WEBVTT - High Court Will Hear Google/Oracle Copyright Dispute

0:00:03.520 --> 0:00:07.040
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.120 --> 0:00:09.680
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:09.720 --> 0:00:12.200
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:12.240 --> 0:00:16.160
<v Speaker 1>episodes at the Bloomberg Law Podcast, on Apple podcast, SoundCloud,

0:00:16.280 --> 0:00:20.279
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. The Justices don't

0:00:20.280 --> 0:00:23.080
<v Speaker 1>return to the bench until next month, but there's plenty

0:00:23.079 --> 0:00:26.400
<v Speaker 1>of action at the Supreme Court. The Justices have decided

0:00:26.440 --> 0:00:29.560
<v Speaker 1>to give Google a hearing in its multibillion dollar clash

0:00:29.640 --> 0:00:33.000
<v Speaker 1>with Oracle, and President Trump is asking the court to

0:00:33.040 --> 0:00:36.440
<v Speaker 1>block subpoenas for his financial records and reverse the decisions

0:00:36.440 --> 0:00:38.800
<v Speaker 1>of federal appellate courts in d C. And New York,

0:00:39.240 --> 0:00:42.680
<v Speaker 1>something that the chief Judge of the Second Circuit, Robert Katzman,

0:00:42.840 --> 0:00:48.120
<v Speaker 1>predicted this case seems bound for the Supreme Court. Joining

0:00:48.159 --> 0:00:51.320
<v Speaker 1>me is Greg Store. Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter Greg

0:00:51.360 --> 0:00:54.400
<v Speaker 1>tell us about the two cases that President Trump wants

0:00:54.440 --> 0:00:58.360
<v Speaker 1>the Justices to take. Two cases very different legal issues,

0:00:58.400 --> 0:01:01.120
<v Speaker 1>but the same sort of feel to them. In one,

0:01:01.760 --> 0:01:06.080
<v Speaker 1>New York District Attorney Cyrus Advance Jr. Is trying to

0:01:06.160 --> 0:01:10.920
<v Speaker 1>get copies of Trump's tax returns for a grand jury investigation.

0:01:11.480 --> 0:01:14.360
<v Speaker 1>That request is currently on hold. The lower court said

0:01:14.400 --> 0:01:17.240
<v Speaker 1>he's entitled to get those requests, though is on hold

0:01:17.280 --> 0:01:20.040
<v Speaker 1>while Trump asked the Supreme Court to hear his appeal.

0:01:20.480 --> 0:01:24.240
<v Speaker 1>The other case involves the House of Representatives and a committee,

0:01:24.280 --> 0:01:27.679
<v Speaker 1>not the committee that's that's looking into impeaching President Trump,

0:01:27.959 --> 0:01:32.120
<v Speaker 1>a committee that wants Trump's financial records as part of

0:01:32.440 --> 0:01:35.720
<v Speaker 1>what it says is a potential legislative change to the

0:01:35.760 --> 0:01:40.039
<v Speaker 1>federal ethics laws. Again, a federal appeals court has said

0:01:40.080 --> 0:01:43.240
<v Speaker 1>the House is entitled to those documents. Trump is trying

0:01:43.240 --> 0:01:45.959
<v Speaker 1>to get the Supreme Court to block that request, so

0:01:46.480 --> 0:01:51.440
<v Speaker 1>Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily blocked the subpoena. Why explain

0:01:51.480 --> 0:01:55.120
<v Speaker 1>that whole process that's in the House case. Had he

0:01:55.240 --> 0:01:58.360
<v Speaker 1>not done that as it was set up, there was

0:01:58.400 --> 0:02:01.080
<v Speaker 1>going to be a point where the House could have

0:02:01.320 --> 0:02:05.240
<v Speaker 1>demanded that President Trump's accounting for a Mazurs turn over

0:02:05.280 --> 0:02:08.920
<v Speaker 1>those documents. This just basically kept everything in place while

0:02:08.960 --> 0:02:12.760
<v Speaker 1>the Court decides whether to issue a longer delay and

0:02:12.800 --> 0:02:15.880
<v Speaker 1>then ultimately decide whether to take up the president's appeal.

0:02:16.280 --> 0:02:19.800
<v Speaker 1>And here arguments so greg to other presidents have tried

0:02:19.919 --> 0:02:22.840
<v Speaker 1>and failed to get out of legal processes at the

0:02:22.840 --> 0:02:26.760
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court. So what are the chances the justices will

0:02:26.800 --> 0:02:31.200
<v Speaker 1>take this case? Probably pretty good ageven that there are

0:02:31.320 --> 0:02:33.919
<v Speaker 1>two cases. You know, it might be possible to duck

0:02:34.000 --> 0:02:36.120
<v Speaker 1>one of them. It's harder to duck two of them.

0:02:36.720 --> 0:02:40.280
<v Speaker 1>It is the President of the United States asking for it.

