No Patent Infringement Found In Oracle vs. Google

sl4shd0rk writes "Today, the jury in the Oracle vs. Google trial found no infringement of patents by Google. The jury deliberated about 30 minutes to reach the verdict, bringing an end to the second phase of the trial, and a beginning to the damage phase, which may be very little of what Oracle originally asked for. Still no word on API copyright issues. Judge Alsup will be ruling on that in the near future, and it will certainly have an impact on the developer community."

Comments

Does this mean Java really is free?

[jonniesmokes]

If the APIs turn out to be non-copyrightable, does this mean we can really all enjoy/suffer Java for free?

Re:Does this mean Java really is free?

[poetmatt]

The Jury was leaning heavily on them not being copyrightable anyway. See: https://twitter.com/FedcourtJunkie/status/205370887078285313

We all just interviewed juror, who said jury was split 9-3 for google on copyright fair use. Um, wow.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter anyway. There were only nine lines of copied code and the only reason it was there is because the guy that submitted it originally to openJDK is the same guy that put it in Android. The judge learned java for this trial and even he said he could have wrote rangeCheck in a few minutes and had even done so accidentally many times.

Suck it, Oracle. You lose. Good day, sir!

Re:Does this mean Java really is free?

[GodInHell]

Muhahhaaha "fined" for the "time saved" in writing 9 lines of code that the judge already advised counsel he (the judge) could write in less than am afternoon. Ooooh look out, here cones a $10,000 fine. Quick, sell GOOG now!!!

Re:Does this mean Java really is free?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

If the APIs turn out to be non-copyrightable, does this mean we can really all enjoy/suffer Java for free?

It's a great deal more important than that: If APIs are copyrightable, API-compatible implementations of anything without that thing's blessing would be on legally shaky ground. I'll leave imagining the technology world in an alternate universe where IBM simply sued Compaq for producing an API-compatible BIOS to the reader; but that's the sort of magnitude we are talking here...

Re:Does this mean Java really is free?

[characterZer0]

If they are copyrightable, will we all have to switch to Scala running on the JVM?

If the APIs are copyrightable, the bytecode spec will also be copyrightable. So you cannot write a JVM without Oracle's permission. This was the problem for Apache Harmony. If APIs are found to be non-copyrightable but the bytecode spec still is for some reason, Google could write (or allow others to write) a Dalvik VM for other platforms and we could continue writing Java code but compile it for the DVM instead of the JVM.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free?

[ZeroSumHappiness]

Shit, juries get bribes? I need to stop trying to skip out on jury duty!

Re:Does this mean Java really is free?

[dgatwood]

It's a great deal more important than even you are suggesting. If APIs are copyrightable, then Linux and *BSD just became illegal for implementing POSIX without a license from The Open Group. Such a decision would absolutely have to be appealed up to SCOTUS, and if necessary, reversed by an emergency act of Congress. It simply cannot be allowed to stand, as it would essentially end Western civilization as we know it. Imagine 90% of the world's servers becoming illegal overnight. Imagine the machines that run 75% of the world's stock markets becoming illegal overnight. Such a decision would essentially bring the computing industry and every industry that depends on it to a grinding halt.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free?

[RatherBeAnonymous]

If you recall, 2-3 weeks ago the jury ruled that Google had violated Oracle's copyrights on the Java API's. The caveat being that it is not established in US law whether or not API's are protected by copyright. The judge instructed the jury to deliberate as is API's are protected by copyright. Now, we are just waiting on the judge's ruling as to whether or not API's are protected by copyright. If he rules that they are not, which I personally expect will be the ruling, then the jury's ruling on the API copyright issue will be moot. This was the copyright issue mentioned in the article, not the rangeCheck code, which is apparently a non-issue.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free?

[s.petry]

Sadly, this spin has already been played over and over by the media. Somehow, a loss for Oracle in court is always deemed a "partial victory".. if you read the right articles.

