Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 49.0

6 

GOOGLE LLC v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC. 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

code is much more functional and thus is a “method of op-
eration” outside the scope of protection. 

That  argument  fails.   As  the  majority  correctly  recog-
nizes, declaring code and implementing code are “inextrica-
bly  bound”  together.    Ante,  at  22.    Declaring  code  defines 
the  scope  of  a  set  of  implementing  code  and  gives  a  pro-
grammer  a  way  to  use  it  by  shortcut.    Because  declaring
code incorporates implementing code, it has no function on
its  own.  Implementing  code  is  similar.    Absent  declaring
code,  developers  would  have  to  write  every  program  from
scratch,  making  complex  programs  prohibitively  time 
consuming  to  create.  The  functionality  of  both  declaring
code and implementing code will thus typically rise and fall
together.

Google’s argument also cannot account for Congress’ de-
cision to define protected computer code as “a set of state-
ments or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a 
computer  in  order  to  bring  about  a  certain  result.”    §101
(emphasis added).  Hence, Congress rejected any categori-
cal  distinction  between  declaring  and  implementing  code. 
Implementing  code  orders  a  computer  operation  directly.
Declaring  code  does  so  indirectly  by  incorporating  imple-
menting code.  When faced with general language barring 
protection for “methods of operation” and specific language 
protecting  declaring  code,  the  “ ‘specific  governs  the  gen-
eral.’ ”    RadLAX  Gateway  Hotel,  LLC  v.  Amalgamated 
Bank, 566 U. S. 639, 645 (2012).

This context makes clear that the phrase “method of op-
eration” in §102(b) does not remove protection from declar-
ing code simply because it is functional.  That interpreta-
tion  does  not,  however,  render  “method  of  operation” 
meaningless.  It is “given more precise content by the neigh-
boring words with which it is associated.”  United States v. 
Williams,  553  U. S.  285,  294  (2008).    Other  terms  in  the 
same  subsection  such  as  “idea,”  “principle,”  and  “concept”
suggest that “method of operation” covers the functions and