Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 34

30 

GOOGLE LLC v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

our  view,  that  conclusion  views  Google’s  legitimate  objec-
tives too narrowly.  Google’s basic objective was not simply
to make the Java programming language usable on its An-
droid systems.  It was to permit programmers to make use
of their knowledge and experience using the Sun Java API
when they wrote new programs for smartphones with the 
Android platform.  In principle, Google might have created 
its  own,  different  system  of  declaring  code.    But  the  jury
could have found that its doing so would not have achieved
that basic objective.  In a sense, the declaring code was the 
key that it needed to unlock the programmers’ creative en-
ergies.  And it needed those energies to create and to im-
prove its own innovative Android systems.

We consequently believe that this “substantiality” factor

weighs in favor of fair use. 

D. Market Effects 
The fourth statutory factor focuses upon the “effect” of the
copying  in  the  “market  for  or  value  of  the  copyrighted 
work.”  17 U. S. C. §107(4).  Consideration of this factor, at 
least  where  computer  programs  are  at  issue,  can  prove
more complex than at first it may seem.  It can require a 
court to consider the amount of money that the copyright
owner might lose.  As we pointed out in Campbell, “verba-
tim  copying  of  the  original  in  its  entirety  for  commercial 
purposes” may well produce a market substitute for an au-
thor’s work.  510 U. S., at 591.  Making a film of an author’s
book  may  similarly  mean  potential  or  presumed  losses  to 
the  copyright  owner.    Those  losses  normally  conflict  with
copyright’s basic objective: providing authors with exclusive 
rights that will spur creative expression.

But a potential loss of revenue is not the whole story.  We 
here must consider not just the amount but also the source
of the loss.  As we pointed out in Campbell, a “lethal parody,
like a scathing theatre review,” may “kil[l ] demand for the
original.”  Id., at 591–592.  Yet this kind of harm, even if