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.
The API argument has been through the courts many times. The was wrangling over alternate BIOS implementations when clones of the original IBM PC appeared. API based, clean room developed BIOSs are fully accepted now. The not so distant SCO / Unix lawsuit went through similar arguments and got nowhere trying to claim header copyrights. Oracle's complaint, from the limited amount I have read, seems awfully twisted and warped, or maybe technical would be a better description. From a distance it seems like bullshit and up close the smell does not get any better.
Oracle's legal team must be aware of the dismal prospects for success so what is really driving this? Crazy Oracle CEO? Overreaching law firm salivating over more billable time? Were they all hoping to luck out with an idiot jury or ignorant judges?
I wonder how long it will take to kill this case completely.
Larry would rather sue for imagined damages than compete in the market. Lawyers are better bang/buck than engineers, at least in his thinking.
Organization? You must be joking..
IMHO the wheres and the whatfors don't really change anything. Either Google can use their re-engineered APIs or they can't. The court ruled ... they can.
I'm not siding with Oracle, but...
Just from reading the summary, it sounds like google made a fair-use defense.
And in a fair use defense the 'where and whatfors' you raise in your justfication for why its fair use absolutely matter.
Either Google can use their re-engineered APIs or they can't. The court ruled ... they can.
Lets say you format shifted your own personal cassette tapes to CD, for your own personal use. Then the music industry freaks out and comes after you... you make a fair use defense...
you are only doing it for music you already own
to convert it to a format you prefer to use
yada yada yada.
and you win the case
Then after the case ends, the music industry discovers that half way through the trial you started selling 'format shifting services' commercially...
This really is a whole other thing. You can't say "Either you can format shift, or you can't. The court ruled you can". The court ruled you can do it with music you own for your own use. They didn't rule you could do it as a commercial service for other people... that's potentially a whole new trial.
Similarly google, *as part of its defense*, claimed that it's implementation didn't compete with Oracle on the desktop. Then it launched a version that does run on the desktop.
Google should still win (IMO). But Oracle has a valid argument that that piece of the defense is no longer valid, and theoretically could change the outcome.
Government-created? No. Private org.
If you mean many of their customers are gov't entities, you are correct.
Oracle's RDBMS was actually revolutionary when it came out. Before that you had difficult-to-use DB's such as IMS and CODASYL's pasta-like children.
SQL is not perfect, but it was a big step up. SQL was invented/defined by IBM, but they dragged their feet on in it, fearing it would hurt their IMS cash cow. Oracle released the first commercial RDBMS, and it was a hit because the alternatives sucked.
You have to give them credit for that, even though they are slimy with regard to lawyers and sales gimmicks.
Table-ized A.I.
Sure, "fair use" is the argument that Google used because it stands up against the claims made by Oracle. If this "porting Play" had been introduced in the trial Google had plenty to blow the argument up.
Ample precedent exists for commercial use of public APIs. It seems to boil down to whether certain APIs fell under the "public" banner and the court decided that Google's assumptions about what they could use were fair and supported by the law.
The "Google Play Store" angle is weird because it has nothing to do with the core arguments. Further, the lawyer says their client (Oracle) failed to consider it as a factor. Trying to introduce a new argument in an appeal is usually hard to do, especially when it is based on knowledge that is widely known (ie: it ain't new evidence). As far as I know, appeals aren't a do-over court. Oracle's lawyers would have to argue that the judge made an error.
eh, maybe Oracle is successful and get another crack at it. The "porting Play" argument is as thin or thinner than their original claims. Don't see it making any difference in the outcome unless an idiot jury is selected in a new trial. Oracle playing jury roulette?
I think Oracle's lawyers are making out like bandits. Who wouldn't love a client with lots of money and who likes to tilt at windmills?
Are we to expect whinning everytime Google uses Android for something good now?
And are you really complaining that Android for Chrome OS of all things is trying to compete with Java SE? HA! Man, what a joke.
Your famously insecure platform that you kept spending money to falsely advertise as secure, while not patching it as you should, to the point you had to be sued by the FTC to come clean about it?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
Fuck you Oracle. Even if your case had any hint of truth to it, you have no right to complain.
There is nothing better for the public than competition to a company as irresponsible as yours.
I wanna see they going back to the courts to get owned once again... pretty clear that there are some delusional people in charge of the legal team there.
I don't think you quite understand this case. Oracle is trying to utterly and thoroughly to lose this case, but to litigate it in every single possible angle. They are trying to do the same thing Google did to them to Amazon in the Cloud and they want to make sure that there is an ironclad precedent. Oracle even hired a team of former Amazon people to do a reimplementation of AWS API for them.
This case is not about Java at all. In fact it is going to hugely benefit both Oracle and Google. But oh well, keep your emotions high if you like.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.