Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

10 

GOOGLE LLC v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

only  the  declaring  code  and  organizational  structure  that 
was necessary for Java-trained programmers to activate fa-
miliar tasks (while, as we said, writing its own implement-
ing code).  Hence the copied material, in the judge’s view,
was a “system or method of operation,” which copyright law 
specifically states cannot be copyrighted.  Id., at 977 (citing 
17 U. S. C. §102(b)). 

On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed.  That court held 
that  both  the  API’s  declaring  code  and  its  organizational
structure could be copyrighted.  Oracle, 750 F. 3d, at 1354. 
It  pointed  out  that  Google  could  have  written  its  own  de-
claring  code  just  as  it  wrote  its  own  implementing  code. 
And because in principle Google might have created a whole 
new  system  of  dividing  and  labeling  tasks  that  could  be 
called up by programmers, the declaring code (and the sys-
tem)  that  made  up  the  Sun  Java  API  was  copyrightable. 
Id., at 1361. 

The Federal Circuit also rejected Oracle’s plea that it de-
cide whether Google had the right to use the Sun Java API 
because doing so was a “fair use,” immune from copyright 
liability.  The Circuit wrote that fair use “both permits and 
requires ‘courts to avoid rigid application of the copyright 
statute when, on occasion, it would stifle the very creativity
which that law is designed to foster.’ ”  Id., at 1372–1373. 
But, it added, this “is not a case in which the record contains 
sufficient  factual  findings  upon  which  we  could  base  a de
novo assessment of Google’s affirmative defense of fair use.” 
Id., at 1377.  And it remanded the case for another trial on 
that question.  Google petitioned this Court for a writ of cer-
tiorari, seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s copyrighta-
bility determination.  We denied the petition.  Google, Inc. 
v. Oracle America, Inc., 576 U. S. 1071 (2015).

On remand the District Court, sitting with a jury, heard
evidence for a week.  The court instructed the jury to an-
swer one question: Has Google “shown by a preponderance
of the evidence that its use in Android” of the declaring code