Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

AIPLA 2021: Google v Oracle was ‘analogy fight’ that changed little

Rebecca Tushnet at Harvard Law School (moderator) and Jeff Gluck at Panitch Schwarze

Panellists, including the litigators representing Google and Oracle, set out their views on the Supreme Court case

The Google v Oracle case was a “battle of analogies” at the US Supreme Court, panellists told delegates at the AIPLA 2021 Annual Meeting yesterday, October 28.

Speakers, including two litigators who represented Google and Oracle, said it was important to communicate by analogy to convey important points to the SCOTUS justices, who don’t have technical backgrounds.

“In the main, the justices didn’t have enormous facility with the technology involved,” said Thomas Goldstein, partner at Goldstein & Russell in Washington DC, who represented Google.

“If you asked me what took up the most time in our work, it was the fight over the analogies – the lock and key, the filing cabinet versus the files in the filing cabinet.

“Until they could understand these terms, the justices just couldn’t understand the case at all,” he added.

In Google v Oracle, decided in April this year, SCOTUS considered the questions of whether copyright protection extended to a software interface and whether Google’s use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constituted fair use.

Analogy fight

The moderator, Rebecca Tushnet of Harvard Law School, askedAndrew Silverman, partner at Orrick in New York – who represented Oracle – whether he thought Oracle’s loss presented a failure of analogy.

He responded that it wasn’t a failure but a “battle of analogies”.

“It was a battle of analogies at the district court before the case went up to the Federal Circuit, before the Federal Circuit and on remand in front of the jury,” he said.

“It was important to use analogies properly to highlight the case as you wanted it to be understood.”

He added that different justices had different preferred analogies, as was made clear by the court’s published opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas’s analogies were more similar to the ones used by Oracle, said Silverman, while Justice Stephen Breyer’s were closer to Google’s.

Questions left

But speakers were quick to point out that despite the hard-fought nature of the case, the outcome left a lot of questions surrounding copyright law and software unanswered.

Goldstein said that while he was pleased with SCOTUS’s decision, the question of whether copyright protection extended to software interfaces in the first instance was left ambiguous.

Jeff Gluck, partner at Panitch Schwarze in Philadelphia, agreed, adding that SCOTUS didn’t come out with a broad-brush statement about fair use either.

“It was very disappointing,” he said. “The circuit courts are split over fair use and apply it differently. This case, Google v Oracle, doesn’t necessarily resolve that difference.”

Gluck added that the judgment was quite narrow and would probably be limited to cases involving similar platforms.

“This is not a statement, in my opinion, that all software is subject to fair use or that regardless of how much one copies from an existing program, that amount of copying will be fair use. I think these questions are still unresolved for the most part.”

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Civil society and industry representatives met in Geneva on Thursday, September 28 to discuss a potential expansion of the TRIPS waiver
Sources say the beta version of the USPTO’s new trademark search tool is a big improvement over the current system but that it isn’t perfect
Canadian counsel weigh in on the IP office’s decision to raise trademark filing fees in 2024 and how they’re preparing clients
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Shira Perlmutter, US Register of Copyrights, discussed the Copyright Office's role in forming generative AI policy during a House of Representatives hearing
The award marks one of the highest-ever damages received by a foreign company in a trademark infringement suit in China
Two orders denying public access to documents have reignited a debate over a lack of transparency at the new court
Rouse’s new chief of operations and the firm’s CEO tell Managing IP why they think private equity backing will help it conquer Europe
Brian Landry, partner at Saul Ewing, reveals how applicants can prosecute patent applications in the wake of the Federal Circuit's In re Cellect ruling
Ronelle Geldenhuys of Australia’s Foundry IP considers the implications complex computer technologies such as AI have on decision-making