Jury Rules Google Violated Java Copyright, Google Moves For Mistrial 475
eldavojohn writes "Details are thin, but the long-covered Oracle v. Google trial has at least partially been decided in favor of Oracle. The jury says Google violated copyrights with Android when it used Java APIs to design the system. Google moved for a mistrial after hearing the incomplete decision. The patent infringement accusations have yet to be ruled upon."
Time for the Judges ruling? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Time for the Judges ruling? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes.
The copyright scope issue (Score:5, Interesting)
It certainly seems like the judge has to rule on whether the copyright on the Java source files extends to protect the "structure, sequence, and organization" in the way being referred to as "API's being copyrighted". But its also win-win for Google.
If they can be copyrighted, the jury is hung on an issue critical to the resolution of Google's liability, which is grounds for a mistrial, and Oracle has to start all over on the copyright claims if it wants to do anything with them.
If they can't be copyrighted, the Google's in the clear.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course. The judge pretty much had that in mind all along. It has been established over and over again that APIs cannot be copyrighted as interoperability and compatibility are needed for fair use and other things.
The judge carefully selected questions which separated actual copyright infringement from Oracle's claims of API infringement so that the Jury could rule on the claims separately.
Mistrial? Well, we'll see... I think the judge should just overrule the Jury as a matter of law. "It's not covere
Doesn't the BSD ruling apply?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but wasn't the basis of the BSD ruling that API's weren't copyrightable???
Re:Time for the Judges ruling? (Score:4, Informative)
Great plan. You don't like Google, so of COURSE they did something wrong.
Part of Java (from what I understand) is open-source. But, if Oracle is right, you could get sued for using it anyways. Well, if whoever owns the C language decides to sue, GCC could go bye-bye.
Re:Time for the Judges ruling? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Time for the Judges ruling? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about the still-quite-alive-and-American(thus subject to American copyright rulings) Donald Knuth, who is the quite demonstrated owner of a very large selection of API designs?
Re:Time for the Judges ruling? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
So, in other words, he would be destitute.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Time for the Judges ruling? (Score:4, Funny)
There seem to be a bunch of checks [wikipedia.org] outstanding from his account for $2.56.
Re:Time for the Judges ruling? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, according to RIAA math, that would leave Knuth with a net worth greater than the planetary GDP; minus legal fees for a litigation process so vast that every copyright lawyer on the planet would have to be conscripted in order to settle it...
Good for him, he will be able to afford buying himself new organs.
(Pun originally not intended, but for the sake of black humor not exactly unwelcome.)
Re:Time for the Judges ruling? (Score:5, Informative)
For the benefit of those who missed the pun, we might mention that Donald Knuth [stanford.edu] does play organ, and has at least one in his home.
(I hope I waited long enough to post this that most readers who know anything about his personal life have already got a laugh out of the parent's post. ;-)
Re:Time for the Judges ruling? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Time for the Judges ruling? (Score:4, Funny)
The real fun begins when Alan Turing's vengeful ghost returns to assert that his invention of the stack renders all implementors of push and pop infringing...
Alan Turing's downfall was his like of "push and pop".
Re:Time for the Judges ruling? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I, for one, support Google.
They are in the business to sell advertising. If you do not buy advertising, then you have probably never paid a dime directly to Google. I hate to say it, but invading privacy is just part of the business. How MUCH a part of the business is definitely open for debate, however.
It is a balancing act. No invasion of privacy = no money. Too much = evil.
I admit that everything that they have done has NOT been perfect, and there have been many mis-steps. However, for a company of their size, they do indeed manage to be the least evil. To me, Apple is very very evil. Microsoft is evil. Sony is evil. Google is fairly benign.
Name another company that size that is as friendly to open source software. Name another one that gives you as much stuff for free (yes, I know -- paid for by advertising to you). Name another company that actually CARES about not being evil. Apple and Microsoft simply care about the bottom line -- period.
No, Google is not perfect, but they could be a LOT worse, and they seem to actually care.
Re:Time for the Judges ruling? (Score:5, Insightful)
They are in the business to sell advertising. If you do not buy advertising, then you have probably never paid a dime directly to Google. I hate to say it, but invading privacy is just part of the business. How MUCH a part of the business is definitely open for debate, however.
