Slashdot Mirror
Oracle Asks Judge To Throw Out Java/Google Verdict...Again (siliconvalley.com)
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.'"
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 $42 billion from Android. "Google's financial rewards are as 'conspicuous' as they come, and unprecedented in the case law," Oracle's filing said. Oracle wants the judge to adhere to the narrower and more traditional applications of fair use, "for example, when it is 'criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching ... scholarship, or research.'"
yea they stole java google steals everything. Get over and move on.
Linux modi 2.6.26-2-parisc
Filing a court motion is not news. Appealing a ruling is not news. They are pro forma. It would be more newsworthy if they didn't happen.
....feel that M$, SCO and Apple aren't such a bad bunch after all
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
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. . . .
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..."
exclusively acquires conspicuous financial rewards
hehe .. sniff hehe ..
"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.
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.
"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.
That depends on which pope you're referring to. Some popes made Bond villains look as evil as Scrooge McDuck
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."
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.
Did you mean the *possessive*? Geez, don't have a cow, man.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
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.
And never learnt anything... :)
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.
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!
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.
Larry Ellison is an even bigger narcissist than Donald Trump. He NEVER loses! NEVER! At least according to Larry.
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.
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'
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.
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.
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.
The only good part of Terminator Genisys is when they blew up the Oracle campus.
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.
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.
Everybody writes a new API; the person publishing the API, and the person using it too.
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.
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.
the actual Inquisition (which still exists under another name) was actually fairly benign
Lies
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Tengrism. There is nothing but the sky.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."