Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Oracle Asks Judge To Throw Out Java/Google Verdict...Again (siliconvalley.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the pretty-please? dept.

Just when you thought the six-year, $9 billion lawsuit was over, an anonymous reader quotes this report from the Bay Area Newsgroup: Oracle has asked a judge -- again -- to throw out the verdict that found Google rightfully helped itself to Oracle programming code to create the Android operating system... A judge already rejected a bid in May by Oracle to get the verdict thrown out. But the software and cloud company hasn't given up. On July 6, Oracle filed a motion in San Francisco U.S. District Court again asking the same judge, William Alsup, to toss the verdict.

The company cited case law suggesting use is not legal if the user "exclusively acquires conspicuous financial rewards'' from its use of the copyrighted material. Google, said Oracle, has earned more than $42 billion from Android. "Google's financial rewards are as 'conspicuous' as they come, and unprecedented in the case law," Oracle's filing said. Oracle wants the judge to adhere to the narrower and more traditional applications of fair use, "for example, when it is 'criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching ... scholarship, or research.'"

122 comments

  1. cry babies by ghinckley68 · · Score: 1

    yea they stole java google steals everything. Get over and move on.

    --
    Linux modi 2.6.26-2-parisc
  2. Court motions are not news by Kohath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Filing a court motion is not news. Appealing a ruling is not news. They are pro forma. It would be more newsworthy if they didn't happen.

    1. Re:Court motions are not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This judge seems biased. How can a company make $42 billion off someone else's work and claim it's "fair use"? That's nonsense and legal BS to avoid paying what they owe.

      You're begging the question. It would be more accurate to say they didn't make their money off of someone else's work, but merely shared some names with someone else's work, and that's why it was fair use. They made their money off the rest of the code.

    2. Re:Court motions are not news by Desler · · Score: 1

      No one cares what you think.

    3. Re:Court motions are not news by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oracle didn't do any work on Java. Sun did. Sun invested a lot of time and money into Java, then ultimately, turned it over to outside developers. Sun still held "title" to Java, I suppose, but they did little to nothing to "protect" their copyright. Open sourced, freely distributed, outside developers encouraged to develop, and tacit consent given to use Java however the hell you want to use it.

      Let's put this in perspective. You make something, and you allow all your neighbors to use that something. Let's say it's a water park. All the kids in town come to your place to play in the water. After a few years, I come along, and offer you some money for your water park, and you take the money. With the water park safely in my possession, I start suing all the families in town for using the water park.

      Does that scenario make ANY sense to you? I sure as hell hope not.

      In my most honest opinion, Oracle has no claim to anything that has been done with Java. If, and only if, Oracle develops some new aspect of Java, then Oracle will have full right and title to those newly explored aspects of Java. At least until someone reverse engineers it, and reproduces the results with different code.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    4. Re:Court motions are not news by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      You cared enough to reply. So it must have been pretty important to you.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    5. Re: Court motions are not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the property you bought has the only access to a lake, swimming hole, etc. so you put up a gate locking everyone out. happens often enough. just don't cry alligator tears when everyone in the community you just pissed on hates you.

    6. Re:Court motions are not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my most honest opinion, Oracle has no claim to anything that has been done with Java.

      That's not entirely fair. They still have the Trademark on the name. Other than that, I agree with you.

    7. Re: Court motions are not news by sjames · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sure, but you don't get to sue people for accessing the lake before you owned the property. If they built a nice path with the blessing of the previous owner, you may not even have the right to block their future access.

    8. Re:Court motions are not news by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sun still held "title" to Java, I suppose, but they did little to nothing to "protect" their copyright.

      you don't need to protect a copyright, you're getting confused with trademark, which does need to be defended to some degree.

      Does that scenario make ANY sense to you? I sure as hell hope not.

      It really didn't!

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:Court motions are not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oracle didn't do any work on Java. Sun did. ... Let's put this in perspective. You make something, and you allow all your neighbors to use that something. Let's say it's a water park. All the kids in town come to your place to play in the water. After a few years, I come along, and offer you some money for your water park, and you take the money. With the water park safely in my possession, I start suing all the families in town for using the water park.

      Oracle did not buy Java *from* Sun; Oracle bought Sun. Including the team working on Java, rather a lot of whom are the same people as when Sun was independent.

      By your rather bizarre analogy, I ought to be able to walk into your house and take a crap on the carpet, safe in the knowledge that if you complain I'll just yell "You didn't build this house, you just bought it from someone who did, so until you put up an extension, I can defecate in it if I want to." (And ignore the fact that the previous owner put conditions on entry -- you'll notice Google aren't complying with the GPL license the Java code was released under.)

