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."
Does the judge now have to rule on whether API's can be copyrighted?
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.
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.
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?
Wow. Just... Wow.
So when does Dennis Ritchie (or does this all go back to the Lovelace estate?) plan to file suit against Oracle?
Lot's of "not an infringement" marks there. Yes to "overall structure", but no to almost everything else, including a yes to "did Sun pushed Google to do this" (rephrased). I wonder how much weight does a blurred statement like that have. You could almost say that the same covers all "inspired" work.
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout [Robert Heinlein]
Check out this quote from Oracle (via Washington Post):
... Every major commercial enterprise — except Google — has a license for Java ....
Wait, what?
The patent trial still has to happen, and in the end it seems to be a fairly benign copyright infringement ruling against Google (by Google's terms, it would bankrupt me!)
expandfairuse.org
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.
My work here is dung.
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
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...
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
When did Microsoft sue anyone for infringing on an API? Why should IBM watch out?
IBM makes tons of Java products. While they have a "License", I bet somewhere in there they have an api named "public void sort(Integer[] ints);" which Oracle says they own a copyright to.
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.
Java creator James Gosling stated that Google totally slimed Sun and favors Oracle in the trial. “While I have differences with Oracle, in this case, they are in the right,” he wrote on his blog. “We were all really disturbed, even [former Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz] just decided to put on a happy face and tried to turn lemons into lemonade, which annoyed a lot of folks at Sun.”
I don't think you understand the implications if Oracle won. I'll help you out though, what is your favorite programming language? (You sound like a PHP guy)
Spoken like a person who has never served on a jury. The jury probably represents the last vestige of true participatory government left in the US. They do great work and deserve our heartfelt thanks. Most decisions by juries that people find to be badly decided are the result of bad instructions from the judge or evidence that has been withheld for one reason or another.
-- QED
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.
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.
True. But on the point that the jury did find (that, before considering the fair use defense and assuming that APIs are copyrightable), the judge essentially directed the jury that Google had infringed. The jury instructions included both:
1. An instruction that, on the issue of the "API copyright" point, infringement should be found if the defendant had access to the copyright-protected work and the alleged-infringing work was substantially similar, and
2. A note that Google had admitted that the APIs at issue were substantially similar to those that the jury was instructed to assume were protected.
Juries rule on facts, judges rule on law. All that the jury did was take an assumption that a thing was law (APIs being copyrightable), and rule on whether the facts of the case support an infringement of that hypothetical law. In this case, it is pretty clear that the Dalvik APIs are a rather direct copy of the Java APIs. So assuming that APIs are in fact copyrightable, there really was no way that the jury could find in a way other than what they did. So in the end, the jury's decision was pretty minor and unremarkable in the grand scheme of things. The judge's decision on the law of whether copyright protection extends to APIs is much more important, and I am sure many more judges from appeals courts and possibly even the supreme court will also get their chance to weigh in on that law.
More from the judge on the copyright part of the trial (from Groklaw) "Judge: Zero finding of liability so far."
How is that not terrific news for Google and horrible news for Oracle? Talk about total denial, you've got it.
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.)
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.
It's not going to happen, Miguel.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
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.
I am not a fan of Python at ALL. I was just throwing it out as a possibility. With a ruling like this, Mono would be the BIGGEST pita to stay away from. I can imagine Google being Once Bitten on this one if it goes that way.
Scott Carr
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 than us that it was not even funny)
For example, assuming that API's are copyrightable, to the best of my understanding at this point, then cows have wings and my cat shit gold.
You see? Completely irrellevant, and in fact blatantly false things can be shown to be true when you start by assuming something that isn't.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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?
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.
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.
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 court, so I've disposed of all the java code that I used to have.
It probably doesn't matter much. Java has long since surpassed even Cobol in the "bureaucratese" style required by most organizations using it, and is slowly approaching JPL's level of opacity. It's time we abandoned it for languages whose user communities still permit relatively clear, understandable code.
Or not, if what you're being paid for is writing code that's not understandable by mere humans. But I seem to have wandered away from that camp.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
IBM has a license and a CERTIFIED copy of Java. They got nothing to fear here.
Google wanted a "Java" license, but they didn't want to follow any of the packages including certifications Sun was offering. Agree or not with the tech, it was Sun's ball and Google got 3/4 of they way through the project before they just stopped negotiating. Google even touted their "Java" compatibility to get developers onboard Android before their version was fully baked.
Google , like so many other startups, was sloppy and bully and not careful enough. When Sun went on the Block they should have bought it, but they didn't.
If this was any Open Source project that tried this, you'd get the DMCA hammer early on and update your project... It happens in similar cases all the time.. This is just a case of it catching up with one of the big guys.
Thus the reason for the Go comment. Go is not too bad, and with some optimization it could be something. It is not as far along as Java though.
