Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 44.0

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

1 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 18–956 
_________________ 

GOOGLE LLC, PETITIONER v. 
ORACLE AMERICA, INC. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

[April 5, 2021]

 JUSTICE  THOMAS,  with  whom  JUSTICE  ALITO  joins,  dis-

senting. 

Oracle  spent  years  developing  a  programming  library 
that  successfully  attracted  software  developers,  thus  en-
hancing  the  value  of  Oracle’s  products.1    Google  sought  a 
license to use the library in Android, the operating system
it was developing for mobile phones.  But when the compa-
nies could not agree on terms, Google simply copied verba-
tim  11,500  lines  of  code  from  the  library.    As  a  result,  it 
erased 97.5% of the value of Oracle’s partnership with Am-
azon,  made  tens  of  billions  of  dollars,  and  established  its 
position as the owner of the largest mobile operating system
in the world.  Despite this, the majority holds that this cop-
ying was fair use. 

The Court reaches this unlikely result in large part be-
cause it bypasses the antecedent question clearly before us: 
Is  the  software  code  at  issue  here  protected  by  the  Copy-
right Act?  The majority purports to assume, without decid-
ing, that the code is protected.  But its fair-use analysis is
wholly  inconsistent  with  the  substantial  protection  Con-
gress  gave  to  computer  code.    By  skipping  over  the  copy-

—————— 

1 A  different  company,  Sun,  created  the  library.  But  because  Oracle 

later purchased Sun, for simplicity I refer to both companies as Oracle.