Oracle

Supreme Court declares Google's code copying fair

Oracle, another tech titan, had sued Google in 2010 for copyright infringement over what it said was copied computer code.

Android is now used in an estimated 70% of global smartphones, and damages could have run into the billions.

But the Supreme Court let Google off the hook, overturning a lower court's decision it had infringed copyright.

The court ruled six to two in favour of Google.

At issue was whether Google's use of Oracle's Java API - a widely-used "building block" for programmers - counted as "fair use" under US copyright law.

Oracle ordered to pay $3bn damages to HP

The row came about because Oracle reneged on a contractual agreement to continue making software that ran on high-end Itanium chips.

The court battle over the contract was settled in 2012 but the damages HPE was due have only now been agreed.

Oracle said it would appeal against the court's decision.

 

Split business

HP was split into two in 2015 with HPE taking over the running of its servers and services business.

Oracle judgment sets high bar for fair use

Had the verdict gone the other way, it could have cost Google as much as $9 billion. Oracle will appeal the decision, but if it stands it sets a lofty precedent for fair use.

“The ruling certainly sets a high bar for creativity before deserving protection from fair use,” declares Al Hilwa, program director of software development research for IDC. “In this sense, developers will broadly view this as a relief from the burden of copyrights in crafting or copying APIs to a certain degree.”

Google defeats Oracle in Java code copyright case

Oracle had argued that Google had infringed its copyright and had sought nearly $9bn (£6bn) in damages.

The outcome was eagerly awaited by software developers who feared that a victory for Oracle might encourage more such legal actions.

The company says it will appeal against the decision.

Google uses Java in its Android smartphone operating system which powers about 80% of the world's mobile devices.

The company had argued that extending copyright protection to pieces of code called APIs (application programming interfaces) would threaten innovation.