0:02:40.280 --> 0:02:42.800
<v Speaker 1>It may be that a majority of the justices on

0:02:42.919 --> 0:02:45.840
<v Speaker 1>the court see his arguments as as a bit of

0:02:45.840 --> 0:02:49.000
<v Speaker 1>a reach, because, particularly in the New York case, the

0:02:49.080 --> 0:02:53.120
<v Speaker 1>president's private lawyer argued that the president has basically absolute

0:02:53.120 --> 0:02:57.680
<v Speaker 1>immunity from any criminal investigations while he's in office. But

0:02:57.800 --> 0:03:00.520
<v Speaker 1>it is the president he is saying, it is making

0:03:00.560 --> 0:03:02.639
<v Speaker 1>it harder for me to do my job. Now, it

0:03:02.680 --> 0:03:04.960
<v Speaker 1>would be quite something for the Supreme Court to say, no,

0:03:05.040 --> 0:03:07.400
<v Speaker 1>we don't even want to hear that argument. We're not

0:03:07.440 --> 0:03:10.200
<v Speaker 1>even going to entertain that. Let's turn to a case

0:03:10.280 --> 0:03:14.120
<v Speaker 1>that the justices will be considering. That's the Google Oracle case.

0:03:14.200 --> 0:03:16.800
<v Speaker 1>Tell us about that. Yeah, this is a case that

0:03:16.960 --> 0:03:21.320
<v Speaker 1>is potentially worth billions of dollars. A federal appeals court

0:03:21.400 --> 0:03:27.400
<v Speaker 1>lower court found that Google infringed Oracles copyrights on UH

0:03:27.440 --> 0:03:31.880
<v Speaker 1>the so called application program interfaces, which are basically software

0:03:31.960 --> 0:03:36.280
<v Speaker 1>code that allows one device to talk to another device,

0:03:36.400 --> 0:03:39.880
<v Speaker 1>or or one program to talk to another program. Oracle

0:03:40.040 --> 0:03:44.760
<v Speaker 1>sued Google for violating its copyrights and says we're owed

0:03:44.840 --> 0:03:48.680
<v Speaker 1>something like nine billion with a B dollars. Google says,

0:03:48.920 --> 0:03:51.120
<v Speaker 1>first of all, you can't copyright this sort of stuff,

0:03:51.120 --> 0:03:53.360
<v Speaker 1>and second of all, even if you can, there's this

0:03:53.440 --> 0:03:57.080
<v Speaker 1>doctrine called fair use that would let us use these

0:03:57.160 --> 0:04:02.040
<v Speaker 1>application program interfaces and that should seld us from from liability.

0:04:02.600 --> 0:04:04.760
<v Speaker 1>The Court didn't have to take this case. In fact,

0:04:04.800 --> 0:04:07.760
<v Speaker 1>the Justice Department suggested the Court not take the case,

0:04:08.560 --> 0:04:11.240
<v Speaker 1>but but they did, and it's gonna be a titanic

0:04:11.640 --> 0:04:15.360
<v Speaker 1>fight within the tech industry. As you just described it,

0:04:15.360 --> 0:04:19.080
<v Speaker 1>it's a very complicated case as far as the software,

0:04:19.200 --> 0:04:23.120
<v Speaker 1>the interface, and the decision here was made by the

0:04:23.160 --> 0:04:26.560
<v Speaker 1>Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. That court reversed

0:04:26.560 --> 0:04:30.560
<v Speaker 1>the jury finding. That is a specialized court that handles

0:04:30.600 --> 0:04:33.760
<v Speaker 1>these matters. So now we're gonna have a Supreme Court

0:04:33.800 --> 0:04:37.599
<v Speaker 1>come in and handle this very technical kind of case,

0:04:38.320 --> 0:04:43.120
<v Speaker 1>which the expert court in these matters reversed. Yeah, it's

0:04:43.160 --> 0:04:47.480
<v Speaker 1>gonna be interesting, of course, a Supreme Court that has

0:04:47.560 --> 0:04:50.880
<v Speaker 1>a number of justices who aren't real tech savvy. But

0:04:50.960 --> 0:04:54.919
<v Speaker 1>we've seen this before. This is UH with the Federal

0:04:54.960 --> 0:04:58.160
<v Speaker 1>Circuit is also the court the handled patent cases. The

0:04:58.200 --> 0:05:00.480
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court has not been shy and re some years

0:05:00.480 --> 0:05:04.280
<v Speaker 1>about jumping in and and saying mostly you're being too

0:05:04.320 --> 0:05:08.479
<v Speaker 1>protective of patent rights. Federal Circuit UH, diving into the

0:05:08.520 --> 0:05:12.240
<v Speaker 1>technology and dealing with it as best they can. You know,

0:05:12.320 --> 0:05:16.000
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court does think that that it is the

0:05:16.000 --> 0:05:19.000
<v Speaker 1>one that needs to decide these especially important matters, even

0:05:19.040 --> 0:05:21.839
<v Speaker 1>if if it means diving into a subject area that

0:05:21.880 --> 0:05:23.880
<v Speaker 1>they don't have a whole lot of expertise. And I

