Slashdot Mirror
Oracle Seeks $9.3 Billion For Google's Use Of Java In Android (computerworld.com)
angry tapir quotes a report from Computerworld: Oracle is seeking as much as $9.3 billion in damages in a long-running copyright lawsuit against Google over its use of Java in Android, court filings show. Oracle sued Google six years ago, claiming the search giant needs a license to use parts of the Java platform in Google's market-leading mobile OS.
The two companies first went to trial in 2012, but the jury was split on whether or not Google's use of Java was protected by "fair use." Now they're headed back to the courtroom for a new trial scheduled to begin May 9, where Oracle's Larry Ellison and Google's Eric Schmidt will be present. Currently, the sum Oracle is asking for is about 10 times as much as when the two companies went to trial in 2012.
That's more than they paid for Sun in total. (Sale price was $7.4 billion).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I am fully aware that the law suit is a bit more complex than simply using Java in a product, but I still think that Oracle is sending a weird signals to their existing and potential customers:
"Feel free to use our products for free but if you get successful we will sue you to get a piece of the cake."
I miss Sun!
Second trial always favors the defendant. They knows the plaintiffs strategy and what influenced the jury.
"You know what the trouble is, Brucey? We used to make shit in this country, build shit. Now we just put our hand in the next guy's pocket." -- Frank Sobotka
The problem wasn't that Google used Java to program (like IBM does), that's fine and free to do. The Java license allows anyone to write code using Java, without any restrictions. The problem also wasn't re-implementing Java (like Apache Harmony): anyone is free to do that under the terms of the GPL.
The problem is that Google re-implemented Java, and tried to release it under different terms than the GPL. Since it is a derivative work, Google needed to follow the terms of the license. Since they tried to release it under BSD (I think that's the license the used), they are now being sued.
The only question remaining is whether their implementation was a fair use or not. My guess is it will be found not to be, but who knows with a jury trial.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Agreed, but the problem is that there is no alternative statically-typed ("compile-y") language out there that seems ready in terms of being road-tested and not too different from other common production languages.
C# is too MS-tied with a similar legal-greed risk, and C++ is too low-level to replace Java and C#.
Object Pascal? Ada? too complex. Eiffel? too much like Pascal such that you might as well go Pascal.
Python, Ruby, Php, etc. are dynamic languages. They have their place, but for certain classes of applications you need a static/strict typed language.
Object-Fortran? :-) I dunno
Table-ized A.I.
It works both ways, but the Plaintiff's strategy can't really change, they are locked into the arguments they've already made. In civil trials all the evidence that can be presented and all the base arguments and defenses have to be filed to keep the trial as fair as possible. They can certainly fine tune and try to adjust their prior arguments but the best chance for the Plaintiff is to catch the Defendant off guard with a presentation of the evidence that can't be countered effectively. They would have used their best bullets in the first trial and now Google knows what they are and how best to defend against them because of the feedback they got from Jurors of the previous trial.
It's possible that Oracle could find a new "bullet" to use in this trial that is in line with all their arguments up to the trial but the chances are pretty slim or they would have used it during the first trial. You simply don't hold back on your evidence, you expend all your best attacks. They won't catch Google's lawyers off guard with a refinement of those same arguments.
It's a statistically known fact that a second trial always favors the defendant, this is true in both Criminal and Civil trials. The criminal trials even have a freer hand to make completely different arguments and propose new motives where in the civil trial they can't argue outside the prior boundaries they established in the run-up to the first trial. This also limits Google because they can't make defenses outside the ones they proposed but they can and will find evidence to blunt Oracles best attacks and that could swing the next trial into their favor.
The problem is Google originally did that with Sun's blessing..
If by 'blessing' you mean they got a written or verbal contract giving them permission, then no, you're wrong. Some people at Sun might have been happy about it, but without a contract, 'happiness' doesn't matter.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Why do you think that? I'm interested in your legal reasoning (or references to legal reasoning).
Because copyright law defines what a "derived work" is.
A clean room implementation is an independent implementation of some specification. As specifications are not covered by copyright law (the law explicitly says so) multiple implementation of such a specifications are not a derived works of each other. And as the "origin", the specification, is not copy-right-able, it can't be a derived work of the specification by definition.
The primary work, from which the specification probably was "derived" is not related to the implementations of that specification. Not related "under copyright law". Obviously "intellectually" they are related.
The core argument for understanding what a derived work is, is always: "does the derived work "incorporate" pieces of the original work?" If not: it is not derived.
Unfortunately there where some misguided rulings in the USA that declared linking to dynamic linked libraries a derived work of those libraries. No idea what the status about that is right now. In my (and Europe's) interpretation a DLL has an interface which is an API/specification, so that the implementation can be replaced and hence the client using that API/DLL is not derived from the DLL. (If it was static linked the library would be part of the code and hence the whole executable would be a derived work of that library)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
For this to be true, APIs must be copyrightable. Which is obvious bullshit, regardless of what the courts may say on the matter.
It was not an argument, merely a point. And it's as subtle as the situation requires, which is to say, not at all.
The notion that APIs are copyrightable is bullshit, because APIs describe what is done, not how it is done. It is unfortunate that we have courts in this country that are unable to comprehend that simple fact, and everyone in the industry should make every effort to counter that - because copyrightable APIs represent a major threat to innovation and interoperability for all of us.
What is the license for ISO C APIs? I don't recall any special verbiage to that effect in the Standard, and by itself that document is copyrighted by ISO. What if they decide to enforce that copyright against implementations? What if ECMA does the same for JavaScript?