US Supreme Court rules for Google over Oracle

> JUSTICE THOMAS’ thoughtful dissent offers a very different view of how (and perhaps whether) fair use has any role
> to play for computer programs. We are told that no attempt
> to distinguish among computer code is tenable when considering “the nature of the work,” see post, at 10, even
> though there are important distinctions in the ways that
> programs are used and designed, post, at 18 (“The declaring
> code is what attracted programmers”). We are told that no
> reuse of code in a new program will ever have a valid “purpose and character,” post, at 16, even though the reasons
> for copying computer code may vary greatly and differ from
> those applicable to other sorts of works, ibid. (accepting
> that copying as part of “reverse engineer[ing] a system to
> ensure compatibility” could be a valid purpose). And we are
> told that our fair use analysis must prioritize certain factors
> over others, post, at 9, n. 5, even though our case law instructs that fair use depends on the context, see Campbell,
> 510 U. S., at 577–578.

Breyer is basically saying "See how wrong Justice Thomas is? I barely even have to respond to his arguments, he practically refutes himself." All cloaked in a respectful and collegial tone, but damn, this is some savage legal writing.

(Disclaimer: I work for Google and wanted Google to win, but those two facts are mostly unrelated.)