Scott Carr
So, should we begin buying torches and pitchforks before the judge's ruling, or after, when there will probably be a shortage?
*facepinch* It appears we need to send someone to where-ever they mint judges, and 'teach' them about technology, lest we encounter more of these problems in the future. I favor having them build their own machines, and pass some basic computer certs (Server+, etc.).
I am John Hurt.
As brain-damaged as MS's politics may be these days, I have a severe doubt they will play any card with regards to C#. C# is kind of...the language that is keeping MS afloat these days; playing patent games with regards to it would result in some fairly severe revenue shortage, and one very unhappy Ballmer being paddled by Gates for pissing off the developers ("Why Steve? WHY!? We had a good thing here, Steve. Why did you have to ruin it?"). And I am fairly certain that the language is ISOed, so no copyright issues...
Plus MS could spend its free time convincing people that they might want some Windows Servers to run that C# code on...
I am John Hurt.
ASP.NET, or Ruby.
I am John Hurt.
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.
ASP... same design paradigm as PHP
Anyway, ASP... lets assume it runs in Mono. In order for Mono developers to make that happen, they had to simulate the official CLR runtime by providing an alternate implementation of the API calls your ASP program expects. Since the official CLR runtime is closed-source, they simple looked at the documentation or specification, then wrote an equivalent API call for every one of the official API calls in CLR..
What Oracle is trying to claim is that action is ILLEGAL, because the expected API call is 'copyrighted'... So even though the Mono developers created their own implementation and had no access to the CLR code, because it looks the same as the CLR code, it's a copyright violation.
A similar to example could be said of the official Ruby VM and JRuby. Oracle is trying to claim they copyrighted the structure and declaration of the "puts" function. Because the JRuby developers wrote a similar function (so your code would run under RubyVM or JRuby), they violated the original 'copyright'.
Do you see why this is significant now? Think of the implications in your language... The precedent set by this case would turn your industry upside down. Another words, this is bad news for EVERYONE, not just Java.... It would breed an entirely new generation of copyright trolls.
>> IBM has a license and a CERTIFIED copy of Java. They got nothing to fear here. Treachery knows no bounds... Oracle knows that IBM could bend them over a kitchen table any time they pleased... I'm sure Oracle has stepped on so many IBM patents with their precious database over the years... Hell, IBM could sue Oracle over the shape of their corporate headquarters... IBM probably used the ubiquitous 'cylinder symbol' for a database while Larry was still shitting himself in diapers.
So, an analogy. Books are copywriteable and languages they are written in are not copywriteable. Supporting the whole SSO (structure, sequence and organization) idea. The words layout is the structure thus the finished book are copyrighted, the words themselves are not.
I could take Moby Dick (its public domain now) and transpose it into Elvish (which is copyrighted) and the finished work would still be public domain.
Also, this would be the common idea with lawsuits against laws and municiple codes being put online. These books formatting are copyrighted (the courts said). Thus people manually typing the laws into public websites to get around punication and format in the published books is permitted. (Kinda like copied code).
Interesting all around.
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.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Actually... you are more so than the parent.
Open source is based on the idea of copyright... for without it would be unenforceable.
More so, I got quite a lulz out of this statement of yours:
*facepalm*
Incorrect... you are only make available the source code if you *release* any derivative work (be it a binary or a source drop)... or are various companies running FOSS stacks internally that may have been tweaked here or there violating the GPL by not releasing every single line & change?
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
The way a C programmer would, as a no-op. :)
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
The closest this judge comes to grasping Java is when he dumps cream in it in the morning.
Just like the politicians that create legislation, the judges have no fucking clue what's going on and are reliant on "experts" that have to use pipe analogies to convey the issue.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
That's actually incorrect. You may modify (which is use) to your heart's content. You may not *release* a modified version of a GPL-licensed work without also releasing the source code.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
And Linux, and .NET (C# is a derivative of C), and FreeDOS and any BIOS not made by IBM, etc...
The implications are staggering, it would be like a nuclear bomb going off.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
If the USA still can... how's ACTA going these days?
Ha! While it was still undisclosed, I correctly guessed that the jury was hanging on the question of fair use. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2829865&cid=39897025
Fair use is a difficult concept. What this jury was asked to do isn't so much as decide a question of fact -- "fair use" is an artificial construct, and the boundaries are nebulous. In addition to being asked to decide whether or not the defendant did or didn't do something, the jury is being asked to make a public policy decision.
That's something that the average person just doesn't do. It's difficult, there are a lot of conflicting interests to balance, and you can only guess as to the effect your decision will have on the future.
blah
Oracle forked itself and you know it.
one of my favorite java apps is already beta testing
an html5 replacement. - look forward to many more.
who wants to write anything with a restricted API ???
dreaded scurrilous bit-twiddler from Oklahoma
Actually the judge has explicitly asked the parties to comment on how the EU ruling affects their position.