I'd recommend that you spend some time on Groklaw and read reviews by legal people on what these rulings really mean. While Groklaw is pro-opensource, their articles are pretty straight views of our legal system. Enough commentary is covered by people (many of which are Lawyers) to fill in gaps, and of course "can" be more biased.

Many of these same magazines claimed that SCO was going to prevail over IBM, and every loss was a "Partial Victory". Groklaw was dead on, though it took a very long time for the courts to finally get things sorted out.

Oh, and if you look back further many of these same magazines claimed that Microsoft had countless "partial victories" in the EU anti-trust case, the Iowa anti-trust case, and the US DOJ anti-trust case. See any trends you may wish to not follow?

Re:Does this mean Java really is free?

[s.petry]

On the plus side, anyone that implemented the TCP/IP protocols, HTTP, DNS, FTP, etc.. would immediately have to purchase licenses from the US Government, MIT, Berkley, UC, etc... We could solve the national debt of the USA in pretty much 1 verdict.

This has been discussed in legal channels already, and would probably harm money grubbers much more than help them.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free?

[Forever Wondering]

That depends on whether they assigned the copyright along with the submission. If they had already assigned the copyright to Sun (as I believe was required to have it accepted), then they would no longer have the right to submit it anywhere else. Such is the stupid world we live in, which is why I can easily believe that a developer would have forgotten they did it, especially on such a trivial function.

Your point is well taken, so I did some checking. openJDK submissions require that you accept the "Oracle Contributor Agreement" [nee Sun]. From that document:

2. With respect to any worldwide copyrights, or copyright applications and registrations, in your contribution:

- you hereby assign to us joint ownership, and to the extent that such assignment is or becomes invalid, ineffective or unenforceable, you hereby grant to us a perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, worldwide, no-charge, royalty-free, unrestricted license to exercise all rights under those copyrights. This includes, at our option, the right to sublicense these same rights to third parties through multiple levels of sublicensees or other licensing arrangements;

- you agree that each of us can do all things in relation to your contribution as if each of us were the sole owners, and if one of us makes a derivative work of your contribution, the one who makes the derivative work (or has it made) will be the sole owner of that derivative work;

- you agree that you will not assert any moral rights in your contribution against us, our licensees or transferees;

- you agree that we may register a copyright in your contribution and exercise all ownership rights associated with it; and

- you agree that neither of us has any duty to consult with, obtain the consent of, pay or render an accounting to the other for any use or distribution of your contribution.

The first two clauses appear to cover it. The joint ownership clause seems mostly concerned that any submission grants rights to Sun/Oracle to use the code. But, the original submitter retains parallel rights [as long as they don't try to revoke Oracle's right]. The derivative work clause implies that either party may make a derivative work without consulting the other and gets full rights to the new work.

Thus, giving the rangeCheck function to Android is allowed by this agreement under either of these two clauses.

30 minutes - try 5 days

[gus goose]

Hmmm... Thursday last week till today... that's a about 30 minutes according to Oracle's 'simulations' ... ;-)

30 Minutes? Try One Week

[zjbs14]

The jury has been deliberating on the patent infringement since last Wednesday. Not sure where the submitter for the 30 minutes from.

Re:Didn't take long, did it?

[zjbs14]

They were deliberating since last week. Summary was wrong.

Summary slightly wrong

[ZombieBraintrust]

There will be no damage phase. Judge has sent the jury home. Judge will handle damages himself based on agreements between Oracle and Google. Basically Oracle will get a few thousand for the 9 lines of code and a couple thousand for the test files. Then they will spend that money in one day in lawyer fees on the appeal. It is also important to note that this trial only covered 2 patents. Oracle can try again with different patents. However it should be noted that these were likely their best patents to use against Google.

Re:Summary slightly wrong

[phoenix_rizzen]

Oracle started with 7 or 9 patents that they thought were worth $6 billion in damages/licensing/royalties/whatever.

