Not only did the Supreme Court cleverly avoid making a decision regarding the first question, but also applied the doctrine of fair use skillfully, by pointing out that Android is not a competitor’s replacement of Java. Namely, by applying the fair use doctrine, the Court pointed out that even the previous owner of Java (Sun Microsystems, Inc.) has positioned Java as a programming language for desktop and laptop computers, and not mobile phones (smartphones). In relation to that, it is interesting to notice how the Supreme Court has specifically pointed out the statement of the former Sun Microsystems Company’s CEO (the first owner of Java). Namely, when asked whether the failure of Sun Microsystems to develop smartphones can be attributed to the development of Google’s Android, he answered that it cannot . In other words, the CEO of Sun Microsystems confirmed that smartphones for which Google used Java are a completely different ecosystem from desktop and laptop computers for which Java was initially developed. A justified question is posed, whether this interpretation which states that taking a code for desktop in order to use it on a mobile platform is treated as transformative usage, will bring numerous new disputes.
It seems that the US Supreme Court during their decision properly accepted the fact that the IT sector is developing much faster than any other industry, and that you should not stand in the way of innovations by strict rules, but rather allow development based on previously acquired knowledge. This is why Google has celebrated this victory, as well as a number of developers around the world. This decision is seen as an encouragement of creativity and unhindered technological development. Still, although many saw this as great news, the number of experts pointing out that this will lead to disputes in the future, which might open all the questions that this decision hasn’t closed, is not insignificant.