Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh joined the bulk opinion. Justice Amy Coney Barrett didn’t take part within the case, which was argued earlier than she joined the court docket.
In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., mentioned leapfrogging the primary query was a grave analytical misstep. “The court docket wrongly sidesteps the principal query that we have been requested to reply,” he wrote, including that he would have dominated that the code was protected by copyright legal guidelines.
The bulk’s strategy was inexplicable, Justice Thomas wrote, and its rationale — that expertise is quickly altering — was odd, as change “has been a continuing the place computer systems are involved.”
Justice Breyer used what he known as a “far-fetched” analogy to explain what the contested code did. “Think about which you can, through sure keystrokes, instruct a robotic to maneuver to a selected file cupboard, to open a sure drawer, and to select a selected recipe,” he wrote. “With the correct recipe in hand, the robotic then strikes to your kitchen and offers it to a prepare dinner to organize the dish.”
Justice Breyer wrote that the 4 fair-use elements set out within the Copyright Act all supported Google. The character of the code, he wrote, “is inextricably sure along with a normal system, the division of computing duties, that nobody claims is a correct topic of copyright.”
Google’s use of the code, he added, created one thing new. “It seeks to develop the use and usefulness of Android-based smartphones,” Justice Breyer wrote. “Its new product provides programmers a extremely inventive and progressive instrument for a smartphone atmosphere.”
Nor did Google copy an excessive amount of of Oracle’s code. The 11,000 traces of code at challenge, he wrote, amounted to 0.4 p.c of the related universe of code.