A man from the pro-life organization Bound4Life raises his hands in prayer in front of the US Supreme Court on October 5, 2020 in Washington, DC. With currently 8 judges, the Supreme Court will start a new term on Monday.
Drew Angerer | Getty Images
The political spotlight shines brightly on that Supreme Court how the Senate weighs the president’s appointment Donald TrumpThe candidate, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, but on Wednesday the court will do all the business.
Three industrial giants – Google, oracle and ford – Will take their cases to judges in two disputes that are expected to have far-reaching implications for American businesses and consumers. Decisions are expected by the end of June.
The arguments come in the first week of the court’s term in 2020 and will be practically negotiated due to the Covid-19 pandemic. They are among the first to be discussed since the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal and perhaps most worker-friendly lawyer at the court, on September 18.
Google versus Oracle
First and foremost is Google v Oracle, a potentially $ 9 billion copyright case that has been in the works for a decade, including a delay of several months after the Supreme Court removed the case from the list in its last term as a result of the pandemic.
The case has to do with code that Google used to create its popular Android mobile operating system, which, according to Oracle, was stolen from Google. Google says the code should not be subject to copyright protection in the first place, citing the copyright law exception for fair use.
The 11,500 lines of code originally written by Sun Microsystems for the programming interface for Java applications are controversial. Oracle bought Sun in 2010 and brought this suit shortly afterwards.
The dispute is a bit obscure as the arguments are competing as to whether the code Google is using is creative or just technical.
For example, key to Google’s assertion is the argument that the code used corresponds to a QWERTY keyboard – helpful for doing something creative, but not in itself any kind of original expression. On the other hand, Oracle says its code is “like the chapter headings and subject sentences of an elaborate literary work”.
The case has already developed around the lower courts, with Google recording two wins in a federal district court in California and two losses in the specialized U.S. appeals court for the Federal Circuit. If the court missing Ginsburg blocks 4-4, the appeal court’s decision will stand.
The case has received a lot of attention, and some big business and technology names, as well as some startups, have warned that the appeal court’s decision threatens future innovation.
MicrosoftThe Court of Appeal’s decision “raises the functional code to the same level of copyright protection as creative expression in a novel” and “threatens modern paradigms of software development”.
On the other hand, the Trump administration sided with Oracle through the Justice Department and found that Google are competitors Apple and Microsoft could build mobile operating systems without using Oracle’s code.
The case has also generated interest outside the technical area.
The American Library Association told judges in a brief interview with Google that new restrictions on fair use could affect research and learning tools, including those used for virtual classrooms and digitization of printed materials for people with disabilities.
In addition to Oracle, the News Media Alliance, which represents thousands of media companies, wrote that it identified with the software manufacturer’s arguments.
Its members often create “valuable content that a third party then embeds into a larger, highly valuable commercial product, claiming that the act is” transformative “even though it did not modify or build on the original message content,” the alliance wrote.
Ford fends off liability claims
After Google v. Oracle, the judges move on to two consolidated cases in which Ford is defending liability claims from individuals who claim they have been harmed by defects in Ford vehicles.
Just like the first case of the day, the Ford cases could have ramifications well beyond their immediate facts, from government efforts to hold companies accountable for abuses related to the U.S. opioid epidemic to a consumer’s legal remedies when injured by an explosion toaster.
The cases involve Markkaya Jean Gullett, a Montana resident who died after an accident in their Ford Explorer in 2015, and Adam Bandemer, a Minnesota resident who claims he suffered a serious brain injury after the airbag in his 1994s Crown Victoria had not been raised in an accident.
Bandemer and a Gullett agent sued Ford in state courts. In response, Ford said it couldn’t be sued in Montana or Minnesota because the Michigan-based company didn’t manufacture or sell the cars in question in either state and has no association with the states directly related to the injuries . The Supreme Courts of both states rejected this argument.
The case, in which high-profile lawyers are represented on both sides, has divided the business world and united an unusual coalition of states across the political spectrum.
For those who oppose Ford, a major concern is that large manufacturers can effectively evade liability while smaller companies hold the bag.
“In many states, they actually have seller immunity, but if you can’t get jurisdiction over the manufacturer, that immunity goes away,” said Deepak Gupta, who will advance the case against Ford.
“I think people often think that these access to justice and crime reform cases are the little guy versus business, but in this case it’s more complicated,” Gupta said in an interview.
Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia, including perennial court antagonists like Texas and California, made a brief statement that a victory for Ford could allow opioid manufacturers to evade liability and “shift liability to local dealers and doctors.” .
The National Association of Home Builders wrote that “there may be a perception” that business is for Ford’s position. “If so, this perception is out of place,” wrote the association.
The NAHB wrote that Ford’s position “particularly helps manufacturers or designers of defective products, many of which are now abroad”, but “harms other companies – especially those that lie between consumers and original manufacturers”.
On Ford’s side, the Chamber of Commerce has called on the Supreme Court to intervene to halt a situation where companies “cannot predict where and to what extent they could be brought to justice”.
The organization called the approach taken by Ford’s opponents “inadmissible” and said it would place “new and unjustified burdens on businesses, courts and the federal system”.