I presonally, would rather pay money to a company, than have them invade my privacy. Of course, I'd like to not have to pay money to them in order to have them not invade my privay –that would be a protection racket.
You can choose not to let them have your private details in any meaningful way. Don't subscribe to any of their services, delete your cookies, and hit the reset button on your router every now and then. They will have search history from you that is only attributable to your local ISP DHCP pool. They should not be able to identify you in any way, unless law enforcement get involved and force the ISP to match the IP address you had at any given time to a real world address.
Re:Time for the Judges ruling? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or you could, I don't know... Not use Google services. Wow - revolutionary idea, huh?
Re: (Score:3)
YouTube was purchased after the fact by Google, not founded by them, not to mention that YouTube is quite good about taking down copyrighted content when served with the proper legal notice.
Re:Time for the Judges ruling? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's bullshit and you know it. They don't use Java, they made their own version of Java (the language). According to your idiotic logic, no one should be allowed to make a different C compiler.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think "don't use the internet" is a reasonable suggestion just if you want to avoid Google's spying. And aside from how stupid suggestion that is, it doesn't just include internet anymore. Google is driving around the world and photographing everyones life with their cars.
How is one snapshot of a public roadway "photographing everyone's life"?
They want people to wear Google Goggles which will give your data to Google.
Did you miss the fact that there are no "Google Goggles"? How can "they" want people to wear Google Goggles when they don't exist?
You cannot anymore escape Google by just not using their services. Even if you don't use them, someone else will make data about you available to Google.
And, even if this were true, how is this Google's fault?
We need to regulate these things before it gets out of hand. And in fact many countries with stricter privacy laws have (like most of Europe), but Google just ignores them and pay the fines they might get.
[citation needed]
They know they will eventually make much more money by openly abusing now so they can establish it all.
Panic! Emergency! The sky is falling and Google is to blame!!!!!!1111! Wow, hyperbole much?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't recall all the particulars there, but I thought the problem with MS's JVM was not that it was "far better", but actually that it was incompatible and added a bunch of proprietary extensions (something MS likes to do to everything they adopt it seems), but still tried to pass it off as "fully compatible" with Java.
Here's a Wikipedia article about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Java_Virtual_Machine [wikipedia.org]
It looks like it was more a trademark case; they used the trademarked name "Java", but then di
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Looks like the Microsoft astroturfing brigade has arrived!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's almost no effort to conceal what they're doing any more. Both accounts - Miskaata and Jamestos were created just for this article and are likely to be disposed of afterwards.
I think given the scale and timing it's unlikely to be just trolling. There's a purpose to what they're doing, but whether it's to trash Google or just wreck Slashdot is unclear.
Re: (Score:3)
Easy, if they have six digits or more, they're just some newb trying to wreck slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
A consortium of companies including Apple, Microsoft, and RIM grabbed Nortel telephony patents, while Microsoft, Apple, EMC, and Oracle got 882 patents from Novell.
Both Microsoft and Apple have sworn to destroy Google, and they and their partners (ie, Facebook, Nokia) using the patents, amongst other things, to attack Google.
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, I rather not use any of Google's products because they have time and time again shown that they cannot be trusted and they just try to violate your privacy.
Only if you let them. They provide free services that you can easily use anonymously if you really want to.
I would never use Google Docs for business as that means housing my private company data on Google. Microsoft's Office is far better for that. At least I know that Microsoft gets their money when I buy their software and has no reason to snoop on my data after that. Likewise, I would never trust Google for my private personal communication. If you don't care about your privacy, you are free to use Google. I just must say that it may come hunt you later.
Why do you single out Microsoft at being oh-so-good at providing email or document editors? I'm going to assume you mean Exchange & MS Office. Don't get me wrong, I quite like Exchange. But comparing externally hosted solutions versus your own server has nothing to do with Microsoft Vs. Google. I'd feel no safer using Hotmail than I would using Gmail.
Re: (Score:3)
Liar liar, pants on fire!
