Ethics Philosopher and Case

John Locke would respond to this case by stating these following points:

• There is a "labor justification" of copyright. The cost of creating a piece of work is high. There is a lot of time and effort, as well as money put into producing a creation. The cost of copying this work and handing out this product is very low. 
• There is a trademark justification which is built on moral rights. This work that an individual has created is "an extension of one's self" This work has to be protected because of that individual's dignity. 
• An individual has the right to manage the fruits of his/her labor. 
• Locke's impression of labor is physical, as well as intellectual production.

Though APIs may not be protected under the U.S copyright law, they were invented by an individual/institution of Oracle. This was the fruit of their labor, not of Google. This was the basis of their application, and it is not morally correct for Google to use 37 Java application programming interfaces for Android. Google copied the exact sequences, structure, and organization of that of Oracle's API Java platform. Because this was not covered in the U.S Copyright Law, I believe that John Locke would respond by stating that because this is not covered in the law, you need to look at it from a utilitarian basis. Yes, society would benefit from Google using Oracle's work in Android, but without legal protection of the copyright, the work of Oracle would go essentially be fruitless. This is because Oracle spend time, effort, and money on creating these APIs, but Google came along and took them as their own work. It cost Google almost nothing to copy and distribute this work. Google will be benefitting from the work of Oracle, and that too from stealing the Oracle's creations and claiming it as their own.