U.S. Solicitor General Urges Supreme Court Not To Hear Google v. Oracle Copyright Case

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in May that APIs are copyrightable and separately remanded Google's argument that use of APIs qualifies under the fair use doctrine to the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, which originally ruled on the 2012 case (see report in the May 12, 2014, issue). Verrilli argued in a brief Tuesday sought by the Supreme Court that the court shouldn't rule on Google's appeal and should instead allow U.S. District Judge William Alsup to rule on the fair use argument in the San Francisco federal court. APIs are materially indistinguishable from other types of computer codes and are therefore copyrightable, Verrilli said. Legal experts have told us they believe there's a substantial chance the Supreme Court could agree to hear the case, Google v. Oracle, because of its substantial implications for the computer programming community (see 1411100027). Google said in a statement that it's disappointed by Verrilli's brief, but “we look forward to supporting the clear language of the law and defending the concepts of interoperability that have traditionally contributed to innovation in the software industry.” Verrilli's brief “agrees with the Federal Circuit's decision and affirms the importance of copyright protection as an incentive for software innovation,” Oracle said in a statement. The Computer & Communications Industry Association decried Verrilli's brief, with President Ed Black saying in a statement that “even after conceding that there are ‘concerns about the effects that enforcing [Oracle’s] copyright could have on software development,' the Solicitor General has told the Supreme Court that this case isn’t worth its attention. This would have been an opportunity for [President Barack Obama's administration] to demonstrate its forward-looking technological leadership.”