I know you were in fact born yesterday, but how did you get from the truth, "The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones" all the way to "thanks for your content and giving us permission to use it however we want to use it, forever?"
Yes, clearly, google's is a more crafted statement that protects them against more specific legal arguments, while MS's is more broad and general. They prov
Re:Time for the Judges ruling? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Time for the Judges ruling? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Time for the Judges ruling? (Score:5, Interesting)
Tons of laws? Tons of sanctions? Show em.
Where did they break the law with the wifi thing? Hint: they didn't.
Where did they break the law with the competitiveness thing with keywords? hint: they didn't.
Where did they break the law with the Oracle case? Hint: it's not even over, and already indications show that they didn't. Also total liabilities in the $0 range are significant.
Where did they break the law with the youtube case? Hint: they didn't.
How many more do we need? Do you even know what you're talking about?
If anyone's about to come into sanctions, it's going to be Oracle for the statements they made to acquire sun in Europe being completely contradictory to the claims they're making in the Oracle v Google case.
Remember Google Books? (Score:3, Interesting)
How much did they pay on the Google Books settlement? Oh, wait, that wasn't 'breaking the law', as there wasn't a court involved ... so let's go with:
And how many do you need? Only one to disprove your claim that there aren't any. To claim 'tons of' ... more than that. (and in that case, showing where they won doesn't show that there aren't any that they lost)
(and look, I'm supportive
Re:Time for the Judges ruling? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe so, but this case has nothing to do with those abuses. Google took Apache Harmony (you know, a free, open-source, Apache-licensed implementation of the Java APIs...not GPL, but still open source) and built Android.
Sun was happy about it, Google was happy about it, the Java language got more widely used...
Oracle had a different point of view, wanted money, and had trouble convincing a jury [groklaw.net] who was *told* to assume that the APIs were copyrightable that the few remaining copyright claims Oracle brought were valid.
...also, in Europe, they just decided rather definitively that APIs are not copyrightable.
The worst part of this all is that now we go on to the "patent" part of the trial, which is just silly because we're talking about software (turning one number into another number based on a set of rules...aka an algorithm, which is not patentable subject matter).
this is important actually (Score:5, Interesting)
This is google's direct chance to get the whole software -> patents thing invalidated. Many have been unwilling to fight for getting such a ruling, but I would bet a lot of money on google setting this up to invalidate patents on software.
Re: (Score:3)
What makes you think they need a patent for Pagerank? They can make Pagerank function with and without a patent. Have they stopped anyone else from doing their own equivalent to pagerank and will they ever? no. They explicitly said "we welcome competition". - http://www.google.com/competition/ [google.com]
Google has been one of the few actually involved in the common good at this rate.
Nice try though.
Re:Time for the Judges ruling? (Score:4, Insightful)
And Miskaata is right.
Congratulations on agreeing with Miskaata. 2.6M sequential ids and you're within 10 numbers of him. Seems fishy.
Re:Not correct. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Time for the Judges ruling? (Score:5, Funny)
You are way off base here and jumping to conclusions that are not likely to be correct.
Is is just as likely that he is a paid schill for oracle or apple rather than microsoft.
Re:Time for the Judges ruling? (Score:5, Insightful)
Those APIs are providing access to a service. They are not charging for using the API, they are charging for the service. Not the same thing at all.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that they bill for access to their own services doesn't mean they will necessarily prevent you from using an API with the same commands to sell a service you've made yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Those APIs are descriptions of how to make a request from Google's servers. If you don't pay them for the service, they limit the number of times that their servers will respond to you. The restriction isn't on the API itself; but a description of the terms under which their hardware will talk to you.
A restriction on the API itself, analogous to what Oracle is claiming in this case, would be an assertion by Google that implementing
Re:Time for the Judges ruling? (Score:5, Insightful)
The truth doesn't need to be pleasant to be informative.
Re: (Score:3)
The more important thing is argument vs bluster. MightyMartian's posts are at least amusing, as well as having some content, and I find them less offensive than some others here.
Re:Time for the Judges ruling? (Score:5, Funny)
Are you mentally retarded? Google is charging you to access their servers. That's it. They provide a programming interface to do it, and if you wanted to set up your own server and duplicate their API, there's nothing they can do about it.
