Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 38

34 

GOOGLE LLC v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

attract new users because of its expressive qualities, such
as a better visual screen or because of its superior function-
ality.  As time passes, however, it may be valuable for a dif-
ferent  reason,  namely,  because  users,  including  program-
mers, are just used to it.  They have already learned how to 
work with it.  See Lotus Development Corp., 49 F. 3d, at 821 
(Boudin, J., concurring).

The record here is filled with evidence that this factor ac-
counts  for  Google’s  desire  to  use  the  Sun  Java  API.    See, 
e.g., App. 169–170, 213–214.  This source of Android’s prof-
itability has much to do with third parties’ (say, program-
mers’)  investment  in  Sun  Java  programs.    It  has  corre-
spondingly less to do with Sun’s investment in creating the
Sun Java API.  We have no reason to believe that the Copy-
right Act seeks to protect third parties’ investment in learn-
ing how to operate a created work.  Cf. Campbell, 510 U. S., 
at  591–592  (discussing  the  need  to  identify  those  harms
that are “cognizable under the Copyright Act”). 

Finally, given programmers’ investment in learning the
Sun  Java  API,  to  allow  enforcement  of  Oracle’s  copyright 
here  would  risk  harm  to  the  public.  Given  the  costs  and 
difficulties of  producing  alternative  APIs  with  similar  ap-
peal  to  programmers,  allowing  enforcement  here  would 
make of the Sun Java API’s declaring code a lock limiting
the future creativity of new programs.  Oracle alone would 
hold the key.  The result could well prove highly profitable
to  Oracle  (or  other  firms  holding  a  copyright  in  computer 
interfaces).  But those profits could well flow from creative 
improvements,  new  applications,  and  new  uses  developed 
by users who have learned to work with that interface.  To 
that extent, the lock would interfere with, not further, cop-
yright’s  basic  creativity  objectives.  See  Connectix  Corp., 
203 F. 3d, at 607; see also Sega  Enterprises,  977 F. 2d, at 
1523–1524 (“An attempt to monopolize the market by mak-
ing it impossible for others to compete runs counter to the 
statutory  purpose  of  promoting  creative  expression”);