back to article Java jury finds Google guilty of infringement: Now what?

No judge has tried harder than Judge Alsup, presiding over the Oracle-versus-Google case, to persuade two warring parties not to go to court. But he hadn't counted for the egos of the two billionaire Larrys. The jury seems to affirm Alsup's instincts were correct. At the weekend, after five days of deliberating, the panel …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            @AC 15:25GMT - Re: Misleading

            How many court documents do you see published/quoted/analyzed on Fosspatents website ? Groklaw makes heavy use of these documents to back their claims and opinions and most of the time, the court decisions are proving them correct. How many times did this happen with Fosspatents and with the you know who's behind it ?

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Misleading

            Because it is not a loss at all. Google never denied copying the APIs. And to quote the Judge - "The affirmative defense of fair use is still in play". Go lookup affirmative defense. It is the same as if you kill someone and plead self defense: you are not denying that you killed them, but you are pleading not guilty to murder/manslaughter. By analogy, all the jury has done is ruled that the killed person is dead. Wow! Big news!

            It is left to the Judge to decide if the API is covered by copyright, and (if they are) then whether fair use is a valid defense in this case. On the other points at the trial Google also admitted they copied the 9 lines of code, so this is not a loss either, but the damages were established to be $0 because of Oracle's own witness, so that's a loss for Oracle. The only other question of the case was whether they copied the documentation - on this Google was found not to have infringed copyright. So on the only point of the case that was decided or meaningful, Google won.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Misleading

            But usually the facts on Fosspatents are only the ones that support its yoghurty named owner. On Groklaw I can read court transcripts etc. Yes I'm sure there is spin but when you see the whole of the jury's response laid out with the questions along side it I'm able to make my own conclusions... how often do you see stuff like that on Fosspatents? Or are you saying Groklaw have made them up?

          4. tom dial Silver badge
            Stop

            Re: Misleading

            The facts on Fosspatents may be correct, and the picture of the jury form appears correct. However the greatest part of the article appears to be about how the judge and jury erred. I also observe that Mr. Mueller omits mention that he is a paid consultant to Oracle Corporation. All in all, it might not be a big win for Google, but the undertaking, so far, has been a big waste for Oracle, who appear likely to win about a week's worth of their outside attorney's fees.

          5. Tim Parker

            @AC Re: Misleading

            "So Google had a jury verdict confirming they did copy the syntax and structure of Java but whether such action can be considered fair use or not is still up for decision - which is the crucial point for the copyright part of the proceedings."

            Fair use is one, rather important point, in this phase of the case... the issue of whether the APIs are eligible for copyright protection is another, which rather makes the other point moot if it fails that test. That is "still up for decision".

          6. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Misleading

            "The facts on Fosspatents are also factual and correct, it's always the added opinion that is tinted in whatever side the site tends to."

            Ha Ha! Fosspatents. Well, I guess you might want to take a look at how often Fosspatents' opinions turn out to be correct when all is said and done. Groklaw provides all of the court docs (when available) for discussion. Fosspatenets tends to provide snipits that are spun to support the purchaser of the opinions and prevents comments. FM is paid by Oracle to spin . . .

        1. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)

          Re: Re: Misleading

          Now that's what I call spin.

          1. Tim Parker

            @Andrew Orlowski Re: Misleading

            "Now that's what I call spin."

            Ahhhh - dramatic irony at its finest....

      1. peter 45

        Re: Misleading

        "Groklaw's views always favour Google".

        Seems that a Jury agrees with Groklaw, and for that matter with Google. Now how did that happen?

      2. Lee Dowling Silver badge

        Re: Misleading

        "Groklaw's views always favour Google. You may want to read the other sources as there are there are other views."

        If you'd read my comment, I do. Few of them link to entire court transcripts of the events as they unfold, and those that do - strangely - all have the same facts in them! After that it's just interpretation. I can ignore Groklaw's interpretation (the "we were right, aren't we wonderful" thing always gets on my nerves, actually, because anyone with a brain could tell they were right when they said it originally, etc.)

