Slashdot Mirror
Oracle Says Trial Wasn't Fair, It Should Have Known About Google Play For Chrome (arstechnica.com)
Two and a half months after a federal jury concluded that Google's Android operating system does not infringe Oracle-owned copyrights because its re-implementation of 37 Java APIs is protected by "fair use," Oracle's attorney says her client missed a crucial detail in the trial, adding that this detail could change everything. ArsTechnica reports: Oracle lawyers argued in federal court today that their copyright trial loss against Google should be thrown out because they were denied key evidence in discovery. Oracle attorney Annette Hurst said that the launch of Google Play on Chrome OS, which happened in the middle of the trial, showed that Google was trying to break into the market for Java SE on desktops. In her view, that move dramatically changes the amount of market harm that Oracle experienced, and the evidence should have been shared with the jury. "This is a game-changer," Hurst told U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who oversaw the trial. "The whole foundation for their case is gone. [Android] isn't 'transformative'; it's on desktops and laptops." Google argued that its use of Java APIs was "fair use" for several reasons, including the fact that Android, which was built for smartphones, didn't compete with Java SE, which is used on desktops and laptops. During the post-trial hearing today, Hurst argued that it's clear that Google intends to use Android smartphones as a "leading wedge" and has plans to "suck in the entire Java SE market. [...] Android is doing this using Java code," said Hurst. "That's outrageous, under copyright law. This verdict is tainted by the jury's inability to hear this evidence. Viewing the smartphone in isolation is a Google-gerrymandered story."In the meanwhile, Google attorney said Oracle was aware of Google's intentions of porting Android to laptops and desktops, and that if Oracle wanted to use this piece of information, it could have.
You should be paying Google for keeping Java alive and interest in it high. If anything they make you money. A lot of it.
So go fuck yourself Oracle. You and your dying platform.
Oracle is claiming their lawyer was so incompetent that the wrong verdict was reached.
So now the judge is supposed to believe that same lawyer when she suggests that Oracle should have a new trial.
Sure.
Remember when Oracle was a software vendor rather than an IP troll?
Um, no? Was that back when they were RSI?
From the start, Oracle's model appears to have been centered on IP trolling their own customers, making them pay for strange things like potential users and counting data collection devices as users (along with any human who ever touches said devices).
Oracle did not own Java when Google made android. Oracle bought Java later.
Old owner of Java - Sun - had no problem with google.
So problems are with proprietary software. New owners - new rules - new problems.
Just saying it like it are.
It was a beautiful day in court if you like courtroom drama. Some of the dialogue:
[Oracle attorney]Hurst throws her hands up. "It’s a fraud on the jury! It’s a mockery of the system!"
Google attorney responded by saying that Oracle already tried to bring ARC and other products into it, and that the court struck testimony about these products, because this limited retrial was frozen in time, looking at what was available in 2012.
Judge ALSUP to Google: "Do you concede that Oracle is entitled to bring a new lawsuit against any new product that was not in the first trial?"
Google: "YES"
ORACLE: "We certainly can sue, but that’s not why this verdict should be set aside."
later
(Flashback: key argument in the case was that Android did not compete with Java SE because it was not for desktop.)
Hurst throws up arms again and starts shouting, "This is outrageous! They’re lying to the jury!" (because Android on Chromebooks)
Judge ALSUP [trolling]: "We already said we’re going to have another trial on all of those other products."
Judge ALSUP: "Do you know how many Social Security claimants I can't rule on right now because you're arguing over a cost bill?"
source
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The difference is that Microsoft took the Sun Java implementation and modified which broke the terms of the license they had from Sun for access to the source code.
Google just looked at the specification for the Java language, wrote their own compiler which produced a completely different bytecode (its register based as opposed to the stack based byte code of Java) and then wrote a virtual machine for that bytecode. Later they ditched the virtual machine and now compile the byetcode to native machine code when you install the application.