Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Six-Hour Meeting Friday Fails to End Oracle/Google Lawsuit (businessinsider.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the if-at-first-you-don't-succeed dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Google and Oracle executives met for six hours Friday in an unsuccessful attempt to resolve an ongoing copyright lawsuit. "Because an agreement couldn't be made, the next phase of the case will head to court in May, where a jury will decide if Google had the right to use certain parts of Oracle's programming language, Java, for free or if it owes Oracle damages..." reports Business Insider. "Last month, Google said that its damages expert strongly disagreed that it should owe Oracle upward of $8 billion for using certain parts of Oracle's software in its smartphone operating system, Android."
Friday's court-ordered talk included both Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Oracle CEO Safra Catz, and it marks the second time the two companies have failed to reach an out-of-court settlement, a fact alluded to by the case's judge in newly-released documents. "After an earlier run at settling this case failed, the court observed that some cases just need to be tried," reports the court docket. "This case apparently needs to be tried twice."

5 of 88 comments (clear)

  1. meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    5 years ago I'd maybe have Google bias, now, not so much. Fuck 'em in the ear. Either side. Whatever.

  2. Spin much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "a jury will decide if Google had the right to use certain parts of Oracle's programming language, Java, for free or if it owes Oracle damages"

    That's the way Oracle wants to spin it.

    Java is GPL'd, and Google didn't use Oracles/Sun Java machine anyway. So YES Google can use Oracles code because it's GPLd and Oracle agreed to that in the GPL. Do you mean "can Oracle back out of the GPL contract?" because no they can't. In any case Google did not use Oracles VM anyway. It used Davlik VM.

    The question is, can Google use a piece of software that implements the same API as Oracle's/Sun Java. As if the API can be separated from the software somehow you can GPL the software without GPL'ing the API it implements. Fat fooking chance.

    Oracle bought Java when it bought Sun. Sun made a product called 'WABI' a Windows clone that implemented the Windows API on Unix. So Oracle are hoping to fool the jury here. It implemented someone elses API, the API in question is under GPL, i.e. they explicitly gave permission in contract form to copy it.

    So what is the question really.... can Oracle fool a jury into making a bad decision letting Oracle break a contract and putting all open software at risk?

    1. Re:Spin much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Java is GPL'd, and Google didn't use Oracles/Sun Java machine anyway. So YES Google can use Oracles code because it's GPLd and Oracle agreed to that in the GPL. Do you mean "can Oracle back out of the GPL contract?" because no they can't. In any case Google did not use Oracles VM anyway. It used Davlik VM.

      The question is, can Google use a piece of software that implements the same API as Oracle's/Sun Java. As if the API can be separated from the software somehow you can GPL the software without GPL'ing the API it implements. Fat fooking chance.

      Oracle bought Java when it bought Sun. Sun made a product called 'WABI' a Windows clone that implemented the Windows API on Unix. So Oracle are hoping to fool the jury here. It implemented someone elses API, the API in question is under GPL, i.e. they explicitly gave permission in contract form to copy it.

      That argument would weigh very quickly in favour of Oracle. Dalvik is not GPL'ed (it's Apache 2 license), and the GPL doesn't allow you to switch the license of a derivative work of a GPL'ed work to Apache 2. So if Google's argument were to become "The API was GPL'ed and that's what makes it ok for Dalvik", Google would be stuffed because they've been explicitly breaking the license they'd be relying on, and IIRC are fairly well documented as having created Dalvik specifically to "keep the GPL out of userspace".

      IIRC, the previous (appeal) court case has already ruled in Oracle's favour on copyright, and what is now before the court is solely about whether it is "Fair Use", as defined in US copyright law, and if not then what the damages should be.

    2. Re:Spin much by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Java is GPL'd, and Google didn't use Oracles/Sun Java machine anyway. So YES Google can use Oracles code because it's GPLd and Oracle agreed to that in the GPL. Do you mean "can Oracle back out of the GPL contract?" because no they can't.

      This is a horrible misunderstanding of the case: it has nothing to do with the GPL because Google didn't follow the terms of the GPL (if they had, this case would have been done with long ago, as the FSF pointed out in their brief to the supreme court).

      The question is, can Google use a piece of software that implements the same API as Oracle's/Sun Java. As if the API can be separated from the software somehow you can GPL the software without GPL'ing the API it implements. Fat fooking chance.

      That's the question right now. The appeals court decided that yes, Oracle can own the copyright on the API. The question is whether Google has a fair use defense (and it will be an interesting case, worth following closely); but again, it has nothing to do with the GPL.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  3. Bad Idea - Legal Precedent by ytene · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Respectfully, I think that is a hugely dangerous outlook for any "tekkie" to hold. The essence of Oracle's argument is that they want to hold declarative structures as "copyrightable", which is not too far removed from trying to copyright the first couple of notes of a piece of music [something the law deliberately excludes and for good reason].

    If Oracle were to win this case, it would hand ***far too much power*** to any first-to-file player in the copyright space. An Oracle win would run the risk of destroying the software world as we know it. What Oracle are trying to claim in court is that if they publish an API, they get to decide whether or not your use of that API is in breach of their copyright. Even if that "API" extends to nothing more than declaratives.

    Sometimes [and particularly in this specific case] the implications and subtlety of the arguments do a very good job of hiding the real-world ramifications of a particular ruling. Make no mistake, an Oracle win could be a DISASTER for the software community, most especially the FOSS community.