Legal Analysis of Oracle v. Google 206
snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Martin Heller provides an in-depth analysis of Oracle's legal argument against Google, a suit that includes seven alleged counts of software process patent infringement and one count of copyright infringement. 'Oracle's desired relief is drastic: not just permanent injunctions, but destruction of all copies that violate copyright (thus, wiping all Android devices), plus triple damages and legal costs. Also, it demands a jury trial,' Heller writes, and while this amounts mainly to saber-rattling, the Supreme Court's recent Bilski ruling did not completely invalidate software process patents despite their shaky ground due to prior art."
Re:Google should publish the Android layer under G (Score:3, Informative)
It wouldn't help with patent infringement, especially after the fact.
They'd also have to gpl every single android maker's software, which(htc comes to mind) they might not want to.
Groklaw (Score:1, Informative)
Groklaw has already started covering this, with more information than InfoWorld...
Re:Infoworld? (Score:5, Informative)
right here http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100815110101756
Re:Mods ... (Score:1, Informative)
On Slashdot moderation is limited to posts. Have a nice day.
Groklaw was WAY more informative (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100815110101756 [groklaw.net]
Just read the first few paragraphs of this and it's 2:30 here... time for bed. But I got as far as what eerily described Sun's suit against Microsoft so long ago.
Sun sued Microsoft successfully for their embrace and extend of Java. They claimed it damaged the Java dream of single binaries that run everywhere. Most of us on slashdot agree with that notion as a Microsoft version of Java would make Sun's Java appear broken due to their huge distribution model.
Now we have Sun (Oracle America) making claims against Google. Not that they are violating a license or agreement, but in spirit may contain the same basic drives as described in the Groklaw article. "New-Sun" is, perhaps, trying to do what "Sun" did before -- successfully take down a giant a step or two. After all, what were the end results of Sun v. Microsoft?
GPLv2's implicit patent grant wouldn't really help (Score:5, Informative)
There's some confusion out there about how Google would be in a better position from a patent point of view if it had used existing Java code under the GPL (OpenJDK, phoneME). The Android ecosystem as a whole would have had other benefits (such as making it much harder for the makers of Android-based phones to keep important parts of their source code closed) but it wouldn't really help as far as Oracle's patent infringement allegations are concerned.
The GPLv2 (under which OpenJDK and large parts of phoneME are available) does not contain an explicit patent grant. Only an implicit one. As a result, any fork (derived/modified version) is probably not covered.
The InfoWorld article that this Slashdot story refers to talks a lot about forking as a possible strategy -- especially toward the end, where MySQL is also mentioned. I was very much involved with the debate over whether Oracle should get to acquire MySQL (together with Monty, MySQL's original author/founder, I opposed the deal). In that context, it was also a subject of debate whether MySQL forks would be safe from Oracle patent threats in the future. Eben Moglen, who was basically part of Oracle's legal team and had botched the patent aspect of GPLv2 (thus tried to fix the problem with GPLv3), argued that GPLv2 would take care of those forks. However, the European Commission, which (unlike Moglen) is impartial and has vast legal resources, concluded that the implicit patent grant does not -- at least not reliably, but probably not at all -- protect forks.
If you're interested in more detail on the question of whether Google would be or would have been better off with GPLv2, here's a link to the related part of a blog posting of mine [blogspot.com]. It discusses that question and right thereafter (or you can go there directly [blogspot.com]) explains that my work related to Oracle's acquisition of MySQL was not an effort to change MySQL's license away from the GPL to something else. I have meanwhile published documents from the process that serve as conclusive evidence that I argued vehemently against -- not for -- a license change. Still, the GPLv2's limitation concerning patent claims against forks is a fact.
It's not evil for Oracle to demand such remedies (Score:5, Informative)
There's a fundamental error in the InfoWorld analysis referenced above:
Oracle simply asks for absolutely standard remedies in this situation. There's nothing evil about it, and it cannot be reasonably interpreted as a strategy to destroy open source as a whole or anything like that.
I'm saying this even though I opposed Oracle's acquisition of Sun [blogspot.com]. I just want to point out that if a case like this goes to court, the plaintiff will always ask for those kinds of remedies. There's nothing unusual about it. In fact, asking for less would be unusual and would probably confuse the judges as to what Oracle actually wants.
Intellectual property rights are exclusive rights. That's the way the law has designed them -- it's not a matter of Oracle being evil. Those IPRs entitle a right holder to enforce exclusivity. That necessarily means to ask for an injunction, and under such circumstances as the ones of this case (with copyright in play), also the destruction of infringing material.
The way to prevent that scenario from materializing is a license agreement between Oracle and Google. So it's up to the two parties to sit down and negotiate, and I believe we as a community should now expect both of them to be constructive. The court can't impose a license agreement on the two of them. If the court has to rule, it will -- if Oracle is right -- have to enforce exclusivity. That's sort of binary, whereas a license agreement would offer much more flexibility.