    10. Re: Court motions are not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't buy people.

    11. Re:Court motions are not news by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Jesus Christ - it is YOU who is bizzare. You don't understand the difference between buying a company, and owning slaves? And, you want to shit on everything. Bizarre is an appropriate word for you.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    12. Re:Court motions are not news by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      you don't need to protect a copyright, you're getting confused with trademark, which does need to be defended to some degree.

      No, I think that's what he meant:

      If you try to claim copyright over a city phone book you've compiled. Then your only protection is to keep that phone book a trade secret, not give out a copy to everyone you can find. I suppose you could argue that the phone book was photocopied and everything down to the font you used is identical, but of course, that argument becomes moot once the copier just hires a bunch of typists to retype all the phone numbers into his own slightly different phone book.

    13. Re:Court motions are not news by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      While I agree in principle. What Oracle has is the *rights* to Java, including the legal interests inhereted when it brought Sun.

      Which isnt to say that Oracles behavior is anything less than reprehensible, but they do have a legal right to have their case heard, even if , as we all hope, the judge fines their claims nonsensical.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    14. Re:Court motions are not news by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Your argument falls down because public facts aren't copyrightable.

      Also copyright has nothing to do with if you give something away and does not require anyone to keep anything a secret. You don't give away a copyright, you give away a copy which was within your right to do as you see fit. It's right there in the title "copyright", you retain the rights to decide how copies are produced.

      I took a photo of an oil refinery once. It was a nice big panorama. I published it on my website in full resolution for all to see and enjoy. I was contacted by the refinery who wanted to use the photo for all internal publications. I said sure and handed over the original files. I happily gave those to the employees too. Then they printed off and framed 100 of these at a vendor presentation without asking me. All good I'm fine with that. 3 months later I found it on the website of an EPCM contractor. I sent them a strongly worded letter that they were using copyrighted work in a commercial setting without license or permission from the copyright owner. That got taken down very quickly.

      You see copyright owners don't need to give express permission for each use but can always reserve the right to do so. Just because something is out there doesn't mean it's free of copyright.

    15. Re:Court motions are not news by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Let's put this in perspective.

      A better way would be to use an access road as an example. The API is a way to access the thing. Access was given away. The law says you can't just close an access road.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Court motions are not news by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but your argument is flawed in a number of ways. It doesn't matter if Oracle or Sun originally did the work; it is Oracle's property that they paid for. They also didn't open source it in a "public domain" or even BSD perspective; they retained ownership to their property and continued to license it for commercial gain.

      That doesn't make Oracle right in this case though.

      The bottom line is that APIs are necessary for interoperability. They are not patentable; they are not trademarkable; and, as the judge decided, we're not copyrigtable based on the premise of fair use. This is very much in line with the traditional interpretation of fair use, and it is disengenuous for Oracle to suggest otherwise.

    17. Re:Court motions are not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you do not own the copyright to the recreation of your photo done in oil and then photographed.

      Welcome to Dalvik. Java reeingineered and recreated.

    18. Re:Court motions are not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > you'll notice Google aren't complying with the GPL license the Java code was released under.

      Yes, they are in compliance, because they're not using the libraries, tools, or bytecode that Sun developed. Google wrote their own code and can license it however they want.

      Programs written in Java are not derivative works of Sun's IP.

    19. Re:Court motions are not news by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      And Google's argument is that the API definition (function signatures) constitute public knowledge (the phone number, if you will, for the functionality).

    20. Re: Court motions are not news by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      I don't know. Let's ask all the Java programmers rhat don't pay Oracle.

    21. Re:Court motions are not news by Solandri · · Score: 1

      That's actually a good analogy, but missing some nuances. You allowed your photo to be used for free by a select group and raised objections when you found it being used outside that group. Sun gave away Java to be used for free by anyone, and Oracle (as inheritors of the copyright) raised objections when it was being used later in time. Not only that, but they wanted to be paid retroactively for its use during the time Sun was allowing everyone to use it for free.

      So to fit your analogy, the story would be that back in 1996 you took a nice photo of an oil refinery. You put it on the Creative Commons and told everyone they could use it for free, which they did. 15 years later you quit photography and sold all your copyrights to Oracle. Oracle then proceeds to sue everyone using your oil refinery photo and demands payment for copyright violations dating back to 1996 when you still owned the copyright and had been giving it away for free.

