• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

U. S. judgement: Software development not under fair use – in comparison to the EU

17. August 2018

The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that Google’s use of Oracle’s 37 Java API packages does not fall under the so-called fair use. This judgement is of the utmost importance for modern software development. And it shows that the US and the EU are drifting apart on this issue.

Oracle vs. Google – a longlasting lawsuit

Software developmentThe years of legal dispute between Oracle and Google over the use of Oracle’s Java interfaces by Google in the Android operating system has thus taken a new turn. This is the second time the case has been referred to the court. After a first ruling in 2012 and the non-adoption decision of the highest U.S. Federal Court in 2015, the Oracle against Google case was resubmitted, this time with the following aspect: The court should now decide whether Google’s use of the Java interfaces in the Android operating system was fair use.

Fair Use in the U.S. Copyright Act

According to the US Copyright Act, four factors are of central importance for fair use:

  1. Purpose and type of use of the new work
    Is this the new work transformative? That is the crucial question about the first factor of fair use. This is supported by the fact that Google has developed 168 of its own API packages for the 37 packages taken over and adapted the environment to mobile requirements. Furthermore, a non-commercial use for scientific or educational purposes usually falls under fair use, a commercial use tends to speak against fair use.
  2. Nature of the original work and form of transfer
    If parts of purely functional works are taken over, fair use is more likely than if they are taken over from creative works. Google’s argument for this is that Java is a functional work. However, Oracle can claim that Java was already used in mobile environments before Google’s modifications and that a version adapted for mobile requirements existed.
  3. Amount and materiality of the portion used
    If large parts or elements of central importance of a work are taken over, this tends to speak against a use justified by fair use: Google used 37 of 209 packages of a programming interface (API) that is only part of Java. What speaks for Oracle, however, is that Google has adopted those elements of the API that are of central importance and also have a special recognition value.
  4. Effects on recycling
    If the new work replaces or threatens the original work on the market or otherwise affects the market for the original work, in short, if it means economic damage to the original work, fair use is almost impossible. Oracle used Java SE only on desktop computers and laptops, but not on market-relevant mobile devices. Possible lost license revenues remain to be taken into account. In fact, there may have been licensing negotiations between Oracle and Google, but the mere fact that Google negotiated a licensing agreement with Oracle was not enough to prove the existence of potential markets, the appeal court ruled. Google uses Android’s Dalvik-VM for commercial purposes. However, the source code of Dalvik is under a non-commercial license (Apache 2.0).
Although novelty is a prerequisite for patentability of a patent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, neither copyright nor case law requires novelty in the fair-use investigation.

The 2018 judgement

The U.S. Federal Appeals Court has ruled that Google’s use of Oracle’s 37 Java API packages does not fall under the so-called fair use. This is a setback for free and open source software, because it should become more difficult to make open source and free interface modifications in the USA from now on.

ECJ promotes European competition between software solutions

In Europe, the case of SAS Institute Inc. against World Programming Ltd  (EU C‑406/10) set standards in a similar way – but with a completely different trend – in 2012. The ECJ ruled that the functionality, programming language and data format are not an expression of a program and are therefore not protected by copyright for computer programs pursuant to Article 1(2) of Directive 91/250/EEC. Rather, it is permitted to observe, examine and test a computer program without special permission – also with the execution of the program. However, there is one restriction: exclusive rights of the copyright holder must not be violated.

These articles may also be of interest to you in this context:

  • Info Blog: Patent Software ? Is It Possible and if so, How?
  • Info Blog: Computer-related inventions in the EPO’s Guidelines
  • Info Blog: Protect your idea before selling it as a software product

 

Would you also like to protect an invention in the field of software development, Api or App?

Our Patent Attorneys and Attorneys at Law bundle are experts in patent- and trademark law, national and international.
Please take your chance and contact us – a request for a call-back is non-binding:

CAT-call_en

Source:

Law Justitia: Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc., No. 17-1118 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

US Courts Gov: Fair Use

Council Directive 91/250/EEC on the legal protection of computer programs

Picture:

markusspiske / pixabay.com / CC0 License

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconLicenses,  Patent Law,  Product- and Trademark piracy Tag iconAndroid,  API,  Fair Use,  Fed. Cir. 2018,  Federal Circuit. U. S. Court,  Java SE,  Oracle vs. Google,  patent protection,  patenting software,  protection,  Software

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Licenses

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

22. February 2022
PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

14. February 2022
Crypto trading: NFT for luxury and art

Crypto trading: NFT for luxury and art

11. February 2022
Shipwreck for Iglo: lawsuit over figure Käpt’n Iglo

Shipwreck for Iglo: lawsuit over figure Käpt’n Iglo

8. February 2022
Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

3. February 2022
PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.