Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 35

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

31 

Opinion of the Court 

directly translated into foregone dollars, is not “cognizable
under the Copyright Act.”  Id., at 592. 

Further,  we  must  take  into  account  the  public  benefits
the copying will likely produce.  Are those benefits, for ex-
ample,  related  to  copyright’s  concern  for  the  creative  pro-
duction  of  new  expression?  Are  they  comparatively  im-
portant,  or  unimportant,  when  compared  with  dollar
amounts likely lost (taking into account as well the nature 
of  the  source  of  the  loss)?    Cf.  MCA,  INC.  v.  Wilson,  677 
F. 2d 180, 183 (CA2 1981) (calling for a balancing of public 
benefits and losses to copyright owner under this factor). 

We do not say that these questions are always relevant
to the application of fair use, not even in the world of com-
puter programs.  Nor do we say that these questions are the 
only questions a court might ask.  But we do find them rel-
evant here in helping to determine the likely market effects
of Google’s reimplementation. 

As to the likely amount of loss, the jury could have found 
that Android did not harm the actual or potential markets
for Java SE.  And it could have found that Sun itself (now 
Oracle)  would  not  have  been  able  to  enter  those  markets
successfully whether Google did, or did not, copy a part of 
its API.  First, evidence at trial demonstrated that, regard-
less  of  Android’s  smartphone  technology,  Sun  was  poorly 
positioned to succeed in the mobile phone market.  The jury
heard ample evidence that Java SE’s primary market was 
laptops and desktops.  App. 99, 200.  It also heard that Sun’s
many  efforts  to  move  into  the  mobile  phone  market  had
proved unsuccessful.  Id., at 135, 235, 671.  As far back as 
2006, prior to Android’s release, Sun’s executives projected 
declining  revenue  for  mobile  phones  because  of  emerging 
smartphone  technology.  Id.,  at  240.    When  Sun’s  former 
CEO  was  asked  directly  whether  Sun’s  failure  to  build  a 
smartphone  was  attributable  to  Google’s  development  of
Android, he answered that it was not.  Id., at 650.  Given