Either you're so fucking stupid they should put you in a pillow suit and keep you away from sharp objects, or you're a vile shill in which case I recommend you find the nearest elevator shaft and jump off it, so the world is less one more useless astroturfing dildo cream additive.
Re:Time for the Judges ruling? (Score:5, Insightful)
Google didn't, Apache did. Google just used Apache Harmony's standard library.
What groups funded/helped with the Apache Harmony project? IBM and *Oracle*.
Now Oracle is suing Google for using the software that *Oracle* helped develop, because they bought the original implementation and want a cut of the Android money.
GNU/Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue is that Google set out with j
The Java API manual and recreated them ALL with the same names and function calls, etc... That's pushing it even for open source projects.
As opposed to Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman starting with the UNIX manual and painstakingly recreating all the APIs?
Re:GNU/Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Or Miguel de Icaza starting with the .NET framework documentation and creating Mono?
Re: (Score:3)
yes, but that's where this gets interesting. Much as think Java is the worst thing to happen to software in the past 2 years, if Oracle wins then whoever owns the copyright to C and Unix can happily come out of the shadows and demand licence payments for everyone who uses it - I guess that would include Linux and the BSDs, and practically every programming language since 1970, including, ironically, Java.
Re: (Score:3)
I do RPG programming on AS400 and just about every manual is labeled by IBM that it is tied to the software license, can't be reverse engineered, blah, blah.
They can print anything they want in a manual. That doesn't make it law, or enforceable.
Besides, how do you "reverse engineer" a manual?
Re: (Score:3)
your a shill aren't you? :-)
Re:Time for the Judges ruling? (Score:5, Interesting)
To carry your metaphor a step further - This is like buying a Nikon camera and Nikon claiming ownership of the pictures you take with that camera. My understanding is this opens the door to the creators of programming languages trolling created works for fees, if not outright ownership.
Re: (Score:3)
The API... is a copyright-protected work. It is LICENSED for the purpose of writing programs that run on JVMs, not competing platforms. It is OWNED by Oracle, not you.
Facts cannot be copyrighted. It remains to be seen if an API can be.
Re:Time for the Judges ruling? (Score:4, Insightful)
By my understanding of the case, there were several things that needed to be decided, specifically 1. whether APIs can be copyrighted, and 2. if they can, do the facts of the case support the argument that Google did violate them? It is certainly possible that legally APIs can be copyrighted, but Dalvik is derivative enough that it doesn't count as a violation. Because of the timing of things, and to ensure expediency, the judge asked the jury to rule on #2 before #1 even though #2 technically depends on #1. If the jury decides to acquit on #2, then Google is off the hook regardless of what is later decided on #1.
IANAL, but it is not as simple as 'the judge instructed the jury to assume X, therefore X is true'.
Re:Time for the Judges ruling? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, he instructed them to do that in hopes they'd say no so he could just not think about that question (and avoid learning what an API is).
Now that they said yes, he has to learn whan an API is and figure out if it can be copyrighted.
Note that if he says so, he's essentially saying you can copyright the 'the butler did it', not just one instance of it, but all mysteries where the butler is ultimately the killer.
Re:Time for the Judges ruling? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
No, its not.
If the jury instructions indicate anything on this point, they indicate the opposite.
There were two plausible reasons for the jury instructions as written, neither one of which is pre-judgement in favor of Oracle:
1) The judge genuinely has no idea how he will rule on the legal issue, but wanted to get this part of the case to the jury now so that trial presentation could move on to the patent phase without the mas
With the judge (Score:5, Interesting)
IIRC, the judge instructed to have the jury come to their decision based on the concept that the material in question could be copyrighted. The judge still has the final says as to whether the material *CAN* be copyrighted. That's still a big if for this case, so it's not over yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:With the judge (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:With the judge (Score:5, Informative)
Right. The EU has already decided [slashdot.org] that APIs are not copyrightable and wrote an extremely reasonable and balanced explanation as to why:
The object of the protection conferred by Directive 91/250 is the expression in any form of a computer program, such as the source code and the object code, which permits reproduction in different computer languages. On the basis of those considerations, the Court holds that neither the functionality of a computer program nor the programming language and the format of data files used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of expression. Accordingly, they do not enjoy copyright protection.
