For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, or so states Newton’s third law of motion. It is safe to say that Newton never met an intellectual property lawyer, and he never had to deal with the whims and fancy of an arbitrary and capricious Supreme Court. Earlier this week, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Google v. Oracle, in which the Court ruled that Google’s intentional copying of 11,500 lines of computer code from Oracle was a fair use despite the fact that Google made many tens of billions of dollars in the process, and despite the fact that the record showed that Google consciously chose to copy, rather than independently create, because programmers were already familiar with the 11,500 lines of code they wanted to take.
Recent Posts
- Judge Hughes Again Calls Out CAFC’s Overly Rigid Article III Analysis for Pharmaceutical Cases
- Coke Stewart’s Recent Show Cause Order Offers Hope for Addressing Serial Patent Challenges
- The USPTO Should Reintroduce the AFCP Program—Now
- What Fintiv v. PayPal Means for Software and AI Patent Practice
- Despite Tweaks, PREVAIL 2025 Would Still Transform the PTAB