0:05:23.920 --> 0:05:26.240
<v Speaker 1>don't envy you being at the oral arguments in this case,

0:05:26.279 --> 0:05:28.839
<v Speaker 1>because I remember some oral arguments in the past with

0:05:29.000 --> 0:05:32.159
<v Speaker 1>issues involving technical matters, and I didn't mean to disparase

0:05:32.240 --> 0:05:35.359
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court justice is. In addition, Supreme Court reporters, including me,

0:05:35.440 --> 0:05:39.039
<v Speaker 1>aren't necessarily that tech savvy, So it will be a

0:05:39.160 --> 0:05:41.760
<v Speaker 1>challenge for all of us to try to understand what's

0:05:41.800 --> 0:05:44.320
<v Speaker 1>really an issue in in this case and try to

0:05:44.360 --> 0:05:47.080
<v Speaker 1>figure out how copyright law, which of course was written

0:05:47.480 --> 0:05:51.279
<v Speaker 1>originally set up not thinking about application program interfaces but

0:05:51.640 --> 0:05:56.640
<v Speaker 1>thinking more about more conventional words and the like be

0:05:56.760 --> 0:05:59.839
<v Speaker 1>interesting to see how the court manages to apply the

0:06:00.000 --> 0:06:03.800
<v Speaker 1>Copyright Act to to this area of computers. What kind

0:06:03.839 --> 0:06:07.120
<v Speaker 1>of ramifications will this decision have on the tech industry?

0:06:07.400 --> 0:06:09.800
<v Speaker 1>And they could be pretty significant, even putting aside we're

0:06:09.800 --> 0:06:12.279
<v Speaker 1>talking about billions of dollars in this case alone, but

0:06:12.440 --> 0:06:18.120
<v Speaker 1>beyond that, Google's argument is, look, these software code, software

0:06:18.160 --> 0:06:22.880
<v Speaker 1>interfaces like this have always been freely available. That's that's

0:06:22.920 --> 0:06:26.039
<v Speaker 1>Google's argument, and without it, innovation is going to suffer

0:06:26.080 --> 0:06:29.120
<v Speaker 1>because if we can't get access to these things. Uh,

0:06:29.160 --> 0:06:32.480
<v Speaker 1>they say, we can't build new products that use them.

0:06:32.920 --> 0:06:37.440
<v Speaker 1>And UH. Oracle makes obviously a different argument where it says, look,

0:06:37.960 --> 0:06:39.440
<v Speaker 1>we put a lot of money, a lot of work

0:06:39.480 --> 0:06:42.960
<v Speaker 1>into these things, and we actually would have let Google

0:06:43.360 --> 0:06:46.880
<v Speaker 1>use our our code. We just wanted them to agree

0:06:46.880 --> 0:06:49.120
<v Speaker 1>to a license and we wanted them, among other things,

0:06:49.200 --> 0:06:51.600
<v Speaker 1>to agree that whatever they did with it, it would

0:06:51.600 --> 0:06:54.520
<v Speaker 1>be compatible with the Java programming language. That is what

0:06:54.560 --> 0:06:57.560
<v Speaker 1>this is all about. And so if the case that

0:06:57.600 --> 0:07:01.560
<v Speaker 1>has divided Silicon Valley to different ways of looking at

0:07:01.680 --> 0:07:05.520
<v Speaker 1>rights to computer code, and it will be uh, probably

0:07:05.560 --> 0:07:08.880
<v Speaker 1>extremely important for the tech industry going forward. And finally,

0:07:08.920 --> 0:07:10.920
<v Speaker 1>I want to ask you about the health of Justice

0:07:11.000 --> 0:07:15.000
<v Speaker 1>Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who missed some moral arguments. Until this

0:07:15.000 --> 0:07:17.800
<v Speaker 1>this year, she had never missed a Supreme Court argument

0:07:17.840 --> 0:07:21.280
<v Speaker 1>because she was ill. Back in January, she missed a

0:07:21.360 --> 0:07:24.080
<v Speaker 1>number of days because she was recovering from a cancer

0:07:24.120 --> 0:07:26.760
<v Speaker 1>treatment of surgery, and she missed a day in this

0:07:26.880 --> 0:07:30.520
<v Speaker 1>most recent sitting, just one day to arguments where she

0:07:30.880 --> 0:07:33.400
<v Speaker 1>we were told had the stomach bug. But she was

0:07:33.440 --> 0:07:36.920
<v Speaker 1>back on the bench of the following week and looked

0:07:36.960 --> 0:07:39.080
<v Speaker 1>like the same Ruth Bader Ginsburg that we've been used

0:07:39.120 --> 0:07:42.560
<v Speaker 1>to sing. Thanks Gregg, that's Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter

0:07:42.640 --> 0:07:48.040
<v Speaker 1>Greg Store. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

0:07:48.400 --> 0:07:52.440
<v Speaker 1>You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud,

0:07:52.520 --> 0:07:56.440
<v Speaker 1>and on bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brasso.

0:07:56.880 --> 0:08:02.200
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg, the dedded Duck of the