      I can see an argument that Oracle, as the copyright holder, can force people to stop using the photo now in the present, beginning the moment after they announce they're exercising their copyright and the photo will no longer be free to use. But in no way can I see an argument that they can collect copyright fees or sue for copyright violation during the time before that announcement.

      Likewise, pre-existing copies do not suddenly become illegal and have to be re-licensed just because you the copyright holder have changed your mind. If you told the refinery you changed your mind and will now be charging $10 to reproduce the photo, that does not mean they have to pay you $10 for each copy of the photo they ever made in the past. It just means they have to pay you for new copies they decide to make starting now. I got a copy of Lord of the Rings for free during a promotion. If the studio later decides to sell it for $25, I do not owe them $25 or my copy becomes illegal. My copy is legal and still remains legal today even though I haven't paid anything - because it complied with the terms of the copyright at the time I acquired it. Even if Oracle had won the case, Google does not have to pay them for that old Android phone running Gingerbread that's still being used.

      And anyway, this was all made moot by the fair use argument. In essence, Sun/Oracle holds a copyright on a mold (API). Google's use of that API is an implementation of the inverse of that mold (calling the API). And using that inverse is fair use even though it duplicates the original mold in some ways. I don't see this appeal going very far either. Some forms of fair use hinge on the use being non-commercial. But the vast majority (parody, news, clips, thumbnails, etc) have no such restriction.

    22. Re: Court motions are not news by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      I believe there was this exact situation where a previous owner had a path thru their private property to the beach in northern california. They sold the land and the new owner put in a gate blocking access. New owner had to remove the gate under court order under some legal argument. The law has so many but's at this point it really boils down to shopping for a judge. The Oracle's and Google's have infinite resources to keep shopping.

    23. Re:Court motions are not news by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Yes to be clear I was only countering the GP's example not tying it back to the Oracle case which has some very different principles at play.

    24. Re:Court motions are not news by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Of course. My reply had nothing to do with Google and was only addressing the GP's flawed example and understanding of copyright in his example.

    25. Re:Court motions are not news by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      And Google's argument is that the API definition (function signatures) constitute public knowledge (the phone number, if you will, for the functionality).

      I don't think they ever made that argument, actually; at least, I don't remember seeing it anywhere.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    26. Re:Court motions are not news by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Sun gave away Java to be used for free by anyone, and Oracle (as inheritors of the copyright) raised objections when it was being used later in time. Not only that, but they wanted to be paid retroactively for its use during the time Sun was allowing everyone to use it for free.

      This is misunderstanding the situation.....Sun gave away Java for zero dollars, but it wasn't unencumbered: you had to follow one of the many licenses. Google could have chosen the GPL, and they wouldn't have had a problem. In fact, recently they did switch to the GPL.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    27. Re: Court motions are not news by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 2

      I believe there was this exact situation where a previous owner had a path thru their private property to the beach in northern california. They sold the land and the new owner put in a gate blocking access. New owner had to remove the gate under court order under some legal argument.

      It's called a public easement, and it doesn't require any judge shopping to get it recognized. It has precedents in English common law (on which US law is based and on which it depends) dating back four or five hundred years.

    28. Re: Court motions are not news by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      In Oregon after 7 years of use, the property line moves! If you argue they don't have access, the court will have to find that they own it, not you. Arguing shared access, that it is an easement, becomes the only way not to lose the shared portion!

    29. Re:Court motions are not news by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Please look up the definition of derivative work.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  3. Oracle, the company most likely to make you .... by haruchai · · Score: 5, Funny

    ....feel that M$, SCO and Apple aren't such a bad bunch after all

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  4. Oracle overturning fair use for APIs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And this after getting a court to agree APIs were copyrightable. Truly a snake eating its own tail.

  5. Given how much that would bite themselves... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in their own ass, I wonder if they have really considered the full ramifications of what they're doing...

    If APIs are copyrightable, and not subject to fair use, then oracle would be violating the GPL by utilizing any linux kernel APIs/data structures, many of which are not POSIX compliant, and thus cannot claim they are derived from sources which implicitly licensed them for commercial use.

    The level of clusterfuck if Oracle gets its way is huge for the software industry, and would cripple the US back to the technological stone ages as everybody has to write new APIs, or come up with a completely new and properly open source set of APIs that do not infringe on any of the thousands to millions of APIs currently copyrighted.

    Truly a clusterfuck of epic proportions.

    1. Re:Given how much that would bite themselves... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If APIs are copyrightable, and not subject to fair use, then oracle would be violating the GPL by utilizing any linux kernel APIs/data structures, many of which are not POSIX compliant, and thus cannot claim they are derived from sources which implicitly licensed them for commercial use.