It's regrettable that they couldn't work this out before the matter was taken to court. But it's not too late until there is a final court ruling.
Re:Remember J++ anyone... (Score:4, Informative)
What if we say that our Android devices are running JAndroid, that happens to be very compatible with Java... but of course is not Java...
That's what they did - Android devices run Dalvik, which is actually not compatible with Java at all. However, you can recompile a Java class into a Dalvik class, which is what the SDK does.
Re:Groklaw was WAY more informative (Score:4, Informative)
Subtle difference to the analogy:
MS embraced and extended Java and called it Java, thus breaking the Java standard that is supposed to run everywhere - MS Java can only be expected to run [properly] on a MS JRE, NOT ANY JRE.;
whereas Google took Java, possibly embraced and extended, BUT did NOT call it Java - there can be no confusion over the resultant code being able to run everywhere there is a JRE - but also created a cross-compiler which took Java [source] and converted it to their version.
The problem comes in that Oracle are claiming that Software Patents cover Java and thus are being violated as only licensed for use in Java [and JRE] and NOT for use in a different product [I think - I seem to remember on a casual reading about this case that Java licensing for Mobile devices being more expensive than for a "desktop" computer and Google not willing to pay for the obvious market inflation, hence "developing" their own Runtime Environment which also had the benefit of being able to be optimised better].
Re:Google should publish the Android layer under G (Score:4, Informative)
Actually the GPL3 has patent wavier in it so it isn't just a license to do with copyright.
Re:This is in depth analysis? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Did they buy Sun for this? (Score:5, Informative)
The patents are so broad and ill defined that if they uphold there are not many processes that do not violate them.
I read one at random and it was about memory-requirement analysis of bytecode class-files. So no, not really.
Perhaps you meant to say "software patents are evil"?
Re:Groklaw was WAY more informative (Score:4, Informative)
Big difference is that Microsoft signed a contract saying they wouldn't do what they did. Google did a clean-room implementation. MS case was about contracts; this case is about patents. Also, Java wasn't under the GPL at the time of MS's shenanigans, but it is now. Further, from my point of view, MS tried to extend Java, so software developed for MS's systems wouldn't run elsewhere, which potentially hurts everyone but MS; Google, AFAIK, implemented a subset of Java, so software developed on other systems might not run on Google's, which really only hurts Google. The cases really aren't parallel at all, but you are correct that Oracle America's motivations may be similar.
Re:It's not evil for Oracle to demand such remedie (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's not evil for Oracle to demand such remedie (Score:3, Informative)
Google is big, but Google is not big enough to just buy Oracle. Their market caps are pretty close: Google at ~$150bn, Oracle at ~$115bn.
Re:GPLv2's implicit patent grant wouldn't really h (Score:3, Informative)
The way I read the European Commission's decision, Oracle submitted Eben's paper as a supporting document along with its reply to the Commission's Statement of Objections. Attaching a supporting document is not the same as making a claim in one's own name. For an example, companies routinely attach market research from the likes of IDC and Gartner to their submissions, and that doesn't mean that they necessarily claim all of what's stated in those reports. (Of course, the way it was used calls into question Eben Moglen's independence by any reasonable standard, but not necessarily formally.)
Also, those merger control processes are pretty confidential. Oracle's response to the Statement of Objections was never published in its entirety. All that's publicly known is what the Commission's published decision states.
If the recording of the hearing were public, it would actually be a real problem for Oracle because of what they (several of them, not just Eben Moglen in his formally independent capacity) said about how to interpret the GPL in general, but I'm not allowed to disclose what exactly they said because the hearing took place behind closed doors and on a confidential basis.
status of java, and comparison to c# (Score:4, Informative)
I've done two other analyses of Oracle v. Google [swpat.org]:
Re:Google should publish the Android layer under G (Score:3, Informative)
> They'd also have to gpl every single android maker's software
Not so. And where there's doubt, they could just use the Classpath exception, just as Sun used for OpenJDK (distributed under GPLv2 [swpat.org] plus the "Classpath exception").
Re:This is in depth analysis? (Score:1, Informative)
Parent transposed the words. He meant to say that Oracle is suing Android over [its implementation of] Java.
Re:Groklaw was WAY more informative (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A jury Trial (Score:1, Informative)
litigate in East Texas much? I'd like to think the picture you paint, which is EXACTLY what happens in East Texas, does not apply everywhere.
And I don't know why it was called out that a jury trial was demanded. Every case I've worked on has been a jury trial - they are not uncommon. As for being "demanded," well, that how you request one, so even though it sounds forceful, it's not.
Re:Google should publish the Android layer under G (Score:1, Informative)
WIPING EVERY ANDROID CLEAN
What company would be suicidal enough to piss off that many people all at once?
'Oh oracle those are the dipshits who screwed up my cool *expensive* phone'. Yeah that would end well.
Even pulling this stunt makes oracle a piraiah to deal with. This could have a serious effect on Oracle of cratering its other mainline business of selling database servers.
There is such a thing as bad news.