Whilst Judges are obviously obliged to follow their national precedents, they can look futher afield if non exists.
I get the impression that the US judge will be happy to take a precedent from anywhere if he can.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Considering that JRuby uses actual code from the main Ruby project under the license under which it is offered, it really couldn't. The issue of use of APIs being violation of the copyright on the original implementation of the API wouldn't really come up much when the original implementation is under permissive open source license.
Well, if the judge had ruled in favor of SSO copyright applying to the APIs here, it would be potentially bad news for language/API reimplementors where the first description of the language/API isn't usable under a permissive license.
But, in any case, that hasn't happened. This (as in what as actually happened) is pretty much nothing, as neither the copyright protection of the SSO of the APIs nor the availability of "fair use" as a defense to the use of the SSO in a reimplementation of the API even if it is within the scope of the copyright of the API implementation have been determined one way or the other.
Well at minimum, we know Java isn't open or free in the sense that the OSS generation would use those terms.
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
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 capricious jury system where what matters at trial is not what goes on in front of the jury, but how your friends react to the trial on Facebook.
--
BMO
I'm surprised no mention is made of Look and Feel and the related lawsuits.
I suppose that it's good: What's at issue here is reusing the core of the interface, rather than stylistic themes or brand-recognition related appearance.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
it would be potentially bad news for language/API reimplementors where the first description of the language/API isn't usable under a permissive license
Those would be the obvious cases, but you really missed the point. I'm going to copyright Jon's math API: "public int sqrt(int base, int power);" If Oracle were to win this case, trolls everywhere could start writing function signatures, registering for a copyright, then start suing the crap out of everyone.
{parent tells of rewriting java into perl, then complains about non-understandable code}
Not sure if trolling or deeply psychotic. 6/10 either way
Perl is a horrendous, unmaintainable pile of shit, and Python is only slightly better. I mean what kind of retard allows whitespace of all things to control logical flow? Pure idiocy. I can't tell you how many times I've had to edit someone else's Python code, only to get bitten by a tab/space indentation issue. There are some completely overblown interfaces in the EJB specs, but it is a very clean language, and once you learn the memory model it almost feels like working right on the hardware.
IBM? No issue. Big Blue previously had commercially licensed Java source code from Sun and now bases there efforts going forward on the OpenJDK project.
The issue is that Sun's legal team were hostile towards Apache Harmony from the beginning. They wouldn't negotiate on a license to grant JCK access to *any* clean room implementation (i.e. GNU Classpath) . Such permission should have been granted to Harmony before a line of code was written. Certainly before Google decided to incorporate an incomplete subset of Java SE in Android.
I'm not suggesting that Sun and Oracle are in the right here but it was a legal quagmire that should have been negotiated back in 2006-7.
From wired article at http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/05/oracle-google-verdict/
“Oracle, the nine million Java developers, and the entire Java community thank the jury for their verdict in this phase of the case,” the statement read. “The overwhelming evidence demonstrated that Google knew it needed a license and that its unauthorized fork of Java in Android shattered Java’s central write once run anywhere principle. Every major commercial enterprise — except Google — has a license for Java and maintains compatibility to run across all computing platforms.”
As one of the 9 million developer cited by oracle that thanked the jury, i would say that i was misrepresented by the Oracle lawyers. I do want Java to be open and to be used freely in Google Android and many other areas.
To Oracle lawyers, please do not include us as though as we are in accord to what you are doing.
To Oracle, come on guys, the best you can do is Java Mobile Edition ???, Blackberry OS 7 and below ???, go innovate and develop a Java Mobile OS that is worth the licensing fee you would charge from the manufacturer and slap a Java logo on it.
There is clearly an anti-google astro-turf/troll thing going on here, but why blame Microsoft? Have they been knowing for astroturfing here before?
There are tons of companies and organizations out there that could hate Google for any number of reasons. For example Oracle (not that I accuse Oracle though).
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.
