Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 18.0

14 

GOOGLE LLC v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

“(3)  the  amount  and  substantiality  of  the  portion 
used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 
“(4)  the effect of the use upon the potential market

for or value of the copyrighted work.”  §107. 

In applying this provision, we, like other courts, have un-
derstood that the provision’s list of factors is not exhaustive
(note the words “include” and “including”), that the exam-
ples  it  sets  forth  do  not  exclude  other  examples  (note  the
words “such as”), and that some factors may prove more im-
portant in some contexts than in others.  See Campbell v. 
Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U. S. 569, 577 (1994); Harper & 
Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U. S. 539, 
560 (1985); see also Leval, Toward a Fair Use Standard, 103 
Harv. L. Rev 1105, 1110 (1990) (Leval) (“The factors do not 
represent a score card that promises victory to the winner
of the majority”).  In a word, we have understood the provi-
sion to set forth general principles, the application of which 
requires  judicial  balancing,  depending  upon  relevant  cir-
cumstances, including “significant changes in technology.” 
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 
U. S.  417,  430  (1984);  see  also  Aiken,  422  U. S.,  at  156 
(“When technological change has rendered its literal terms
ambiguous, the Copyright Act must be construed in light of 
its basic purpose”). 

B 
Google’s petition for certiorari poses two questions.  The 
first asks whether Java’s API is copyrightable.  It asks us 
to examine two of the statutory provisions just mentioned, 
one that permits copyrighting computer programs and the 
other  that  forbids  copyrighting,  e.g.,  “process[es],”  “sys-
tem[s],”  and  “method[s]  of  operation.”    Pet.  for  Cert.  12. 
Google believes that the API’s declaring code and organiza-
tion  fall  into  these  latter  categories  and  are  expressly  ex-
cluded from copyright protection.  The second question asks
us to determine whether Google’s use of the API was a “fair