The majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice John on Robert. Roberts Jr. և Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kaga, Neil M. Gorsuch և Brett M. Cavanaugh. Justice Amy Connie Barrett did not participate in the case, which was disputed before entering court.
Justice under dissent Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that jumping to the first question is a serious analytical mistake. “The court erroneously bypassed the main question we were asked to answer,” he wrote, adding that he would rule that the code was protected by copyright law.
Justice Thomas wrote that the majority’s approach was inexplicable, and that it was strange to argue that technology was changing rapidly because the change was “computer-related stability.”
Justice Breyer used what he called a “far-sighted” analogy to describe what the disputed code did. “Imagine for a second you were transposed into the karmic driven world of Earl.” “Once you get the right recipe, the robot then moves to your kitchen and gives it to the cook to cook.”
Justice Breyer writes that the four factors of fair use in the copyright law support Google. He wrote that the nature of the code “is inextricably linked to the general system of division of computing tasks, which no one claims to be a proper subject of copyright.”
The use of code by Google, he added, created something new. “It seeks to expand the use Android utility of Android-based smartphones,” wrote Bre Addis Breyer. “Its new product offers developers a highly creative and innovative tool for the smartphone environment.”
Nor did Google duplicate too many Oracle passwords. According to him, the problematic 11,000-line code makes up 0.4% of the corresponding code universe.