To accept that the functionality of a computer program can be protected by copyright would amount to making it possible to monopolise ideas, to the detriment of technological progress and industrial development.
So maybe there's still some hope left... otherwise we'll just have to hire lawyers to write the software of the future.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that Google is an American company, and EU law has no effect on American soil. What Google does in America is governed by American law and no other.
Alsup could, if he so desired, completely ignore EU law and judge them copyrightable. That would have an interesting effect that will finish the job the DMCA started: pushing all remaining technological innovation out of the US.
Re:With the judge (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the same judge that basically told the jury Google was guilty before they started to deliberate. Thus Googles call for a mistrial.
Can you please return your geek credentials? The judge didn't tell the jury Google was guilty, that's about the worst bullshit I've ever heard. The judge told the jury to assume that Oracles stuff was protected by copyright, and _then_ to decide whether the evidence said that Google actually copied or not.
The jury has decided, on the evidence, that Google copied Oracle's APIs. NOW the judge will decide whether this API is protected by copyright or not.
To explain this with a car analogy: There may be a legal argument whether you own a car or not. When you drive away in the car, you are accused of theft. The jury will decide whether there is evidence to prove that you took the car. The judge will decide whether the car was yours (and you were allowed to take it) or not (in which case taking it was theft).
Re:Jury instructions (Score:5, Insightful)
If Google admitted that the APIs were substantially similar, then the instruction was perfectly correct. Why should the jury not be reminded that a party admitted an essential element of a judgment of infringement?
The grandparent wrongly attributed the request for a mistrial to the content of the jury instructions. That is not why Google is asking for a mistrial in the copyright phase. Google essentially argued that APIs are not copyrightable (question of law for the judge to resolve, as you touched upon) and that even if the APIs were copyrightable, the use was fair use (question of fact for the jury to resolve). In order for fair use to be relevant, there has to be a prima facie case for copyright infringement. As I understand it Google has conditionally admitted that there is such a case, and raised its fair use defense. The request for a mistrial is due to the fact that the jury did not resolve the key question before it -- was the copyright infringment (if the API is protected by copyright) excused as fair use.
If the jury hangs on a key judgment, it is normal to request a mistrial since the question must be resolved by the jury (absent settlement or agreement by the parties to convert the issue to one to be resolved by a bench decision). A hung verdict does not tranlate into either "guilty" or "not guilty" (in the terms of the discussion -- there is no finding of "guilt" as such in a civil case). A new trial can be held and directed only to the copyright aspect at a later date (assuming no other jury-related issues arise), and the patent phase can proceed.
Not what it sounds like (Score:5, Insightful)
The jury was instructed that APIs were copyrightable. They found that Google infringed Sun/Oracle's Java API. But the judge will actually decide later whether APIs are in fact copyrightable (which question will almost certainly go to the Supreme Court before it's all over).
So what the jury actually decided doesn't mean much. It means that Google copied the Java API. Well, yeah, we knew that already.
The Ruling Wasn't About Verbatim Copying (Score:5, Informative)
So what the jury actually decided doesn't mean much. It means that Google copied the Java API. Well, yeah, we knew that already.
That's not exactly true, the jury's verdict read that what was copied was the "structure, sequence, and organization" of Java APIs. Of which, if you're up for implementing a non-standardized version of Java, you should take note.
Disclaimer: This Ars article has grown from two lines when I submitted this to a full fledged report.
Re:The Ruling Wasn't About Verbatim Copying (Score:5, Interesting)
Copying the "structure, sequence, and organization" of the Java APIs is the definition of implementing an object-oriented interface, regardless of the specifics of the implementation.
The article is also incorrect when it says Android is the "only" project/product impacted by the decision. There's this little Apache project that wrote the code Android uses, so every product or project which relies on that code is affected by this ruling. They just haven't been sued yet.
