In the battle between the search giant and Oracle over the architecture of Google’s Android operating system, the US Supreme Court ruled for Google. In a 6-2 ruling published on Monday and written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the court ruled that “Google’s copy of the Java SE API, which included only those lines of code, allowed programmers to work on their earned talents There was a need to give. A new and transformative program was the proper use of that material in the form of legislation. ”
On this issue, Oracle claimed that Google copied Java code from Sun Microsystems to create its popular Android OS, with CNBC noting that 12,000 lines of code were used in this case., The company later sued Google Is using that software illegally.
The company overturned the verdict two years after Google claimed that its use of the software was allowed as part of “fair use”, with the company winning the first major legal battle in the case in 2016. After repeated petitions by Google,.
Google’s senior vice president of global affairs, Kent Walker, “Today’s Supreme Court decision in Google v. Is a major victory for innovation, inter-computation, and computing.” Said on twitter After the news. “Thank you to the country’s leading innovators, software engineers and copyright scholars for their support.”
Oracle executive vice president and general counsel Dorian Daly said Google’s win is the latest example of the search giant’s power.
Daly wrote in a statement posted on Oracle’s website, “The Google platform only got bigger and market power got higher. Higher entry barriers and less ability to compete. He stole Java and as a monopolist Spent only a decade. ” “This behavior is actually regulatory authorities around the world and in the United States are investigating Google’s business practices.”
Included in the majority opinion were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh; Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissected. Justice Amy Connie Barrett did not participate because the case was not confirmed to be heard by the Senate last October.
ClearTips’s Richard Neeva contributed to this report.