      What product of Oracles is violating the Linux GPL? The only Oracle code I know of that they've worked on for Linux is btrfs, which in itself is GPL. No violation there.

    2. Re:Given how much that would bite themselves... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "everybody has to write new APIs, or come up with a completely new and properly open source set of APIs that do not infringe on any of the thousands to millions of APIs currently copyrighted" Sounds like a good reason to start innovating instead of copying or demanding the free use of someone else's work. Don't want to pay to use someone else's technology? Nothing is stopping you from developing your own solutions. And this battle over Java is a perfect example of wasting money on lawyers instead of putting that money towards replacing Java, which is legacy technology, with something better. Something built from the ground up that takes advantage of the heightened awareness of security models. Something that can really take advantage of multi-core processors. As it stands Java is just one big patch that has had security and hardware architecture changes shoe horned into the runtime engine. (Java is not the only framework with these problems) Some brave soul is going to come along and say fuck backwards compatibility and start building something new. After all someone actually did this when they bet the farm on the PC replacing the functionality that up until that time was running on mainframes and mid-range platforms.

    3. Re: Given how much that would bite themselves... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If we as a society have to always reinvent the wheel in order to drive to the store, you'll get your wish to go back to the stone age. The only difference will be the brutes will all have law degrees.

    4. Re: Given how much that would bite themselves... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you comprehend the situation. So... Please come up with an innovative way to add 2 numbers.

    5. Re:Given how much that would bite themselves... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      If APIs are copyrightable, probably most of it. APIs being copyrightable changes the entire shape of the licensing influence. This wouldn't have any effect on the use of software licensed with BSD or MIT, but GPL is different.

      Traditional interpretation has said that APIs weren't copyrightable, but if they are then source code to interface with GPL code would also need to be GPL.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    6. Re:Given how much that would bite themselves... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The SCOTUS has always defined what is copyrightable very broadly. In the example of a phone book, they have always said that the facts aren't copyrightable but the presentation is; the question then come down to, the functional parts are fair use even to the extent that the gray area may or may not reach them in a particular case. This is the same thing they're doing with computer cases. The amount of copying that is necessary for interoperation between devices will be almost always be "fair," regardless of the arguments made about what is or isn't protected IP categorically. They (the SCOTUS) don't really like categorical exclusions. Like software patents; they won't say it would never make sense, but they've yet to approve of a single one that they have examined in detail. Actual programs all appear to be solving problems using the same algorithms as when done on paper using math and humans, so far; but they're not willing to say that it applies to everything. They have the same attitude with copyright. They're not going to make a categorical exclusion for what can not be protected by copyright, when it isn't written into the law, (for example, "all APIs" is not written in the law as uncopyrightable) but they are much more willing to make a categorical determination that some is fair use. APIs by definition are the part needed for interoperation! Who cares if they are copyrightable, they are clearly fair to use to whatever extent they are functional because they don't do anything other than allow inter-operation between different pieces of computer code. And if they were expressive in an exclusive way, they would not even function. Oracle were fools to ever even go there, because if this got to the SCOTUS they would get bench-slapped with a unanimous decision; even if most of their arguments were accepted! They were guaranteed to eventually lose.

    7. Re:Given how much that would bite themselves... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Everybody writes a new API; the person publishing the API, and the person using it too.

  6. O.R.A.C.L.E. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One
    Rich
    Asshole
    Called
    Larry
    Ellison

  7. What goes around, might comer around... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Oracle wants the judge to adhere to the narrower and more traditional applications of fair use, "for example, when it is 'criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching ... scholarship, or research.'"

    Oracle better watch what they ask for. A greedy company this size, I imagine they have some questionable skeletons in their closet - somewhere. Setting a precedent like this might come back to bite them on the ass. [Of course, that would be delicious for the rest of us.]

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:What goes around, might comer around... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Oracle helped itself to IBM's 'structured query language' API many decades ago.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:What goes around, might comer around... by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      That's what I was thinking. Oracle are playing an amazingly stupid game, because if they get the ruling they want I can see IBM coming after them for a *LOT* more money over this. I would be wanting hundreds of billions of dollars if I where IBM.

    3. Re:What goes around, might comer around... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Setting a precedent like this might come back to bite them on the ass. [Of course, that would be delicious for the rest of us.]

      When everything is said and done, having some assholes die on the same battlefield as yourself is not much of a consolation when you are facing the same direction.

  8. NUKE ORACLE by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    Put Ellison's head on a pike, at the Redwood Shores city limits.