The essence of this ruling is that publishing something under open source means nothing if the copyright holder later changes their mind. And that is the biggest blow to the software industry that could have been levelled by any company for any reason, because it affects over 75% of the systems which implement the infrastructure of the internet.
When (not "if") this idea is propagated to the POSIX APIs, the C-library interfaces, the C++ standard libraries, and a host of other open source products and packages, the whole industry is fucked!
Re: (Score:3)
That might be true, but its somewhat irrelevant as they were found to have copied "structure, sequence, and organization" of the Java APIs, they were accused of copying the "structure, sequence, and organization" of Oracle's copyright-protected implementation of the Java APIs.
Had the direct source of their information on the AP
Re:The Ruling Wasn't About Verbatim Copying (Score:5, Insightful)
Copying the "structure, sequence, and organization" of the Java APIs is the definition of implementing an object-oriented interface, regardless of the specifics of the implementation.
Sure. But jury decision is perfectly logical and reasonable if you start with the premise that APIs are copyrightable (which they were instructed by the judge to do).
By itself, the jury decision (note: there's no ruling yet) does not have any meaning unless and until the judge actually rules that APIs are copyrightable. Logic and common sense dictate that they are not, and his interest in the recent EU decision seems to indicate that he may agree with that. If so, this would actually be better than jury decision because it would then set a precedent regarding API copyrightability, which (unless it gets appealed) would seal this issue in US once and for all.
"In favor or Oracle?" (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, a very good day for Google, not Oracle.
Re:"In favor or Oracle?" (Score:5, Informative)
In other words, a very good day for Google, not Oracle.
Here is the link to the Groklaw updates about this case [groklaw.net].
It would have been a lot slimper and less confusing if Slashdot had just linked to that in the first place.
And the markets agree with you.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Overall, it was a great day for Google, and Wall Street got that immediately: GOOG is up about 1.75% on the day, and ORCL down by a similar amount. So clearly the people with money on the line wouldn't agree with TFA's headline here. (Which, to be fair, is how most of the uninformed news media coverage is spinning it, so Slashdot is hardly alone in getting it wrong.
Re:"In favor or Oracle?" (Score:4, Insightful)
They're not moving for a complete mistrial, from what I understand. The jury couldn't reach a unanimous decision on whether or not Google's use of Oracle code constituted fair use or not (and they were told to assume it was copyrightable, which is also a decision that the judge still needs to rule on), so the judge postponed the fair use decision. Google is moving for a mistrial with regards to the question of fair use in particular (because of the odd way in which it's being postponed and whatnot?), but is fine with the rest of the ruling handed down by the jury. So, it IS a win for Google, but they want to close off the open end.
Note: I was curious about it just as you are, so I figured I'd read over at Groklaw quickly to find the answer, but I haven't been following the trial and am not a regular Groklaw reader, so I'll admit that I had some difficulty pulling together this answer. Take with salt. Also, IANAL, in case that wasn't already obvious.
Re:"In favor or Oracle?" (Score:5, Informative)
This is misstated. They are moving for a mistrial on Q1, which is the "API copyright issue" which includes both the infringement issue (Q1A) where the jury found that Google had infringed (before considering the fair use defense) and the fair use issue (Q1B) on which the jury hung. I'd have to see the text of the motion, but it might also affect the Q4 interrogatories on whether or not Google reasonably relied on a Sun/Oracle conduct which implied that it did not need a license to implement the APIs (on which the jury found that Sun/Oracle conduct which reasonably suggested that did exist, but that Google failed to prove that they reasonably relied on it), which relates back to Q1.
Ugh, no, they didn't. (Score:5, Interesting)
The JUDGE said "based on the assumption that SSO's are copyrightable" make your rulings.
In no manner are SSO's (or API's) copyrightable at this point.
It is all to give the Jury a baseline from which to make their own decision.
Does anybody really read these things before making up headlines, or is sensationalism the only way to get eyeballs,
nevermind understanding?
Oracle (Score:4, Interesting)
Check out this quote from Oracle (via Washington Post [washingtonpost.com]):
... Every major commercial enterprise — except Google — has a license for Java ....
Wait, what?
Cool... If this goes for Oracle... (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess IBM should watch out.....
