

“But we hold that the copying here at issue nonetheless constituted a fair use. Hence, Google’s copying did not violate the copyright law,” he wrote.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Samuel Alito that he believed “Oracle’s code at issue here is copyrightable, and Google’s use of that copyrighted code was anything but fair.”

Only eight justices heard the case because it was argued in October, after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg but before Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court.

In a statement, Google’s chief legal officer, Kent Walker, called the ruling a “victory for consumers, interoperability, and computer science.” “The decision gives legal certainty to the next generation of developers whose new products and services will benefit consumers,” Walker wrote.

Oracle’s chief legal officer, Dorian Daley, condemned the outcome. “The Google platform just got bigger and market power greater. The barriers to entry higher and the ability to compete lower. They stole Java and spent a decade litigating as only a monopolist can,” she wrote in a statement.

Microsoft, IBM and major internet and tech industry lobbying groups had weighed in on the case in favor of Google. The Motion Picture Association and the Recording Industry Association of America were among those supporting Oracle.

The case is Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc., 18-956.

Related listings

  • Capitol stormer who wore ‘I Was There’ shirt to stay in jail

    Capitol stormer who wore ‘I Was There’ shirt to stay in jail

    U.S. Supreme Court 04/01/2021

    A federal judge refused Thursday to set bail for a Texas man who was wearing a T-shirt that said, “I Was There, Washington D.C., January 6, 2021,” when he was arrested on charges he stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.U.S. Judge Carl Nicho...

  • New Mexico governor appoints judge to court of appeals

    New Mexico governor appoints judge to court of appeals

    U.S. Supreme Court 03/20/2021

    New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham has appointed a judge to the state Court of Appeals to fill a vacancy created by Justice Julie J. Vargas’ appointment to the state Supreme Court.The state’s 4th Judicial District Chief Judge Gerald E...

  • High court orders full disability for worker whose lost limb

    High court orders full disability for worker whose lost limb

    U.S. Supreme Court 03/15/2021

    The South Dakota Supreme Court has ordered the state to grant a man whose lower leg was amputated as a result of a work injury permanent and total disability benefits. Steven Billman was working at Clarke Machine when he cut his foot on a metal shavi...

Illinois Work Injury Lawyers – Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD.

Accidents in the workplace are often caused by unsafe work conditions arising from ignoring safety rules, overlooking maintenance or other negligence of those in management. While we are one of the largest firms in Illinois dedicated solely to the representation of injured workers, we pride ourselves on the personal, one-on-one approach we deliver to each client.

Work accidents can cause serious injuries and sometimes permanent damage. Some extremely serious work injuries can permanently hinder a person’s ability to get around and continue their daily duties. Factors that affect one’s quality of life such as place of work, relationships with friends and family, and social standing can all be taken away quickly by a work injury. Although, you may not be able to recover all of your losses, you may be entitled to compensation as a result of your work injury. Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD. provides informed advocacy in all kinds of workers’ compensation claims, including:

• Injuries to the back and neck, including severe spinal cord injuries
• Serious head injuries
• Heart problems resulting from workplace activities
• Injuries to the knees, elbows, shoulders and other joints
• Injuries caused by repetitive movements

For Illinois Workers’ Compensation claims, you will ALWAYS cheat yourself if you do not hire an experienced attorney. When you hire Krol, Bongiorno & Given, Ltd, you will have someone to guide you through the process, and when it is time to settle, we will add value to your case IN EXCESS of our fee. In the last few years, employers and insurance carriers have sought to advance the argument that when you settle a case without an attorney, your already low settlement should be further reduced by 20% so that you do not get a “windfall.” Representing yourself in Illinois is a lose-lose proposition.