Introduction
The expansion of digital technologies into people’s daily lives and all spheres of human activity, especially business, creates new opportunities and challenges, especially in the legal field. The most common and complex are civil cases over copyright and intellectual property. The current and future generations of lawyers have to develop methodologies and approaches to deal with such matters effectively and fairly. The issue, rule, analysis, and conclusion (IRAC) method is a tool that comprehensively develops the skills of law school students and also helps them develop new knowledge (Gerber, 2021). The dispute to which the IRAC method will be applied in this analytic paper is the long-standing civil case of Google v. Oracle. The question is, will Oracle be able to secure $9 billion from Google in damages in the Supreme Court for implementing copyrighted Java application program interfaces that are not fair use given that the Federal Circuit has sided with the plaintiff twice and the United States (US) District Court for the Northern District of California ruled in defense of the defender twice?
Identifying the Laws Applied
In the civil case of Oracle v. Google, one law and related guidelines apply. As Parloff (2019) notes, it is the US copyright law. According to U.S. Copyright Office (2020), “copyright protection subsists … in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device” (p. 19). The related guidelines is the legal doctrine of fair use (Parloff, 2019). U.S. Copyright Office (2020) argues that “the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright” (p. 19). As the case shows, when applying these rules to objects of a digital nature, layers encounter some difficulties.
Analysis of the Case
Regardless of which side the Supreme Court will take in the future, this case is truly unique. Google used parts of the unique Java code that belongs to Oracle for its operating system, namely Android, without taking a commercial license (Parloff, 2019). The owner found this out and filed a lawsuit. In their defense, Google used the argument that copyright does not apply to the operation methods, which in their opinion, the parts of the code they used are (Parloff, 2019). Due to their specificity in coding and the principle of functioning, they can be considered as such. It is worth noting that the scientific community supported this statement (Parloff, 2019). Representatives of the Tech giant also stated that the implemented fragments make up a tiny part of the Android code. They also told the court that if Oracle wins, it will harm competition and the digital market (Parloff, 2019). Considering that these specific elements of the code are not copyrightable, the judge, following the law, ruled in Google’s favor.
The case shows that many things in the area of digital technology and programming remain legally ambiguous. The code elements around which the trial began between the two entities can also be considered a computer program. Computer programs are considered literary works under US law and, therefore, copyrightable (U.S. Copyright Office, 2020). That is why the Federal Circuit overturned the lower court’s decision and ruled in Oracle’s favor. Another notable argument that the defendant used is to appeal to fair use (Parloff, 2019). However, copying and using someone else’s lines of digital code is not fair use. The Federal Circuit again ruled that Oracle was right. The interests of both parties are apparent. Paying compensation can seriously harm Google and its partners financially and deprive them of their status as Tech giants; they want to keep their positions on the market. Oracle intends to return the money they believe they lost and become the new leading player in the digital field.
Conclusion
Currently, both Google and Oracle are waiting for the damage to be calculated according to the court decision based on the remedies for infringement about the actual damage; the latter demands $9 billion. Google went to the Supreme Court to establish the status of the used Java code fragments and overturn The Federal Circuit’s decision. I would also rule for damages to Oracle. It has been proven that Google’s actions are illegal. They now appeal to a moral argument and abuse their authority to get the judges to take their side. Nevertheless, like many other countries, the US’s legislation needs to establish clear sets of rules about digital assets and their parts. As noted above, the Oracle v. Google case is unique in that it can serve as a basis for reforming the law in terms of digital assets. Moreover, the legal conflict between these two large actors of the digital market has been going on for more than ten years, which is also significant.
References
Gerber, B. (2021). Master legal writing with the IRAC method. Abraham Lincoln University. Web.
Parloff, R. (2019). Google and Oracle’s $9 billion ‘copyright case of the decade’ could be headed for the Supreme Court. Newsweek Global. Web.
U.S. Copyright Office. (2020). Copyright law of the United States and related laws contained in Title 17 of the United States Code. Web.