I guess the good news is that if Google puts their weight behind Python or some other language then it will actually tag along with the success that Android has already become. The better for the language whichever it happens to be. Of course, they could also just fix up their Go language as well.
Companies can really be stupid sometimes. All in the name of protecting their "Shareholders" I guess.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess the good news is that if Google puts their weight behind Python or some other language then it will actually tag along with the success that Android has already become.
Too optimistic. There would be too much risk investing in somebody else language, so that would mean a custom Google language. There are companies today that are afraid to use opensource because somebody somewhere (in the US) could sue them, cannot imagine that would improve the feeling. (I worked in one of those - developing for anything that could be sold to the US was a real pain, we spent years re-inventing what could pass for a wheel. Competitor on the asian market were just so much faster to develop t
Re: (Score:3)
Misleading Title -- again (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm getting very disappointed with Slashdot this past few years, and they seem to be pandering to the sensationalist. I used to come here for some real news.
It's all over the wire about the jury deliberations, mistrial, infringements. I come to Slashdot thinking I'd get the real scoop. Nope, more of same sensational stuff.
So, Groklaw [groklaw.net] has the real story, and it turns out, it's not much of a story at all.
There's all sorts of sensational web sites out there. I used to come to Slashdot for the comments, which have always been rational. Now, I'm not sure why I stop by from time to time.
Re: (Score:3)
Not really in Oracle's favor (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, that's not really all that much in Oracle's favor. The jury instructions all-but dictated that result (the instructions instructed the jury that the relevant legal test was "substantial similarity" and that Google had admitted substantial similarity), the key question in dispute for the jury was Google's fair use defense which had to be evaluated once the jury found that there was infringement before considering the defense. And that's the point that the jury hung on.
Without a verdict on that point, there are two plausible outcomes for the copyright claims:
1) As Google has already requested based on the jury impasse, a mistrial is declared and Oracle has to start the copyright case over at square one (with or without the judge reaching the legal issue on the "API copyright" issue), or
2) The judge moves on to deciding the legal issue of copyright in favor of Google, so that the API copyright issue is dead (pending appeal--and if Oracle wins on appeal, they still go back to square one and a new trial on the facts since the jury hung.)
So its hard to see this as any kind of a win for Oracle.
Another take on the verdict; glad I read Groklaw (Score:5, Informative)
A view with a greater understanding of the implications, Groklaw believes otherwise: "The judge has stated, pending judgment as a matter of law, that there is "zero finding of copyright liability" other than the 9 lines of code to which Oracle's damages report attributes no value. A good day for Google overall."
Read it yourself and decide: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120507122749740
Judge Alsup asked both parties to answer a list of questions, following the EU High Court decision that APIs are not copyrightable expression: "1. If the Copyright Act is meant to protect expression but not vocabulary, should the vocabulary and grammar of a computer language be copyrightable, as distinct from programs written in the language? In this regard, please comment on the May 2, 2012, decision of the High Court of the European Union." The Judge will rule as a matter of law whether the SSO of the APIs are copyrightable.
The only website that seems to always get the legal pulse right is Groklaw.
Title & Summary Are Wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Oracle lost the copyright phase in its entirely, and Google won the copyright phase in its entirety. Google owes Oracle nothing in copyright damages.
Read Groklaw, and stop looking stupid.
NULLIFY THE FUCKING COPYRIGHT (Score:3)
Nullify the copyrights and patents and take this issue to the SCOTUS.
Just look at this. [groklaw.net] This is insanity, nobody should have to be a hostage to a judge and jury and to the insane players, like Oracle, in any time in their lives. You think THIS PROMOTES INNOVATION?
You think this promotes innovation, invention, anything that is good and positive in the world at all? All this does is it destroys. If APIs are copyrightable, if patents are everywhere, forget Java, forget smart phones, how can you have any new ideas, any new businesses, any new wealth (products, services) created?
This is insanity, anybody supporting a system that allows this is insane, the entire society that believes this creates more innovation and invention and business and ideas is insane.
Re:NULLIFY THE FUCKING COPYRIGHT (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey, dumb ass, did I talk about Oracle?