        The problem here is not the interpretation (personally, I think Google are home and dry here and Oracle are facing a minor SCO-style slide into oblivion if they don't react quickly, others think otherwise and there's a whole spectrum of opinion on the matter - not black and white), it's the facts. Which this article, like Oracle, conveniently ignores in order to make their "case" sound better.

        Copyrighting an API destroys large parts of IT. You couldn't do it, at least not sensibly or without everyone fleeing that particular country who has any interest in doing serious IT work. It would literally kill WINE, Android, Linux (POSIX API's remember!), Samba, every instant messenger program, etc. every Exchange connector, anything that "resembles" or works with SAP, etc. all overnight. But given that even Samba's use of API's, for example, is basically an enforcement and endorsement of the EU courts, that would be extremely tricky to resolve such a paradox and either such a ruling would have zero square metres of jurisdiction, or have to not exist at all.

        Not copyrighting an API means Google have done nothing wrong WHATSOEVER based on the judge and jury's rulings and decisions so far. In fact, they have been pushing for motions to dismiss and mistrial BECAUSE of that fact - i.e. Oracle knew it never had a leg to stand on and it's only red-tape that's keeping the case going. Even a basic decision in this are is win-win for Google. But some people are interpreting that as "THE WHOLE IT INDUSTRY IS GOING TO DIE BECAUSE OF GOOGLE!" whereas, in fact, things are the opposite and the only one trying to apply for exclusive ownership of anything even vaguely resembling, replacing or interoperating with their kit are actually Oracle. Yet, their predecessor was more than happy about such things (as they should be).

        Oracle here are on shaky ground. Shouting the odds about how a wonderful success has been achieved sends the wrong message. They just got their backside kicked, hard. They are looking at a bleak, empty, expensive lawsuit that only damages themselves. They are looking at shareholders taking a close look at what went on and where all that money went and why. They are looking at having to deal with copycat-Java's popping up everywhere and making them obsolete JUST BECAUSE of what they've done with this lawsuit (would you touch Java API code now?). A bit like they did with OpenOffice, but with real, legal implications - buy it, break it, try to crush the opposition when they make a replacement, end up not having one iota of influence on the entire product from that point on because everyone avoids working with you.

        Much as I hate Oracle and don't-mind Google, this is a really-skewed opinion piece based on a poor reading of the case and the court transcripts. You can't stand in the way of facts. Oracle are gonna hurt on this one.

        1. Tom 13

          @Lee Dowling - Re: Misleading

          Your facts may all be correct with respect to the impact on the industry, but they don't matter in a court of law. There are some pretty well known and well liked decisions that overturned a hell of a lot more industry than allowing copyrights on API.

          The judge has very obviously been trying to avoid ruling on exactly that point. If the verdicts on the 3 points Oracle won had come back the other way, ruling on copyrighting APIs would have been moot. Now whether them judge is just naturally reluctant to be the first to speak to the issue, or whether he's trying to avoid it because if he has to rule it will be for copyrighting APIs and he recognizes the damage that would do I don't know.

  1. Dazed and Confused

    I'll live with

    Oracle being able to stop anyone else using Java, if IBM promise to stop Oracle selling SQL databases.

    I'd class that as:

    a) a result

    b) the biggest own goal in history

    1. Carl

      Re: I'll live with

      Yep.

      I would happily go to my grave knowing I would never have to work with another Oracle product.

      And that includes Weblogic.

      Speaking of weblogic, they use a TON of apache stuff for the XMLbeans code gen.

  2. br14

    "Defeat could potentially allow an extension of copyright into previously undisputed areas, such as programming languages and APIs"

    Surely copyright already extends into these areas. The reality being no one bothers to enforce copyright. Just because something is copyrightable doesn't mean it has to be enforced. And Java has been licensed by numerous corporations before Google decided it didn't need a license.

    There is barely a single source code file I have ever used - open source or otherwise - that didn't have a copyright statement at its head. Including API definitions.

    You might say Google losing has ramifications, but it's nothing to the potential impact of them winning.

    My concern is that if Google wins, it becomes open season to copy someones source code (claiming fair use if required), and use it as you wish. All those Android and iPhone HTML5 apps could be copied at will by major corporations and given away under their own brand.

