Judge Blasts Oracle's Attempt To Overturn Pro-Google Jury Verdict (arstechnica.com)

Joe Mullin, reporting for Ars Technica: Google successfully made its case to a jury last month that its use of Java APIs in Android was "fair use," and the verdict rejected Oracle's claim that the mobile system infringed its copyrights. After Google argued its case, though, Oracle filed a motion arguing that the judge should decide as a matter of law that fair use didn't cover it. In the wake of the jury's pro-Google verdict, Oracle's motion was its last hope of a trial victory. It didn't happen; US District Judge William Alsup shot down the motion on Wednesday. The same order also denied Google's motion making similar arguments, filed at the close of trial but before the jury's verdict. Alsup's stinging order [PDF], which rejects Oracle's argument [PDF] on every front, hardly comes as a surprise. But the document provides the first insights as to what Oracle might bring up in an appeal proceeding, which the company has said it will pursue. In the order, Alsup defends how he ran the trial. The evidence and instructions presented to the jury were a mix of mandates from the appeals court, which overruled Alsup on the key issue of API copyrightability, and modifications urged by both sides' lawyers.

Comments

Re:Who are we rooting for today?

[Tony Isaac]

Whichever one happens to be on the side of sanity.

In this case, Google was arguing that an API shouldn't be copyrightable. For anyone who understands what an API is, this makes total sense.

If I want to make an after-market alternator for a Honda car, I can do so by creating my own device that has the right size pulley, screw threads, electrical output, and so on. This absolutely is "fair use." In the same way, the API is the spec for the functionality behind it. I should be able to make an after-market part that meets those specs, without infringing on any copyrights.

Because Google was on the right side of the issue, I root for Google in this case. But if the roles were reversed, I would root for Oracle just as quickly.

Re:Is Oracle using SCO's law firm?

[phantomfive]

Is Oracle using SCO's law firm?

Yes, actually, Same law firm.

Re:Who are we rooting for today?

[mrchaotica]

Sadly thats not what we got our ruling on, probably because a ruling that interfaces are functional and not creative would upset a lot of lawyers, of which Google has plenty

Everything after "probably because..." is wrong. In fact, Google did argue that interfaces are functional and not creative, and prevailed in that argument -- in the previous trial. Then Oracle appealed, and the appeals court stupidly overturned it and then sent the case back to the lower court. This trial was forced to be conducted around the assumption that interfaces are creative.