Google found not guilty of patent infringement.

MattyW

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
372
Just saw this on ars...

Oracle Corp.'s long legal crusade to get a cut of Google's Android revenue is drawing to an unsatisfying close for the company. A 10-person jury found today that Google did not infringe two Java-related patents that Oracle had used to sue the search giant.

That means Oracle isn't likely to get anything at all from the trial, other than a tiny amount of damages from one copied function. The trial dragged on for nearly six weeks in a San Francisco federal courtroom, and both sides hired some of the nation's top technology lawyers to try the case.

Judge William Alsup, who oversaw the proceedings, thanked the jurors for their hard work on the case. He noted that the six-week trial was the longest civil trial he had presided over in his judicial career.

Oracle may still get the opportunity to re-try its copyright case, but it's unclear when that will take place—or if it will get that chance at all.

While Oracle will almost surely appeal the patent verdict, the trial results thus far have been a huge win for Google. The company's Android operating system has been under a variety of legal attacks, and Oracle's legal assault was the most persistent and direct.

Since Oracle didn't win its patent case, and because the copyright verdict was muddled and inconclusive, there won't be a third "damages" phase of the trial at all.

The incredible shrinking jury
The verdict comes after more than a week of what must have been tedious deliberations. The jury barraged the judge with several highly technical questions, about issues like the exact meaning of "simulated execution" and "array initialization."

The jury has also shrunk in size. It started out as a 12-person panel of seven women and five men, but two of the women were dismissed--one when she missed the first day of patent deliberations after a car breakdown, and another who got too sick to participate.

API copyright issue lingers

The parties have already briefed the issue of whether an API can be copyrighted at all; today they added to that pile of paperwork, producing briefs addressing specific questions about interoperability.

Judge Alsup still hasn't ruled on the issue of whether APIs can be copyrighted at all. Additional briefing by both sides is due today. Today, Alsup reassured lawyers that his ruling on that issue will come sometime next week.

Link: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...t-infringement-found/?comments=1#comments-bar

Seems like this whole affair has been mostly a win for google if API's are found to be non copyrightable then there should be no damages and even if they are found to be copyrightable a jury must still decide on the issue of fair use.

I can only LOL now at the original 6 billion US dollars oracle asked for in this suit.
 

Syphonx

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
3,864
lol at Oracle, now google can get on with making us awesome stuff
 

ZAFluffyBunny

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
375
Thank goodness... Oracle was about to screw the Java platform and programmers in general. The things they claimed were patents were obvious programming patterns. If you can patent those patterns you can patent any pattern and where would that leave us? Unable to write software at all....
 

[)roi(]

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
6,282
Thank goodness... Oracle was about to screw the Java platform and programmers in general. The things they claimed were patents were obvious programming patterns. If you can patent those patterns you can patent any pattern and where would that leave us? Unable to write software at all....

They haven't finished yet (they said as much) -- yet this ruling thankfully doesn't bode well for any future attempts at closing down Java with financial and legal crap.
 

MattyW

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
372
Didn't want to start a new thread so thought I would just add this on here...

API's SSO found to be non copyrightable in the US

Oracle's legal battle to break itself off a chunk of the smartphone market by attacking Android looks dead in the water today, after a federal judge who recently finished presiding over the six-week Oracle v. Google trial ruled that the structure of the Java APIs that Oracle was trying to assert can't be copyrighted at all.

It's only the code itself—not the "how to" instructions represented by APIs—that can be the subject of a copyright claim, ruled Judge William Alsup. "So long as the specific code used to implement a method is different, anyone is free under the Copyright Act to write his or her own code to carry out exactly the same function or specification of any methods used in the Java API," wrote the judge.

Google had copied certain elements—names, declaration and header lines—of the Java APIs. Alsup ruled that even though Google could have rearranged "the various methods under different groupings among the various classes and packages," the overall name tree is "a utilitarian and functional set of symbols, each to carry out a pre-assigned function... Duplication of the command structure is necessary for interoperability."

The ruling is the cornerstone of what now looks like a complete win for Google in its legal struggle with Oracle, which began more than two years ago. The order follows an inconclusive copyright trial and a patent trial that Oracle also lost.

Library as a metaphor

Alsup compared APIs to a library, with each package as a bookshelf in the library, each class a book on the shelf, and each method a chapter out of a how-to book. "As to the 37 packages, the Java and Android libraries are organized in the same basic way but all of the chapters in Android have been written with implementations different from Java but solving the same problems and providing the same functions." The declarations, or headers, "must be identical to carry out the given function," wrote Alsup.

97 percent of the source code in the API packages is different; it's only the three percent that overlap that formed the heart of Oracle's copyright claim. That three percent included packages, methods, and class names. But those declarations—like starting a function with package java.lang—can only be used in certain ways. "In order to declare a particular functionality, the language demands that the method declaration take a particular form," notes Alsup (emphasis in original).