    1. John G Imrie

      Surely copyright already extends into these areas.

      No it doesn't. API's up to know have been classed as a list of facts and lists of facts are not copyrightable.

      Oracle is claiming that the organization and the structure of the API is copyrightable.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Big difference..

      ..between an API spec and the code behind it. If I have a black box that takes certain input and returns certain output and I tell the world that if you input x,y,z you get ABC back then can I take you to court if you produce another black box that does the same..even if the internal processes are different. You are saying that I can.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Quandry

    Hmm, I want Google to lose, but I don't want Oracle to win.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Quandry

      I disagree entirely ... I want Oracle to lose, but I don't want Google to win.

  4. br14

    Groklaw is biased in favour of anything they consider "open sourced". They're therefore far from balanced, even if they are principled.

    Problem is they're so focussed on narrow principles around open source they seem to forget the fact many of these decisions are made for purely commercial reasons and apparently miss the bigger picture.

    There's barely an open source project on the planet that doesn't have corporate backing somewhere that sees open source as a way of improving it's bottom line.

    Google gives away Android in hopes of making a fortune from targeted advertising and the sale of information. And they do indeed make a fortune. They're not in it for the love of open source.

    Oracle and Google are large corporations who seek to make a profit and increase shareholder value. This is not a battle between good and evil. It's a battle of two evils.

    1. fandom

      bias

      Groklaw is so biased that they predicted from the start that SCO had no case, they even went as far as writing, where everyone could read it, that SCO didn't own the Unix copyrights.

      Just because every judge and jury agreed with them doesn't mean they were right, it was just bias you know.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: bias

        The SCO case has no relevance to this case and the circumstances are very different. None of the current companies is a desolate shell of a its former self, for example.

        However it is interesting that after the SCO case, Groklaw's mysterious owner - amusing choice for a promoter of all things open - "PJ" said the site was shutting down.

        But something made them re-spawn.

      2. peter 45
        Thumb Up

        Re: bias

        Subtle Troll baiting at its best. Even I had to read it twice

        Sir, applause is due

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Could you explain why making a profit is evil?

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Groklaw Bias?

      I would say that Groklaw is more biased against Software Patents, Trolls and Protection Rackets.

      They've been on the side of many a large corporation before when someone is trying it on. When the law and sometimes just the laws of common sense tells them that a case should not succeed.

      As you will notice they are rarely on the side of the complainant due to this. FOSS companies generally seem to be reluctant to initiate Patent litigation.

      Just remember that this case wasn't really about the 'SSO' to start with it was more about the patents. The SSO was just created due to most of the patents being invalidated and very little left for Oracle to form a case - a bit like the Black Knight in Monty Python's and the Holy Grail... or more readily like SCO v the World.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Groklaw Bias?

        > I would say that Groklaw is more biased against Software Patents

        So they sided with IBM? The company with most software patents in the IT industry?

        Where was Groklaw when IBM sued Amazon over "software-based techniques for storing, retrieving and displaying information on Internet commerce Web sites, for making buying recommendations, and for handling online transactions"

        No, Groklaw is only biased against software patents that don't please the people behind itself.

        1. fandom
          FAIL

          Re: Groklaw Bias?

          I can't be the only one who is pissed at 'Anonymous cowards' who argue among themselves with no way to tell who says what.

          Will you please stop that moronic meme?

          1. Paul Shirley

            Re: Groklaw Bias?

            People too stupid to filter through the bias and dig out the underlying truths are too stupid to share an opinion and should just STFU.

            Not helped by the lack of understanding of IP and IP law shown by almost every individual working in IT.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            @fandom

            Some of these Anonymous cowards may have jobs in companies concerned.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Actually, I would dispute that Google has to seek profit and increase shareholder value

      Think about it: Google is entirely controlled by the three guys at the top. They hold a majority share of the voting stock. As long as these three agree of a strategy, they literally do not need to maximize shareholder value.

      And when you think about it, it is pretty likely that the main motivation of Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt is not to make even more money than they already have.

      1. br14

        Re: Actually, I would dispute that Google has to seek profit and increase shareholder value

        "And when you think about it, it is pretty likely that the main motivation of Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt is not to make even more money than they already have."

