SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 1
The Oracle vs Google case focuses on the concept of Fair use exception and materials which do 
not infringe Copyright. It had all started in August, 2010 when Oracle filed a complaint for 
Copyright and Patent infringement. It had contended that Google had copied Oracle’s Java 
Application Programming Interface in its mobile operating system. This operating system 
(Android) was purchased by Google in 2005 which was persistently developed by Google. 
Oracle claims that Google has copied verbatim of the literal elements of the API packages. 
Though the API packages are used to develop the mobile software but in this case Google had 
violated copyright by replicating the exact, original lines of the declaring source code. The 
question was even with respect to the non- literal elements of 37 packages out of 166 packages. 
Google had developed the elements of the other packages by its own excluding these 37 
packages. 
Judge William Alsup decided over the case in favour of Google in Northern District of 
California and held that API is not subject matter of Copyright. Even though API packages were 
original, creative and “resembles taxonomy” but they are a set of command, a scheme of 
operation that is not entitled to copyright protection under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act”. 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on appeal by Oracle held that there was an element 
of creativity and innovation in the work of Oracle. Google had used structure, sequence and 
organization verbatim in 37 packages though it could have developed of its own. Thus, the 
decision was reversed and the API packages were entitled to copyright protection. 
Google filed a petition in the U.S. Supreme Court to the review the decision of the subordinate 
court on 6th October, 2014. 
Thus, a lot is at stake in terms of money, reputation which will be depending on the Supreme 
Court.

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Bath Salt Abuse & Addiction: An Infographic
Bath Salt Abuse & Addiction: An InfographicBath Salt Abuse & Addiction: An Infographic
Bath Salt Abuse & Addiction: An InfographicPer Wickstrom
 
Faringitis pinto merida - www.instituto taladriz.com.ar
Faringitis   pinto merida - www.instituto taladriz.com.arFaringitis   pinto merida - www.instituto taladriz.com.ar
Faringitis pinto merida - www.instituto taladriz.com.arwww.InstitutoTaladriz.com.ar
 
LED Lighting flyer
LED Lighting flyerLED Lighting flyer
LED Lighting flyerRick Jester
 
Carcinoma de merkel freites patricia www.institutotaladriz.com.ar
Carcinoma de merkel   freites patricia www.institutotaladriz.com.arCarcinoma de merkel   freites patricia www.institutotaladriz.com.ar
Carcinoma de merkel freites patricia www.institutotaladriz.com.arwww.InstitutoTaladriz.com.ar
 
Cronograma capacitación Guri_comienzo del año
Cronograma capacitación Guri_comienzo del añoCronograma capacitación Guri_comienzo del año
Cronograma capacitación Guri_comienzo del añocteeriverarivera
 
Pediculosis castro roxana - www.instituto taladriz.com.ar
Pediculosis   castro roxana - www.instituto taladriz.com.arPediculosis   castro roxana - www.instituto taladriz.com.ar
Pediculosis castro roxana - www.instituto taladriz.com.arwww.InstitutoTaladriz.com.ar
 
Malaria rodas roberto - www.instituto taladriz.com.ar
Malaria   rodas roberto - www.instituto taladriz.com.arMalaria   rodas roberto - www.instituto taladriz.com.ar
Malaria rodas roberto - www.instituto taladriz.com.arwww.InstitutoTaladriz.com.ar
 
Oniomicosis musumeci romina - www.instituto taladriz.com.ar
Oniomicosis   musumeci romina - www.instituto taladriz.com.arOniomicosis   musumeci romina - www.instituto taladriz.com.ar
Oniomicosis musumeci romina - www.instituto taladriz.com.arwww.InstitutoTaladriz.com.ar
 

Viewers also liked (13)

Bath Salt Abuse & Addiction: An Infographic
Bath Salt Abuse & Addiction: An InfographicBath Salt Abuse & Addiction: An Infographic
Bath Salt Abuse & Addiction: An Infographic
 
Faringitis pinto merida - www.instituto taladriz.com.ar
Faringitis   pinto merida - www.instituto taladriz.com.arFaringitis   pinto merida - www.instituto taladriz.com.ar
Faringitis pinto merida - www.instituto taladriz.com.ar
 
Saúde reprodutiva
Saúde reprodutivaSaúde reprodutiva
Saúde reprodutiva
 
LED Lighting flyer
LED Lighting flyerLED Lighting flyer
LED Lighting flyer
 
Carcinoma de merkel freites patricia www.institutotaladriz.com.ar
Carcinoma de merkel   freites patricia www.institutotaladriz.com.arCarcinoma de merkel   freites patricia www.institutotaladriz.com.ar
Carcinoma de merkel freites patricia www.institutotaladriz.com.ar
 
Asma geres carla www.institutotaladriz.com.ar
Asma   geres carla www.institutotaladriz.com.arAsma   geres carla www.institutotaladriz.com.ar
Asma geres carla www.institutotaladriz.com.ar
 
Test
TestTest
Test
 
Cronograma capacitación Guri_comienzo del año
Cronograma capacitación Guri_comienzo del añoCronograma capacitación Guri_comienzo del año
Cronograma capacitación Guri_comienzo del año
 
Pediculosis castro roxana - www.instituto taladriz.com.ar
Pediculosis   castro roxana - www.instituto taladriz.com.arPediculosis   castro roxana - www.instituto taladriz.com.ar
Pediculosis castro roxana - www.instituto taladriz.com.ar
 
Untitled Presentation
Untitled PresentationUntitled Presentation
Untitled Presentation
 
Malaria rodas roberto - www.instituto taladriz.com.ar
Malaria   rodas roberto - www.instituto taladriz.com.arMalaria   rodas roberto - www.instituto taladriz.com.ar
Malaria rodas roberto - www.instituto taladriz.com.ar
 
LOR_EMoreno
LOR_EMorenoLOR_EMoreno
LOR_EMoreno
 
Oniomicosis musumeci romina - www.instituto taladriz.com.ar
Oniomicosis   musumeci romina - www.instituto taladriz.com.arOniomicosis   musumeci romina - www.instituto taladriz.com.ar
Oniomicosis musumeci romina - www.instituto taladriz.com.ar
 

New microsoft office word document (2)

  • 1. The Oracle vs Google case focuses on the concept of Fair use exception and materials which do not infringe Copyright. It had all started in August, 2010 when Oracle filed a complaint for Copyright and Patent infringement. It had contended that Google had copied Oracle’s Java Application Programming Interface in its mobile operating system. This operating system (Android) was purchased by Google in 2005 which was persistently developed by Google. Oracle claims that Google has copied verbatim of the literal elements of the API packages. Though the API packages are used to develop the mobile software but in this case Google had violated copyright by replicating the exact, original lines of the declaring source code. The question was even with respect to the non- literal elements of 37 packages out of 166 packages. Google had developed the elements of the other packages by its own excluding these 37 packages. Judge William Alsup decided over the case in favour of Google in Northern District of California and held that API is not subject matter of Copyright. Even though API packages were original, creative and “resembles taxonomy” but they are a set of command, a scheme of operation that is not entitled to copyright protection under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act”. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on appeal by Oracle held that there was an element of creativity and innovation in the work of Oracle. Google had used structure, sequence and organization verbatim in 37 packages though it could have developed of its own. Thus, the decision was reversed and the API packages were entitled to copyright protection. Google filed a petition in the U.S. Supreme Court to the review the decision of the subordinate court on 6th October, 2014. Thus, a lot is at stake in terms of money, reputation which will be depending on the Supreme Court.