Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

4 

GOOGLE LLC v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC. 

Syllabus 

these facts risks causing creativity-related harms to the public.  When 
taken together, these considerations demonstrate that the fourth fac-
tor—market effects—also weighs in favor of fair use.  Pp. 30–35. 

(e) The fact that computer programs are primarily functional makes
it difficult to apply traditional copyright concepts in that technological
world.  Applying the principles of the Court’s precedents and Congress’
codification  of  the  fair  use  doctrine  to  the  distinct  copyrighted  work
here, the Court concludes that Google’s copying of the API to reimple-
ment a user interface, taking only what was needed to allow users to 
put  their  accrued  talents  to  work  in  a  new  and  transformative  pro-
gram,  constituted  a  fair  use  of  that  material  as  a  matter  of  law.  In 
reaching this result, the Court does not overturn or modify its earlier
cases involving fair use.  Pp. 35–36. 

886 F. 3d 1179, reversed and remanded. 

BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., 
and  SOTOMAYOR,  KAGAN,  GORSUCH,  and  KAVANAUGH,  JJ.,  joined. 
THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined.  BAR-
RETT, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.