        Are you serious?

        When they increase shareholder value they increase their own personal wealth. Clearly they don't have to do that, but they do it anyway.

        Why wouldn't they simply pay Oracle what they want if they don't care about the money? Why didn't they cough up the far more reasonable $3 a license Sun would have asked? That cash might have kept Sun as an independent company - one that open sourced its inventions.

        Google seeks total domination in the world of advertising. Android has provided them a fantastic tool in the pursuit of understanding your every move, from your location to your spending habit to the time you get up in the morning. They seek to obtain as much personal information about people as they can, then they use that information to gain higher revenues from targeted advertising.

        This is their sole motivation, and the rationale behind all the goodies they like to give away. Just check their privacy agreements if you believe otherwise.

        Google has refused to license in the smartphone field to ensure Android manufacturers can undercut the opposition. Mobile operators make significantly more cash selling Androids that other devices. That is changing as Google loses more and more IP cases, which is why they spent billions buying up Motorolas IP - in order to protect their wealth.

        1. Richard Plinston

          Re: Actually, I would dispute that Google has to seek profit and increase shareholder value

          > Why didn't they cough up the far more reasonable $3 a license Sun would have asked?

          Because Sun would have imposed 'field of use restrictions' and made them use the inadequate Java ME. Google wanted to use Java SE and Sun refused them that. This is why they went with an Apache licence from Harmony as it was SE compatible.

          > Google seeks total domination in the world of advertising.

          Not at all. They offer a service and compete with the other services on quality. Microsoft, OTOH, makes it difficult for Windows, XBox and WP users to not use Bing.

      2. Tom 13

        Re: Actually, I would dispute that Google has to seek profit and increase shareholder value

        And like SCO you would lose.

        No matter how large your controlling interest, you still have a fiduciary responsibility to ALL the shareholders. If any one of them sues and can prove in a court of law that you have not acted in their best financial interest, you personally will lose a LOT of money. And that 'Lot' will be even by Page, Brin, and Schmidt standards.

    5. tom dial Silver badge

      Groklaw openly expresses approval for free software. It does not follow that Groklaw reporting is slanted or unbalanced. If you have evidence of that you should post it instead of simply stating it as if it were an obvious fact; it is not obvious and, as far as I can tell, it also is not true.

    6. iagorubio
      Meh

      Groklaw is biased in favour of anything they consider "open sourced"

      Then why in the Apple vs Pystar case they favoured Apple ?

      Because Groklaw is biased in favour of whom they think is abiding to law. Don't tell me Apple is loved now by Open Source fans.

      1. br14

        Re: Groklaw is biased in favour of anything they consider "open sourced"

        "of whom they think is abiding to law"

        And so is everyone else. It's all about opinion.

      2. Carl

        Re: Groklaw is biased in favour of anything they consider "open sourced"

        "Don't tell me Apple is loved now by Open Source fans."

        Well they are loved in the sense that OSX == BSD.

        Here's the rub. Apple, Oracle, MS are all in favour of FOSS when they can use it but then get all bratty if someone so much as glances at their preciousssss.

        This double standard is what pisses people off.

        Some might say they are "maximising shareholder value".

        I would say they are poisoning their own brand.

  5. John Styles

    When programming is outlawed, only outlaws will program

    Can we please make sure that to the extent copyright is enforced, that we make sure it goes back to, what is it, life + 50 years, to everyone who invented the basis of computing e.g. Church, Turing, Von Neumann, Backus, Kleene, Dijkstra, Hoare etc.

    Make sure that Oracle pays its dues for terminally f***king things up for everyone else, and make sure the inventors got the credit rather than these Johnnie come latelys. [Probably their employers for those who weren't academics? One for the lawyers anyway :-)]

    Who invented the block IF and the WHILE loop anyway? Can Bohm and Jacopini get their cut?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structured_program_theorem

    Bomb the industry back into the stone age. Go on, I dare you.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Mushroom

    Drop Java

    Make Oracle pay - drop Java. It's not like it's much good anyway.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Drop Java

      It's as bad as Android. In an ideal world the court would just order both to drop.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Thumb Down

        Re: Drop Java

        How dare you make that claim @AC1459 .

