Tech Companies Set To Appeal 2012 Oracle Vs. Google Ruling

sl4shd0rk writes "In 2012, Oracle took Google to court over Java. In the balance hung the legalities of writing code to mimic the functionality of copyrighted software. The trial was set to determine how all future software would be written (and by whom). Oracle's entire case boiled down to an inadvertent 9 lines of code; an argument over a simple and basic comparison of a range of numbers. The presiding judge (who had some background in writing software) didn't buy it stating he had 'written blocks of code like rangeCheck a hundred times before.' A victory for more than just Google. This week, however, Microsoft, EMC, Oracle and Netapp have filed for appeal and seek to reverse the ruling. It's not looking good as the new bevy of judges Indicating they may side with Oracle on the issue."

Comments

Knowledgable Judges

[Nerdfest]

If I remember correctly, the original judge learned to code for this case and seemed to be quite knowledgable by the end of it, realizing that if APIs could be copyrighted, programming as we know it would pretty much be impossible. Now we have new judges that don't have that knowledge (presumably) and are thinking of reversing the decision. I'd like to know the grounds they'd be thinking of using for that reversal.

Nice to see Microsoft jumping in to help out Oracle. If you're a software developer, my personal opinion is taht you should do everything you can to stop people from buying anything from either of these two companies.

Re:Knowledgable Judges

[RDW]

Not only did he learn Java to understand the case, but Judge Alsup was already a programmer (and mathematics graduate), putting him in an ideal position to make nuanced judgements about Oracle's arguments:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57445082-94/judge-william-alsup-master-of-the-court-and-java/

' Alsup told Boies, "I have done, and still do, a significant amount of programming in other languages. I've written blocks of code like rangeCheck a hundred times before. I could do it, you could do it. The idea that someone would copy that when they could do it themselves just as fast, it was an accident. There's no way you could say that was speeding them along to the marketplace. You're one of the best lawyers in America --how could you even make that kind of argument?" '

It seems very unlikely that the current panel will be as well-qualified (which is great for Oracle).

Only Oracle Filed

[bedroll]

"This week, however, Microsoft, EMC, Oracle and Netapp have filed for appeal and seek to reverse the ruling."

This isn't quite right. The case is between Oracle and Google, the other companies have no standing. Instead, Microsoft, EMC, and Netapp have filed an amicus brief in support of Oracle. They're all companies who stand to benefit from Copyright protection on their APIs.

Re:What cause for appeal?

[jbolden]

Here is the appeal: http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Oracle.Appeal.Brief_.pdf

1) Oracle's theory of the technical error is that congress does not want to allow copying that technically avoids the statute so the statue needs to be read broadly it was read narrowly by the original court.

2) Method of operation is copyrightable under a broad reading. They give examples of paraphrases of books being copyrightable. They have a good argument here.

3) Interoperability is not a concern of copyright law and thus the court can't argue that this plays a role. This is key because Google's defense argued that Sun had waived some of their protections.

I just think copyright law is too ambiguous and this needs to be kicked to congress.

Re:Clean room not clean ... no rules for Google.

[thaylin]

Wait, what? So a contractor adds code that Google expressly told them not to, and somehow Google is now lacking in good faith... The mere fact that Google told him not to shows that they were acting is better faith then you are giving him credit for.