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..
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.