This is a government created problem, this can only be resolved by abolishing the government from meddling with economics on this level (on any level, but this story is about copyrights and patents here, not anything else).
It's not up to Oracle, it's up to the people deciding what sort of a system they want - a system where gov't is allowed to intervene and create laws that destroy innovation and businesses with copyright and patent laws or a free society with a free economy - free of government created monopolies, free from gov't counterfeiting the money while pretending that copyrights mean anything except less competition and higher prices and less choices.
The fact that you can't understand my comment based on what it said (and probably you are following my comments all the time, because you are quite pathetic) and based on all my previous comments, so the context is obvious... to think that I am a socialist... I just vomited in your general direction.
Re: (Score:3)
I honestly would take a smart non-corrupted judge over a jury any day.
May want to research this further. The verdict was based on the judge ordering the jury to consider APIs as copyrightable.
Right now I'm thinking fast, have I ever written anything since 1981 that reimplements or interoperates or is compatible with any API, and if so, what country can I escape to that will not extradite me...
Re:Dump Java if this goes to Oracle (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The judge tells you exactly what you have to do and wavering from that (even if you're within the rules of the law) runs the risk of a contempt charge or ejection from the jury. They tie the jury down hard and threaten them, preventing them from doing the work they are suppose to do.
This is the biggest load of bullshit in the entire thread.
I'll bet you're one of those morons that think it's OK to go and get outside influence to determine your decision. Then you're just a tool and a moron who endorses a cap
Re: (Score:3)
So what? The point is, if you can conclude that even if APIs are copyrightable, there wasn't infringement, everyone can go home early. If the premise is false, you can derive nonsense from it, but we also don't care because no one will be deriving anything from it. Except slashdot posters.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That's where the misperception that this is about "API copyright" is misleading. The issue here isn't whether an API standing alone can be copyrighted, and any resolution of this case has, at best, a dis
Re:The actual code infringed (Score:5, Informative)
Wow, copy and paste fail. Now with HTML entities
From http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk7/timsort/raw_files/new/src/share/classes/java/util/TimSort.java, here are the 9 lines of code that google is accused of infringing:
private static void rangeCheck(int arrayLen, int fromIndex, int toIndex) {
if (fromIndex > toIndex)
throw new IllegalArgumentException("fromIndex(" + fromIndex +
") > toIndex(" + toIndex+")");
if (fromIndex < 0)
throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(fromIndex);
if (toIndex > arrayLen)
throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(toIndex);
}
The code boils down to: if (x > y || x < 0 || y > max) { error(); }
Tell me how you'd write the code differently. (Keep in mind that the engineer who wrote this, Josh Bloch, used to work at Sun, then moved to Google. It's very possible he rewrote the code in the exact same way, given its triviality.)
Re: (Score:3)
Internet
Well, maybe not. But I know a lot of programmers who adopted a "Bye-bye Java", approach when Oracle bought out Sun. This merely tells them that they made the right decision.
I've worked on a number of java-based projects in the past, but I don't expect that I ever will again. The few java programs in my personal collection have all been translated to perl or python, picking up a few improvements in the process. As a mere individual human, I don't think I can afford the prospect of taking on Oracle in
Re:We ALL better pray for a mistrial here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow what? The jury was instructed to assume that APIs are copyrightable. From that assumption, they have logically concluded that Google has indeed infringed on Oracle's copyright - how could they rule otherwise, given that Google did implement the same exact APIs?
This jury decision is 1) fully expected, and 2) means nothing whatsoever until the judge actually decides on the copyrightability.
Re: (Score:3)
Only if the transformation from folklore to movie was something that could have been done purely mechanically. Disney puts a great deal of creativity into their interpretations of legend and folklore, and as a result, the final product is very definitely copyrightable. A straight typographical transposition of Moby Dick into Elvish would require no creativity whatsoever, and would thus not be copyrightable.
A translation is a more borderline case. Generally, a good translation requires some creative reint
Re:The funny part (Score:4, Informative)
No.
This judge spent his lawyer days working at Morrison-Forrester, the premier Silicon Valley high-tech law firm. He knows all about computer software.