    Seriously, this should have been done in the 90's.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re: NUKE ORACLE by WarJolt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We were too busy watching SCO go bankrupt. Now we can watch oracle.

    2. Re: NUKE ORACLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really wish Google would go after Oracle, demand payment for all the time wasted. Oracle is the most useless company ever, fcking troll of a company...

    3. Re: NUKE ORACLE by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      We were too busy watching SCO go bankrupt.

      I'm still trying to figure out what that means. I mean, has anybody lost their house yet? Even with all of this, a simple divorce proceeding would be much more devastating to any particular individual involved in the case.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re: NUKE ORACLE by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Be careful with making absolute statements. Oracle has done a few things that seem to be worthwhile. Oracle has given in to pressure from outside groups. I don't like Oracle at all, but they can sometimes be reasoned with. Not much, but some, anyway. As I recall, SCO couldn't be reasoned with at all, on any issue. So, no, Oracle is not the most useless ever. I don't care to research historical companies that might have been worse than either Oracle or SCO, but I would guess that they can be found. You and I are simply unaware of them because they didn't affect us.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    5. Re:NUKE ORACLE by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Oracle's one redeeming quality seems to be their honesty. I've wondered if I asked an Oracle salesman, "You're going to screw me over, aren't you?" if they would answer yes.

      I've never wanted to stay in a conversation with an Oracle salesman long enough to ask that.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re: NUKE ORACLE by mysidia · · Score: 1

      It's not going to happen, until companies stop purchasing their product and Enterprises with OracleDB ditch it to save $$$ on the licensing

    7. Re:NUKE ORACLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oracle's one redeeming quality seems to be their honesty. I've wondered if I asked an Oracle salesman, "You're going to screw me over, aren't you?" if they would answer yes.

      I've never wanted to stay in a conversation with an Oracle salesman long enough to ask that.

      That's like saying you like a criminal because he's very honest about mugging you in the first place.
      Oracle are scum, second only to Microsoft. They deserve being killed by IBM, oh the irony if only it were possible.

    8. Re: NUKE ORACLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would imagine a fuck ton of people lost their houses. these cases affect stock prices, those heavily invested on the losing side of the case tend to take a big hit, if they were excessively leveraged a hit as small as 10-20% can take them from mac mansion to living in the gutter (their own stupidity for taking such high risks, but this happens every day).

    9. Re:NUKE ORACLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having dealt with Oracle sales people and seen the results of the lies they peddled I can assure you honesty is NOT one of their redeeming qualities.

    10. Re: NUKE ORACLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Please stop referring to Oracle as a person. The execs are Ellison, Cats, Hurd are dirtbags. Don't let them off the hook by calling them oracle.

    11. Re:NUKE ORACLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oracle's one redeeming quality seems to be their honesty. I've wondered if I asked an Oracle salesman, "You're going to screw me over, aren't you?" if they would answer yes.

      I've never wanted to stay in a conversation with an Oracle salesman long enough to ask that.

      That's like saying you like a criminal because he's very honest about mugging you in the first place.

      Ah, you heard of Frank "Stabs" Malone.

    12. Re: NUKE ORACLE by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I don't care to research historical companies that might have been worse than either Oracle or SCO, but I would guess that they can be found. You and I are simply unaware of them because they didn't affect us.

      Here's a couple:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    13. Re:NUKE ORACLE by c · · Score: 1

      I've wondered if I asked an Oracle salesman, "You're going to screw me over, aren't you?" if they would answer yes.

      Being Oracle, they'd probably have a special price list for those kinds of services, with a business group built around ancillary services like STD testing, condom and lube suppliers, etc.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    14. Re:NUKE ORACLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No reason we can't be civilized about it!

    15. Re:NUKE ORACLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They would answer 'depends':

      You can make us work to get this sale, compete on price etc and stay here after absolutely screwed, or you can sign here at the special price and we will get you a no show job at Oracle for 5x your current salary. Your choice.

    16. Re: NUKE ORACLE by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      We were too busy watching SCO go bankrupt.

      I'm still trying to figure out what that means. I mean, has anybody lost their house yet? Even with all of this, a simple divorce proceeding would be much more devastating to any particular individual involved in the case.

      Watching this game by Ellison is like watching exaggerating Donald Trump. And watching Jealousy and greed manifest itself.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    17. Re: NUKE ORACLE by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      It's a show. Who doesn't act differently when the cameras are on? Afterwards, they are off to the dinner party with the wives. Does anybody really believe in this faux antipathy?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  9. Re:Oracle, the company most likely to make you ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's nothing. Tony Blair can make every James Bond villain look more benevolent than the pope.

