Slashdot Mirror
Jury Rules Google Violated Java Copyright, Google Moves For Mistrial
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."
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.
From Groklaw: "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."
In other words, a very good day for Google, not Oracle.
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?
Check out this quote from Oracle (via Washington Post):
... Every major commercial enterprise — except Google — has a license for Java ....
Wait, what?
I can see MORE innovation going to countries that have not setup copyright along with the USA. Java being completely dead, companies like Microsoft going after everyone on US soil that "Infringed" on their API by implementing it. Apple going after.... Oracle going after...
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.
Scott Carr
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.
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 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.
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.
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!
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
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.
Java was "inspired" by other languages. Fact. If Gosling really thinks that copying features from other languages should be illegal, then he has a lot of explaining to do.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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 of some of the stuff Google does ... but your selective listing is insinuating that they've never done illegal stuff, which was the original claim ... and doing illegal stuff, and being found guilty by the courts are two different things, as everyone tries to settle out of court to avoid setting a legal precident)
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
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.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."