In his opinion for the court''s majority, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that Google "took only what was needed" and that “Google''s copying was transformative," a word the court has used "to describe a copying use that adds something new and important.”Google had said its actions were long-settled, common practice in the industry, a practice that has been good for technical progress. It said there is no copyright protection for the purely functional, non creative computer code it used, something that couldn't be written another way. But Austin, Texas-based Oracle argued Google “committed an egregious act of plagiarism."