  10. Mwhahaha !! by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

    exclusively acquires conspicuous financial rewards

    hehe .. sniff hehe ..

  11. Spin article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Google rightfully helped itself to Oracle programming code"... no, the court found that the APIs definitions do not constitute code. Which is absolutely right.
    The few lines of actual code that were the same (you know, code, the stuff that converts to machine code that runs on the processor), was so insignificant as to be nothing.

    Oracle have lied, spun, deceived, all the way through this. If the judge/jury had found any different then Oracle would own Dalvik, the VM written separately by a different group of people, from scratch, simply because it implements the same API and competes with Oracles more recent purchase of Sun, which gave it Java.

    "Google, said Oracle, has earned "

    Google earn nothing from Android, it's given away free to handset makers, they make money on the Google Play bundle which they license to manufacturers and on the online services and advertising sold to Android customers.

    "Oracle wants the judge to adhere to the narrower and more traditional applications of fair use"

    He did, Oracle did not invent SQL, they implemented their own version of it.
    WABI, the windows clone on Sun kit, owned by Oracle, they did not violate Microsoft's copyright, Sun made their own version of it.

    QUIT FOOKING LYING ORACLE.

    1. Re:Spin article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the court found that the APIs definitions do not constitute code.

      So the compiler does not process API definitions? Let's see you generate executables or bytecode without API definitions.

      they make money on the Google Play bundle which they license to manufacturers and on the online services and advertising sold to Android customers.

      And what's on Google Play? Android apps, whose sales result in a 30% commission to Google. How do developers develop and run Android apps? By using Oracle's Java API (c). So pay up because making a huge (30% of all app sales/IAPs) profit is a commericial activity, not covered under fair use.

  12. Oracle doesn't get Sun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The details have been spelled out previously, surely Oracle knows and hence is choosing to ignore it.

  13. Goatse link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Goatse link - obviously parent AC is a worn out asshole.

  14. This skit sounds familiar by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oracle: None shall pass.

    Google: Now stand aside worthy adversary.

    Oracle: 'Tis but a scratch.

    Google: A scratch? Your arm's off.

    Oracle: I've had worse.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:This skit sounds familiar by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      It's been pretty clear since around February that this would make its way back to the appellate court. I don't think the judge took the case particularly clearly (as soon as it was over, he said, "Yeah, I know you're going to appeal"), although he did make a fairly strong argument that may have some influence on the appellate court.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:This skit sounds familiar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, he understood it clearly enough and decided not to flip copyright to make API's copyrightable.... which among other things would have meant that WABI, Oracle's clone of Windows API, would have infringed, as would many of Oracles own products. That was the right decision, and is the status quo.

      This new claim from them "that Google's rewards are conspicuous, ergo not fair use" relating to the 20 or so lines of similar code (as opposed to APIs) isn't even true in fact.

      Android costs $0, phone makers can use it for $0, Cyanogenmod pays Google $0 for the use of Android. Oracle can't even tell the truth on that, they want to claim Google's profits from advertising to Android users, is somehow their money.

      So Google's profits from Android are not 'conspicuous', again it's Oracle trying to conflate items together to pretend that one is the other is the same.

    3. Re:This skit sounds familiar by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      No, he understood it clearly enough and decided not to flip copyright to make API's copyrightable

      I'm not sure what you are saying here, the sentence isn't very clear.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:This skit sounds familiar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      By limiting his decision to the question of fair use and not ruling on whether or not an API is copyrightable, he kept the scope of the case appropriately narrow and limited. He dealt entirely within existing case law without challenging the previous opinion - that APIs are copyrightable.

    5. Re:This skit sounds familiar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that APIs are copyrightable

      [citation needed]

  15. They lose anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google doesn't make money from it's Java variant.

    It makes money from selling advertising.

    Sounds like a small difference, but I suspect legally it's crippling to Oracles argument on it's own.

    1. Re:They lose anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ITS, dammit! Pronouns NEVER TAKE AN APOSTROPHE FOR THE PLURAL. Did you sleep all the fucking way through school, or what?

    2. Re:They lose anyway by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Did you mean the *possessive*? Geez, don't have a cow, man.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re:They lose anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you're right, I meant "possessive". Sorry about that.

    4. Re:They lose anyway by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Did you sleep all the fucking way through school, or what?

      I did make it far enough that I learned that English is an open language, with no authorities or rules; merely Style Guides, for example the one that said class required. Punctuation is eternally disputed and controversial.

