Oracle has a copyright to the computer code, but not a patent. That means that the public, not oracle, has the right to these functions. Oracle cannot leverage its copyright to create pattonlike rights. Specifically, under the merger document there is no copyright protection for computer code that is the only way to perform those functions. Java Software Developers have the right to use certain commands to create applications for googles android smartphone platform. The commands require google to reuse an exact set of code from java se. Because there are no substitutes oracle is claiming the exclusive right to not merely what the declaration is saying, but what the declarations do. That is not a copyright, it is a patent right. Respect to fair use, the longstanding practice of reusing code is write the developers to millions of creative applications that are used by more than one billion people. Those policy questions are academic, the issue is not whether this court would find fair us
Are admonished to give their attention. The court is now sitting. God save the United States and this honorable court. We will her argument for this morning in case 18 956, google versus oracle. Mister goldstein. Mister chief justice and may it please the court. The murder doctrine resolved the copyright issue in this case. Oracle has a copyright to the computer code in java sd but not a patent read that means the public not oracle has the right to its function and oral cannot create patent yrlike rights specifically under the murder doctrine there is no copyright protection for computer code that is theonly way to perform those functions. Your Java Software developers have the right to use certain commands to create applications for googles android smartphone platform but to work, the commands require google to reuse an exact set ofdeclarations from java sd like he fits into a lot. Because there are no substitutes, oracle is impermissibly claiming the exclusive right not merely to wha
The honorable chief justice of the honorable associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. Goldstein mr. Chief justice may please the court with that copyright ability question in this case and into the computer work that not the patent so that means the public not oracle has the right to function and oracle cannot leverage the copyright there is no copyright protection for computer code to perform those functions here Java Software developers have the right to create applications for the smart android platform but they require google to reuse the exact set of declarations it is intermittently claiming the rights not just to what the declaration says is not a copyright it is a patent right. And in the modern Interoperable Software here reusing to rewrite creative applications that are used more than 1 billion people those policy questions are almost academic not whether this court would find fair use the much narrower question they could find fair use in oracle now
The copyright ability question in this case. Oracle has a copyright to the computer code in java. Right to the functions and oracle cannot leverage the copyright to create patent rights. Under their murder doctrine there is no copyright protection for computer code that is the only way to perform those functions. Java developers have the right to use certain commands to create applications for google, android platforms. To work the commands require google to reduce a set of declarations from java fc. Because there are no substitutes oracle is claiming the exclusive right not merely to what the declaration is saying but to what they do. That is not a copyright, it is a patent right. Reusingtice of interface is critical to commuter software. Reusing the declaration allowed developers to write billions of creative applications that are used by more than a billion people. Those policy questions are almost academic because the issue is not one this court would find fair use. The standard of
Mr. Goldstein mr. Chief justice may please the court with that copyright ability question in this case and into the computer work that not the patent so that means the public not oracle has the right to function and oracle cannot leverage the copyright there is no copyright protection for computer code to perform those functions here Java Software developers have the right to create applications for the smart android platform but they require google to reuse the exact set of declarations it is intermittently claiming the rights not just to what the declaration says is not a copyright it is a patent right. And in the modern Interoperable Software here reusing to rewrite creative applications that are used more than 1 billion people those policy questions are almost academic not whether this court would find fair use the much narrower question they could find fair use in oracle now regrets the demand that the jury way all the evidence and decide fair use that has no subsidiary findings a