Thread by @matthewstoller

I've read the case and the dissent, and went through Borland and the statutory meaning of fair use. I still can't see any legit reason for ruling Google is allowed to copy Oracle's code to create an app store monopoly and fortify its search monopoly. It's a crazy ruling.

https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/1379186914486587394

Congress said one key element of whether something is fair use is "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes."

The purpose and character of Android was lock-in and monopolization!

I'm not super confident about my understanding of this area of law, but a lot of the boosters of this decision strike me as very consumer welfare oriented. They want their free stuff and Google gives it to them, or so they imagine.

More broadly, IP law is seriously warped by (1) the collapse of antitrust and (2) the failure to work out a regulatory regime for software that treats some of it as public utility-like.

This is a fascinating case and I may change my mind. But it seems like Stephen Breyer has just created a world where everyone will now compete over building walled garden monopolies. Investment will no longer go into IP, it'll go into trying to monopolize access.