Oracle v. Google: The API Copyright War¶
Era: 2010-2021
Lesson: API copyrightability is complicated, and large companies will litigate for decades
What Happened¶
When Google built Android, they wanted Java developers to feel at home. So they implemented Java's API—the method signatures, class names, and organization that developers use—while writing their own underlying implementation.
Sun Microsystems (Java's creator) seemed okay with this. Then Oracle acquired Sun in 2010. Within months, Oracle sued Google for patent and copyright infringement, seeking billions in damages.
The core question: Can you copyright an API? Not the implementation—everyone agreed Google wrote their own code. Just the names and structure that define how the API is called.
The Journey Through Courts¶
Google could afford eleven years. You probably can't. The threat of litigation is itself the weapon.
This case bounced between courts for over a decade:
2012: Jury trial on copyright claims. The jury found Google had copied the API structure but couldn't agree on fair use. Judge Alsup (who learned to code during the trial) ruled that APIs aren't copyrightable at all.
2014: The Federal Circuit reversed, ruling APIs can be copyrighted. This shocked much of the software industry.
2016: Second trial on fair use. Jury found Google's use was fair use.
2018: Federal Circuit reversed again, ruling it was not fair use as a matter of law. This was arguably even more concerning than the copyrightability ruling.
2021: Supreme Court ruled 6-2 for Google.1 They assumed APIs are copyrightable but found Google's use was fair use. The narrow ruling avoided the bigger question.
Why It Matters¶
For software development¶
If APIs are copyrightable and reimplementation isn't fair use, then:
- Clean-room implementations of existing APIs become legally risky
- Interoperability becomes a licensing negotiation
- Any company that controls a popular API can demand payment from everyone who implements it
This would fundamentally change how software is built.
What the Supreme Court actually decided¶
The court deliberately avoided ruling on whether APIs are copyrightable. They said: even assuming the Java API is protected, Google's use was fair use because:
- Google only copied what was necessary for interoperability
- The copied material was functional
- Google created a new platform (mobile) rather than competing in the same market
- The nature of computer programs makes some copying inevitable
The Lessons¶
The law is not settled¶
The Supreme Court punted on copyrightability. The Federal Circuit's ruling that APIs are copyrightable still stands for cases where fair use doesn't apply. This question will come back.
Fair use is unpredictable¶
Google won on fair use, but only after a decade and tens of millions in legal fees. Few companies can afford to bet on fair use.
Control of APIs is power¶
Oracle tried to turn API control into a revenue stream. They failed in this specific case, but the strategy isn't dead. Companies continue to assert control over interfaces.
Scale matters¶
The ability to sustain a decade-long legal battle is itself a form of power. Most companies and individuals would have settled, regardless of the merits.
What This Means For You¶
If you're implementing an existing API:
- Document that your implementation is independently written
- Consider whether the API owner has shown hostility to reimplementations
- Understand that the legal landscape is genuinely uncertain
If you're publishing an API:
- Your license should clearly state whether reimplementation is permitted
- Ambiguity creates future litigation opportunities (for you or against you)
- Community trust depends on clarity
The Oracle v. Google saga isn't really over. It's just waiting for the next case.