        At least Java wasn't copied.

  7. Simon Lyon

    Groklaw has a few things in addition to comments

    Like the scanned PDF of the actual verdict form signed by the foreman of the jury.

    Like an eyewitness account from someone actually in the courtroom reporting what the judge actually said. To whit: "There has been zero finding of liability on copyright, the issue of fair use is still in play”.

    But why let the facts get in the way of parroting Oracles spin.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Groklaw has a few things in addition to comments

      > Like the scanned PDF of the actual verdict form signed by the foreman of the jury.

      So did El Reg:

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/07/oracle_google_java_verdict/

      > Like an eyewitness account from someone actually in the courtroom reporting what the judge actually said. To whit: "There has been zero finding of liability on copyright, the issue of fair use is still in play”.

      Are we 100% sure about that eyewitness report? In any case, "zero finding of liabilty [..] fair use is still in play" just means a decision has not been reached yet. It neither pro or con, so is it really that important?

  8. cybersaur
    Devil

    Oracle = SCO

    Hope Oracle meets the same fate.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Oracle = SCO

      Oracle is quite far away from bankruptcy, so your wish may take a while.

      1. John G Imrie

        Oracle is quite far away from bankruptcy, so your wish may take a while.

        So was SCO when it started it's cases. Actually SCO was still solvent when it ran from the Novel case into the loving arms of the Bankruptcy Lawyers.

  9. Zapotecan
    Devil

    API should not be subject to copyright

    I thought that every Software API is derived form the x86 Intel instruction set. In that the API defines the necessary number of inputs to push and pull form main memory to CPU registers using the x86 instruction set for Intel CPUs.

    Function parameters are pushed onto the program stack, and a CPU register points to the stack.

    The API describes inputs and outputs of the function and is compiled prior to runtime or translated during runtime into the target CPU instruction set.

    Unlike a Hardware Interface ...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Headmaster

      Re: API should not be subject to copyright

      I thought that every Software API is derived form the x86 Intel instruction set.

      Well that's only true for software running on the x86 architecture, what if you are running ARM processors for example?

      I also suppose, looking at court cases between Intel and AMD, the instruction sets themselves are copyrighted and licensed. Aren't they too a form of APIs?

      1. Zapotecan

        Re: API should not be subject to copyright

        That is my point. They are the base API, that all Software APIs are derived form.

        Are we not allowed to program in the 'base API' to create derivative works, a configuration of artistic expression, to enable us to define our own IP?

      2. Richard Plinston

        Re: API should not be subject to copyright

        >Intel and AMD, the instruction sets themselves are copyrighted and licensed. Aren't they too a form of APIs?

        The instruction sets (API) are numeric values and are not copyrightable. The assembler Mnemonics are copyrighted and licenced.

        This is easily seen with the 8080 and Z80 (in spite of what others have said in error). The Z80 implements the 8080 instruction set with the same numeric values (plus it adds some other) but Zilog did not licence the Intel assembler mnemonics and created their own. An 8080 assembler program written in Intel mnemonics could still be compiled by any 8080 compiler to run on Z80.

        The numeric instruction set are facts required for interfacing.

        Same with Dalvik except that Java's and its API requires the use of names: directory names, class names, method names, ..

        The names and parameters are facts required for interfacing.

    2. dajames
      FAIL

      Re: API should not be subject to copyright

      "I thought that every Software API is derived form the x86 Intel instruction set."

      No, no ... you're way off. A software API is an abstraction that generally bears no relationship to the underlying implementation. In any case, Android devices usually use ARM chips, which don't use the x86 instruction set.

      There's no reason why the developers of a new programming language shouldn't copyright the langauage syntax and/or its runtime APIs (except that doing so might stop anyone wanting to use the language) but they would have to mark it as their copyright right from the word go, and they would have to defend that copyright as soon as they became aware of a violation. What Oracle have done is to wait several years until Google have invested pots of dosh in Android and then tried to sue them for doing so ... which isn't really playing cricket.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like