Well the good news is I still have my DEC assembly book from college 20-some-odd years ago, and hand-coding programs in octal was kind of fun. The bad news is I'm going to have to invent my own damn language, hand code a compiler for it in octal and hope that some jackass doesn't declare that all the CS know-how that I learned in college and along the way isn't copyrightable by someone. Assuming THAT doesn't happen, I guess I'm going to have to hand code my own damn operating system on top of that. And hope that some jackass doesn't declare "multitasking" copyrightable. Hurd is probably right out if Stallman coded it in... a current computer language. Let's say, "C". You know whoever currently "owns" the copyright on "C" is probably creaming themselves right now at the thought of collecting royalties from God and everyone who ever used C. Looking at YOU, Oracle...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
From groklaw
[ Recap of the day: Google won everything but the one issue that the judge has to decide anyway, the API SSO issue. The jury found, as they had been instructed to assume for the purposes of deliberation, that APIs can be copyrighted, the structure, sequence and arrangement of APIs, but that is by no means established. The same question, in a b) section, asked if fair use excused any infringement if found, and the jury couldn't resolve that issue. But the judge has to decide whether or not that is true, that APIs can be protected by copyright. That comes later this month. Meanwhile, Oracle prevailed only on 9 lines of code that Google admitted prior to trial to have included by mistake and then removed from current Android. Oracle's own expert, the judge pointed out in court, valued those 9 lines of code at zero. This is 9 lines out of millions. So that means, if we are looking at damages, that so far Oracle has won nothing. There is no liability. You can't have infringement without considering fair use, Google asserts, and there will be briefing on that. Somebody has to decide that fair use issue. And then the judge has to decide about the API copyrightability issue. If he rules that APIs can't be copyrighted, as the EU Court of Justice just ruled, then fair use is moot. And Oracle takes nothing at all from the copyright phase of this litigation, and this was heralded far and wide by Oracle people as the big ticket item, if you recall.
Don't let anyone fool you. Today was a major victory for Google. That's why after the jury left, our reporter says that Google's table was laughing, and Oracle's mighty glum. And I see some journalists are surprised or confused, because they have been listening to a steady flow of Oracle FUD from the wrong people. Remember the headlines about this being a $6 billion dollar case? It never was and now it never will be. Oracle attorney Michael Jacobs was reported to have visited the press room at the courthouse during the trial for a talk with the gathered journalists. So did a PR person from his firm. I mean, come on, fellas. And that doesn't even count the huge stream of misinformation from ... well, you know. And look at the outcome. Not what you were told to expect, is it? Live and learn, y'all. Live and learn. If a person is paid by Oracle, why would you take it as necessarily so? And here's why the API decision matters so much.]
You can't handle the truth.
Nullify the copyrights and patents and take this issue to the SCOTUS.
Just look at this. 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.
You can't handle the truth.
Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but wasn't the basis of the BSD ruling that API's weren't copyrightable???
Ever stop to think
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 don't see that as likely to happen. Novell owns UNIX, and Novell distributes SUSE (including the Linux and glibc components) under a copyleft license.
The judge has been throwing bones to Oracle throughout this entire process. Oracle has never had a case and they still don't. It's as if the judge is trying his best to look fair and balanced even though Oracle's positions are ridiculous.
I guess now that a little time has passed and people have read what ACTUALLY happened, the original article linked in the summary above is a far cry from accurate. It's almost as if publishers are siding with Oracle because they own stock or something.
I was a pretty strong advocate of Java at one point, believing it would eventually be freed, that multiple competing, but mostly compatible, implementations would be created, that it would eventually run on both the smallest and largest systems, and that over time the industry would standardize on it. Except for the last, all of the above have arguably come true. So why do I now avoid it like the plague?
It is very sad. Java had the potential to become the lingua franca of the entire software universe, and a darn good one at that. It didn't, and now that Oracle has gone all lawsuit-happy over it, I just don't see anyone with a choice in the matter ever wanting to touch it again.
Nonaggression works!
Since AMD processors use the x86 specification and expand on that using proprietary extensions (like MMX), is this the nail in the coffin for non-Intel processors that implement the same microcode APIs in order to achieve compatibility?
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 distant bearing on that issue. Its whether the copyright an on undisputably copyrightable implementation of an API extends to the sequence, structure, and organization of that implementation in such a way that copying just that piece directly from the implementation is a violation of copyright.
Plus, you seem to think that copyright is like patent, and that mere similarity without evidence that the similarity is due to copying proves a violation. "Trolling" of the form you describe would works for patents because patents are a government granted monopoly on use, not on copying. Copyright works differently, so even if it was firmly established to protect APIs in all cases, API-trolling of the form you describe would be fruitless.
Google has never sued anyone for patent infringement. They only use their own patents defensively and have spoken in public they're against software patents.
Please stop spreading misinformation and FUD.
{parent tells of rewriting java into perl, then complains about non-understandable code}
Note that the non-understandable code was attributed to the programming "community", not to the language itself. Java is a rather well-designed language, and it's fairly easy to write clear, understandable code in java. But, as others have observed, it's quite easy to write incomprehensible, obfuscated code in any language. The java community has pushed for incomprehensibility, as have the development communities in a number of other languages.
The "obfuscated" contests for various languages are fun to study. But, at the other extreme, there are often some very good examples of highly-readable code in most languages. Blaming the language is usually wrong; it's the community of programmers that determines such things.
OTOH, if you google "esoteric programming language", you can have a lot of fun with the concept. Intercal is just the start of the fun. Look up the Brainfuck language for a horrid example. But my favorite is Whitespace.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
I have served on a jury. Not in a criminal case, but in a civil case.
-- QED