      Also, your use of capitalization does not follow any of the mainstream style guides, and is quite likely to be controversial in itself. Additionally, your complaint leaves itself not well established as there are both standard and non-standard uses of "it's" in the source.

  16. Remains the ridiculous SCO case. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When stupidity wanted to win so badly.

  17. Re:Oracle, the company most likely to make you ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That depends on which pope you're referring to. Some popes made Bond villains look as evil as Scrooge McDuck

  18. Re:Oracle, the company most likely to make you ... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    The pope approved the inquisition. He might as well be a Bond villain. Even has the ridiculous plan: "Sell indulgences to pay for and build a huge headquarters in the middle of Rome with a giant dome"

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  19. Re: Inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google keeping on keeping on, in this case, protects all the investment of time that all other tech companies have put in. The only parties which would benefit from the reverse decision would be non practicing trolls.

  20. Java should be paying the C people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Java copied the data type names from C and other terminology and syntax.

    Which is more than just the api, but they stole that too. Java mimicks C in the same use of expressions, assignments, curly braces and the semi-colon.

    If we are going to retroactivately put a copyright on API, we need to do it all the way down from the top of the stack of turtles and not cherry pick only what Oracle wants, but what also by that interpretation that Oracle stole too.

  21. ROFL --- mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was my favorite movie.

    1. Re:ROFL --- mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you stuck in the 90s middle school drama club flashback?

  22. It's like oracle has been possessed by Caldera by dimethylxanthine · · Score: 1

    And never learnt anything... :)

  23. Copyrightable? by pedz · · Score: 1

    Isn't this just the effect making the wrong verdict? As the EFF says, Still, the fair use victory is bittersweet. Judge William Alsup's previous opinion that the API labels in question are not copyrightable was the correct one, based on a reasonable reading of the copyright law in question. The Federal Circuit decision to reverse that opinion was not just wrong but dangerous.

  24. Calling IBM and others by DCFusor · · Score: 1

    How much did Oracle pay to steal SQL itself? Or as another poster mentioned, nearly all of c++ syntax (without some of the freedom and power because programmers are too stupid to manage memory allocation so we steal real time abilities from you and do it ourselves, like, um, perl). And so on. If Oracle wins any of this - and I'd like to see API's not copyrightable at all, it's obviously not the intent of having them - we ALL lose, particularly those dumb enough to either work and live in the US or to sign one of those ignorant "not free trade" agreements that give corporations higher powers than governments over such things.

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
  25. What to do with a patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...conspicuous financial rewards"

    I guess Oracle don't understand that you're more likely to get "conspicuous financial rewards" by becoming a modest sized fish in an ocean than trying to be the biggest fish in a small pond.

    Sun seemed to understand that in what it was trying to do with Java. These guys are opening up their patents so they seemed to understand that too. And this guyshowed there's more shareholder value in using patents to ensure standardization and make the market huge than in trying to wring out licence fees.

    Those container patents are one of the reasons you can buy lots of cheap stuff made far away. Oracle are acting more like the losing side in this case who don't know how to cope with "a technological advance of great importance ... which at the same time threatened the jobs of ... by dramatically increasing their productivity.

  26. Google / Android / Pentagon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eric Schmidt sold the planet out when he got his job at the Pentagon.

  27. Oracle programming code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WRONG. Google didn't copy any "code". It used the API which is simply a description of how to organize the code, but it is not actually code.

  28. No bytecode generated from API by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The compiler doesn't generate bytecode nor any other kind of executable code from API declarations. It generates executable code only from function definitions and data definitions (not declarations) given to it, after checking that they are consistent with the declarations specified in the API.

    That is the fundamental distinction between declarations and definitions. Only definitions produce code. APIs supply only declarations, and so never result in code. APIs are merely constraints, they constrain the code that is allowed to reach the code generation phase of compilation.

    There is a corner case where inline code combines a declaration and a definition together as a unit, but that's just shorthand for what is formally a declaration followed by a definition.

    1. Re:No bytecode generated from API by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The compiler doesn't generate bytecode nor any other kind of executable code from API declarations.

      I know that, but you conveniently sidestepped my point. You cannot generate code if you eliminated all function definitions (unless you switch to assembly). Function definitions (APIs) are big communication/abstraction tool for programmers and error checking tool for compilers. So technically, they are code -- the application developers job would be hell without function definitions.

