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?
Check out this quote from Oracle (via Washington Post):
... Every major commercial enterprise — except Google — has a license for Java ....
Wait, what?
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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
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 reinterpretation, for idiomatic language and the like. A translation could be copyright to the extent that it displays originality and creativity, but a blind machine translation (even if performed by a human) probably wouldn't.
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
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.
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.
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
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.