“That new definition eviscerates copyright,” Thomas argued.
Finally, the justice noted that Google admits that “it copied the heart or focal points of Oracle’s work. The declaring code is what attracted programmers to the Java platform and why Google was so interested in that code. And Google copied that code ‘verbatim,’ which weighs against fair use.”
“Even if Google’s use were transformative, the majority is wrong to conclude that Google copied only a small portion of the original work. The majority points out that the 11,500 lines of declaring code—enough to fill about 600 pages in an appendix—were just a fraction of the code in the Java platform. But the proper denominator is declaring code, not all code. … The declaring code is what attracted programmers. And it is what made Android a ‘market substitute’ for ‘potentially licensed derivatives’ of Oracle’s Java platform.”
“Google’s copying was both qualitatively and quantitatively substantial,” Thomas noted.
In other words, claiming that Google only copied 0.4 percent of the entire code is like claiming that abortion constitutes only 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s services — it is a sleight-of-hand argument that fudges the numbers to distract from the real issue at hand.
The Internet is about to get wild again.