    2. Re:No bytecode generated from API by mark-t · · Score: 1

      And you conveniently sidestepped the point that function definitions are not what APIs are in the first place. APIs are determined by function declarations, which do not generate any code at all. As you noted, they are a communication tool for programmers, and provide a mechanism for error checking for compilers, but the API itself does not actually do any error checking any more than a phone book with your name in it is what makes your phone ring when somebody calls you.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    3. Re:No bytecode generated from API by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh dear. It's clear that you didn't comprehend the parent's point in the slightest before responding, since you didn't respect the standard meanings of "declaration" and "definition" in your reply. Those are terms which haven't changed for decades in Computer Science. You would know that if you were in the discipline.

      From your sloppiness, I suspect that you're not a programmer of any kind at all, but quite likely another lawyer using the words of CompSci without actually understanding them, and hence you use them incorrectly.

      Hint: in CompSci, words have specific meanings, and neither the words nor their meanings are interchangeable on a legal whim.

      APIs are declarations, and declarations are not translated into executable code. Syntactically correct function bodies are definitions, and they are translated into executable code if their function signatures comply with the corresponding declarations specified in APIs, if any.

      Definitions become code, declarations and APIs do not. It's not all that hard.

  29. Re:Oracle, the company most likely to make you ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oracle worse than SCO? The guys who wanted to control anything vaguely related to unix (including linux) through some bizarre trail of copyright ownership? Time has obscured the details in my head, but not their ridiculosity.

  30. Re: Oracle, the company most likely to make you .. by Chris453 · · Score: 1

    Yes, they backed themselves into a corner and now want the courts to decide that using an open source API is copyright infringement. Can you imagine how much trouble THAT precedence would cause? I think that is much more dangerous than SCO.

  31. never! by guygo · · Score: 1

    Larry Ellison is an even bigger narcissist than Donald Trump. He NEVER loses! NEVER! At least according to Larry.

  32. Ellerson has enough money by armand.winter · · Score: 1

    Come on Lar... you live on your own island, isn't that enough? BTW how is that ACA lawsuit going with the State of Oregon.

  33. Its the new world by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    Its the new world. Apparently its become OK to ingonre all facts, keep living in denial and asking for repeated do-overs until you get the outcome you want.
    Gun controllers, radical feminists, climate-change deniers and Brexit remainers all keep trying to do exactly the same thing.

  34. Oracle, just die already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've honestly never found a single good service from Oracle.
    I even failed an Oracle exam in college because of THEIR stupid systems failing.
    Glad I never got that certificate.

    Their systems are an absolute chore to use. I've seen better Myspace profiles.

    Just die. You monster. You shouldn't belong in this world.

  35. Did we quit when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did SCO quit the first N times they lost?

  36. you can't handle the truth!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sounds like someone is "strenuously" objecting....

  37. Re:Oracle, the company most likely to make you ... by MikeKD · · Score: 1

    The only good part of Terminator Genisys is when they blew up the Oracle campus.

  38. What financial rewards? by Kryptonut · · Score: 1

    Android is free and open source. The operating system isn't what makes the money.

    Google makes money off the stuff that runs on top of the free operating system (which provides the APIs and runtimes, for free), not the operating system itself.

    People are free to do what they like with that free operating system, just look at Amazon for example. They are not beholden to Google, they include and exclude what they require for themselves and that's fine. They don't pay Google a cent for that operating system that they base their devices' software off.

  39. Re: Oracle, the company most likely to make you .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was only one among many things SCO also claimed. Copyright on unix header files like errno.h and copying API. So, no, SCO still more outrageous.

  40. Case Law by sexconker · · Score: 1

    The company cited case law

    "Case law" is not law. Individual interpretations of the law and the resulting decisions relating to specific cases are not law. Law is law.

    Any lawyer trying to use "case law" as a basis for their argument should be disbarred as they clearly don't understand the difference between the legislative and judicial branches.

  41. Re:Oracle, the company most likely to make you ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the actual Inquisition (which still exists under another name) was actually fairly benign for the time, the Spanish Inquisition is the one you are most likely thinking of, and was a product of the Spanish King much more than the Pope.

    captcha "nonsense" I feel I'm being judged!

  42. Re:Oracle, the company most likely to make you ... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    the actual Inquisition (which still exists under another name) was actually fairly benign

    Lies

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  43. Go home, Oracle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're drunk.

  44. Re:Oracle, the company most likely to make you ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whose side are you on? The Moors (Google) or the Visigoths (Oracle)?

  45. Re:Oracle, the company most likely to make you ... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Tengrism. There is nothing but the sky.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  46. Re:Oracle, the company most likely to make you ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, Google. The card says 'Moops.'

  47. Re:Oracle, the company most likely to make you ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shining in your eyes