Final Ethics Blog

Oracle put in lawsuit against Google for over $9.3B in reparations because of copyright infringement of Google over its using of Java in Android. Oracle charged Google over six years ago stating that they need a license in order to use parts of the Java platform in the Google's mobile operating system. In the trial in 2012, there was a dilemma in whether Google's use of Java was acceptable as copying is allowed under certain circumstances. On May 9th, 2016, there is to be a new trial in the federal district court. The damage money asked by Oracle increased by 10 times because of the increase of smartphones and Android since 2012. This new trial will include the six new versions of Android. The first trial concluded with the verdict that Google had violated Oracle's copyright by copying the "structure, sequence, and organization" of 37 Java application programming interfaces onto Android. The trial judge later stated that APIs are not protected under the U.S copyright law. This trial will initiate again on May 9th, 2016. The moral dilemma with this trial is that the APIs were copied, which are not included under copyright protection, but they were created by Oracle. Google copied the API format exactly from that of Oracle, and that is unfair to Oracle because they made it. Google contradicted the allegations of Oracle by stating "Java is covered by fair use, which allows copying in limited cases." There are other factors that are included in this, such as the fact that the usage of the APIs was used to construct something new, rather than the same exact applications as Oracle. If John Locke were to respond to this case, he would state that 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. Even 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 spent 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.

In my opinion, I would definitely agree with John Locke because no matter what the laws are, I do not think that it is morally correct to be using someone else’s work in order for personal benefit and making money. Copying and distributing this work cost nothing for Google because the labor of work was already done by Oracle, but it caused so much damage to Oracle because they were not the ones that made the money from the product that Google was selling, yet they were the creators of it. APIs are not a physical item, but it was an idea, and that is not okay to steal. Any kind of digital property should not be given out for free or acquired without permission because the fruits of labor should be given to those that deserve it, not those that have found shortcuts to making money fast without even looking twice at who did all of the work.