All but 2 of the patents ('104 and '520) were found to be invalid and rejected by the USPTO. The '104 patent was found to be preliminarily invalid after the trial started.

And now Oracle is leaving with nothing but a huge invoice from the lawyers ... the same lawyers who lost the SCO trial(s). (Go figure.)

#0 minutes? Read the Groklaw accounts of this ...

[hedronist]

I don't know where this "30 minutes" number came from. Maybe it was 30 minutes today, but all together it was at least 2 or 3 days, maybe even 4.

It's interesting to note that the only reason it took them that long was because the jury foreman was the only hold out in favor of Oracle. Apparently he was the one responsible for many of the questions that the jury kept sending to the judge.

Anyway, glad this is (almost) over. The only real thing left is for Judge Alsup to determine if the APIs are copyrightable at all. My personal bet is that he will rule that they are not and that this will drive a stake through the heart of Oracle and (hopefully) Larry Ellison.

But as PJ at GrokLaw keeps telling us: never make a bet on a legal ruling.

Re:Didn't take long, did it?

[X0563511]

History/Karma's a bitch, huh. one troll example .

How is that a troll? It looks like a perfectly reasonable, logical, opinion. (note: we are allowed to have differing opinions, and "troll" does not mean "does not share my opinion")

Silly Oracle, trix are for kids

[Anonymous Coward]

Kudos to the jury. They put a lot of effort into understanding the issue at hand. Based on courtroom reporting, the jury paid attention and they asked clarifying questions while deliberating to make sure they understood. Software patents are a mess. Oracle's arguments were terrible from a CS standpoint (and their expert should be embarrassed).

I believe the only issue still on the table is API copyrightability which Judge Aslup will rule on as a matter of law. The jury found for Oracle in that instance because the jury instructions essentially mandated it. I expect Aslup will rule for Google on that claim as well.

Oracle's current claim for money is literally for 9 lines of code called rangeCheck (which anyone in a high school intro to java class could write), and 8 test files copied by a subcontractor and never distrusted to end users.

A certain Oracle paid blogger will still manage to post how Oracle basically got everything it wanted.

Re:No damage phase either

[squiggleslash]

Foreman: "Does anyone understand these patents?"

Juror 7: "No, still don't."

Juror 5: "My head hurts."

Juror 6: "This better be over with soon, or I'm going to be the third juror to take a medical leave of absence. I can't stand this crap any more."

Juror 2: "All I know is if we find Google guilty, we're going to have to sit here for another week deciding damages"

{silence}

Foreman: "Case dismissed?"

Rest of jury in unison: "Not guilty!"

Re:No damage phase either

[pesho]

You forgot:

Juror 3: What is this Oracle company doing? Never heard of them.

Juror 4 (while pulling his android phone out): Me neither. Let me Google them.

Shocking!

[stevenfuzz]

Dear Oracle, Apparently your lawyers are about the same quality as your databases. When your lawyers lost, did they email technical support and receive the answer, "Please restart your database"--you know, because they hadn't tried that 5 times.

Re:Jury not bribed

[R3d M3rcury]

One of the Jurors was dismissed for being late because of car problems. The other was dismissed for being sick.

Oh yeah, and Google couldn't have possibly caused someone to have car problems or get sick.

Wake up! Google controls everything...

Re:Didn't take long, did it?

[LordLucless]

It was the standard "I hate microsoft , but....(opposite argument)" troll

I believe what you call a troll, most rational people call "an argument". If you want to debunk his points, then actually debunk them, don't just try and smear the poster with ad hominem. Just to help you out, his arguments were:
    1) MS-DOS wasn't that bad
    2) Windows XP is viable
    3) SCO is more evil that Microsoft
Incidentally, the argument he was countering was that everything Microsoft has ever done is evil, and it is the most evil software company ever. If you've got time once you've demolished the above points, you can prove that argument for extra credit.

Go to it!