Alsup's ruling comes less than a month after a European court made a decision along the same lines, finding that programming APIs can't be copyrighted because it would "monopolize ideas."

What now?

Overall, Oracle spent many millions—perhaps tens of millions—on its legal crusade against Google and came up empty. The company scanned 15 million lines of Android code and found one simple nine-line function that had been copied from Java; that code is no longer in Android, and Oracle will be limited to statutory damages for that copying, which can't be more than $150,000 (and could be much less).

While Oracle can and likely will appeal this order in order to get any copyright royalties from Google, it would have to win both that appeal and a second copyright jury trial. That would take years and looks exceedingly unlikely at this point.

For the Java programmers of the world, things won't really change much. If Oracle had won, it would have been a novel case of a company being able to essentially reverse the open-source process by making any commercial use of Java a pay-to-play endeavor. Some speculated an Oracle win could have scared programmers away from Java, but that kind of ruminating is a moot point now.

Alsup's ruling comes less than a month after a European court made a decision along the same lines, finding that programming APIs can't be copyrighted because it would "monopolize ideas." It didn't take more than 15 minutes from the time Alsup's ruling showed up on the federal court's e-filing system for a Google spokesperson to send out a statement on the company's win: "The court’s decision upholds the principle that open and interoperable computer languages form an essential basis for software development. It’s a good day for collaboration and innovation."

A case management conference is scheduled for June 21 in Alsup's court, but it isn't clear what exactly will be left to manage other than appeals.

Link: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...acles-case-decimated/?comments=1#comments-bar
 

Jab

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2006
Messages
3,245
team_celebration_pc_md_wm.jpg
 

Elimentals

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 11, 2010
Messages
10,819
and here comes the appeals..

I really don't think this is gonna be the last we hear of this, in fact I recon its just the start.
 

BeVonk!

Executive Member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
8,524
and here comes the appeals..

I really don't think this is gonna be the last we hear of this, in fact I recon its just the start.

The way I see this the judge did a very thorough job. For Oracle to get this turned around they will have to convince another judge that this judge got it wrong ... not going to be easy. I believe this is an important win for Google.
 

Elimentals

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 11, 2010
Messages
10,819
The way I see this the judge did a very thorough job. For Oracle to get this turned around they will have to convince another judge that this judge got it wrong ... not going to be easy. I believe this is an important win for Google.

If you followed the case you will know that the judge got em both to narrow the scope(drop number of claims).

I believe Oracle will use this when they gonna try and appeal to a higher court.
 

Vulk

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
615
If you followed the case you will know that the judge got em both to narrow the scope(drop number of claims).

I believe Oracle will use this when they gonna try and appeal to a higher court.

That's with regard to the patent claims. Oracle had to choose their strongest patent claims to bring to trial, and even those were found by the jury to not be infringed upon by Android. Oracle isn't going to win an appeal on patents.

They might be able to persuade a higher court to overturn the judge's ruling on copyrightability of APIs, but 1) that seems unlikely even if it's not impossible, and 2) they would still have to get a new jury and try the whole case all over again before could extract any damages from Google. Basically, it will be years before they have the chance to threaten Android again, and in the meantime Google has the advantage because the judge sided with them.
 

Mouse

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
2,329
That's with regard to the patent claims. Oracle had to choose their strongest patent claims to bring to trial, and even those were found by the jury to not be infringed upon by Android. Oracle isn't going to win an appeal on patents.

They might be able to persuade a higher court to overturn the judge's ruling on copyrightability of APIs, but 1) that seems unlikely even if it's not impossible, and 2) they would still have to get a new jury and try the whole case all over again before could extract any damages from Google. Basically, it will be years before they have the chance to threaten Android again, and in the meantime Google has the advantage because the judge sided with them.

And the lawyers are still the true winners in all of this.
 

Vulk

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
615
I just had to quote this comment from Groklaw:

Judge Alsup's ruling is so thorough that it goes far beyond a mere factual denial of Oracle's claims on the basis of law. As the many excellent paragraphs that people have quoted here show, his grasp of the subject is so amazingly well grounded that he has explained the technical basis of his decision more clearly than many a CompSci professor could do. I'm very impressed (being an ex-CompSci professor myself).

What's more, he doesn't just deny Oracle's claims, he politely yet very forcefully indicates why they are beyond ludicrous. If it were expressed any more clearly, he would be telling the Oracle lawyers that their case lies somewhere between incompetent on legal grounds and deliberately deceitful on technical grounds.

This is one of the most entertaining and technically well informed rulings that I have ever read. Alsup is a real tour de force and a great credit to his profession, and unfortunately a rarity.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120531173633275#comments
 
Top