Credit: SimonQ
Google said it was disappointed with the government’s “conclusions” Tuesday. “We still look forward to defending the concepts of interoperability that have traditionally contributed to innovation in the software industry,” the company said.
Oracle said the administration’s position “affirms the importance of copyright protection as an incentive for software innovation.”
The justices are not obligated to follow the administration’s position, and the high court has not indicated whether it would review the Federal Circuit’s decision.
Even if the Supreme Court refuses to review the appellate court’s decision, Google may not be on the hook for monetary damages. That’s because the appeals court sent the case back to the lower courts to determine whether Google’s use of the code in Android—which it has subsequently abandoned using—constitutes a “fair use.”
The government did not state a position on whether Google’s actions were protected by the fair use doctrine.
“Petitioner argues that its copying of respondent’s code promoted innovation by enabling programmers to switch more easily to another platform. But it is the function of the fair-use doctrine… to identify circumstances in which the unauthorized use of copyrighted material will promote rather than disserve the purposes of the copyright laws,” the government told the justices.
Making the case all the more complicated is that there’s no clear definition of fair use. It’s decided on a case-by-case basis.
“The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission,” according to the US Copyright Office.