Oracle Tells Supreme Court Google Copyright Breach Knocked It Out Of Smartphone Market (crn.com)

Joseph Tsidulko, writing for CRN: Oracle asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to not review an appellate court's decision finding Google violated Oracle's copyright of the Java platform when building the Android mobile operating system. In that opposition brief, Oracle's attorneys said Google's copyright violation shut Oracle, the Java platform owner, out of the emerging smartphone market, causing incalculable harm to its business. The complex case pitting two Silicon Valley giants against each other has raged on since 2010, and already saw many twists in turns before a circuit court last year reversed a jury decision in favor of Oracle. That prompted Google's appeal to the nation's highest court. Oracle notes Google had previously asked for a writ of certiorari -- the legal term for review by the high court -- in 2015 without success in an earlier phase of the case, and the company argues nothing has changed in the time since.

Oracle believes Google destroyed its hopes of competing as a smartphone platform developer with the Java platform, which enables development and execution of software written in Java, including through APIs that access a vast software library. The lawsuit alleged Google copied those APIs without a proper license. Java was developed at Sun Microsystems, which Oracle acquired in 2010. "Google's theory is that, having invested all those resources to create a program popular with platform developers and app programmers alike, Oracle should be required to let a competitor copy its code so that it can coopt the fan base to create its own best-selling sequel," Oracle's brief states.

Comments

Re:Wow

[MightyMartian]

I'm fascinated to hear what products Oracle had in the works that Google wrecked by re-using Java library headers.

Re:When evil battles evil

[green1]

Well, you could maybe look at what the argument is, instead of who brought it forward. I know it's cool to hate on the big companies, and we all know it's well deserved, but who the players are should not affect the merit, or lack thereof, of any particular argument.

In this particular case, you root for Google. Not because Google is in any way "good" or "not evil", but because Oracle is trying to ensure that no company can ever make anything interoperable with another company's stuff ever again. There is no accusation that Google copied code, only that they re-implemented the API. A strict interpretation in favour of Oracle would mean that you could never use anyone's API to interface with them without violating their copyright (or paying royalties, etc) This would be a very dangerous precedent.

Re:Wow

[DarkOx]

Well while I don't agree with Orcacle's theory that interfaces can be subject to copyright. I would agree with the assessment Google by creating their own JVM essentially drove Oracle out of the mobile market place. J2ME Was pretty widely used in what we think of as the pre-smartphone era.

I don't see any reason why it would not have become the defacto application platform going forward, except for entrants like Google with resources enough to implement their own JVA not wanting to pay Oracle for theirs.

Remember when blamer said "developers..developers..developers.." same thing applies here its not like Google chose Java as their implementation language for Android because the syntax is so sexy and everyone love it. They picked it because a lot of people know it. J2ME would have probably continued as a force without Davlik and just got some sexy new interface libraries to bring all the existing mobile phone developers and desktop java developers over.

I must have missed it...

[SpeedRacer]

Oracle was in the smartphone market?!? When the heck was that?

Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oracle's argument is: I couldn't go to the party because Google was already there wearing the dress I wanted to wear?

Thank you!

[AVryhof]

We should make Google a Thank You card for keeping Oracle out of the Smartphone market.

Re:API... not code

[jabuzz]

Don't worry IBM are quietly rubbing their hands in glee. Should Oracle succeed, they should expect to find themselves in court for ripping off IBM's SEQUEL back when they where Relational Software. It's a bit of a silly game for Oracle to play IMHO.

Re: FALSE

[slack_justyb]

With the new standard tht APIs are copyrighted

Minor correction, can be copyrighted. Not every API that comes into existence automatically becomes copyrighted unless the author says so and even then if they only enforce it.

I don't agree with the idea that APIs can be copyrighted, but, what I do and don't agree to means nothing in the legal system. That said, I don't see this as something that kills open source software. Not giving something a legal definition leaves it in murky waters. With APIs being something that can be copyrighted, it's easy for projects to require the APIs be copyleft/GPL/BSD/etc. Copyrighted APIs become an issue for people who've done projects with APIs with less than clear legal language, which was the case since APIs were pretty much just assumed to public domain/just how things work. And trust me I would love to see APIs having that legal distinction, but they don't and you work with the reality your handed.

A lot of the modern APIs in major use today are already open sourced and apply either a copyleft/GPL/BSD requirement to the licensing of the API. Hell, even Java today is GPL API via the OpenJDK. And OpenJDK's special exception that was irrevocably granted by Sun before they gave up Java, is how Google to this day keeps Android alive. Google was once upon a time not down with going GPL and wanted to use Apache License. Which you cannot convert simply relicense a GPL project to Apache License project, which was the entire argument that Oracle made in court against Google.

I don't like the notion of copyrighted APIs anymore than the next person, but I do see that APIs being copyrighted isn't the death knell for future projects. But I totally see it as a submarine issue for projects from the past. Much like how patent submarines were once used before a change in the patent law.

Re: What stopped Oracle forking Android?

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

When you lay people off regularly to maintain an environment of fear, the truely talented go elsewhere, or avoid you entirely. Meanwhile those left are more concerned with survival than innovation.

Re:What stopped Oracle forking Android?

[UnknownSoldier]

I think the bigger question is:

If Google was able to bring out a Smart Phone what stopped Oracle from doing the same before Google in the early 2000's? Seems like Oracle is whining about not being able to ride on the coattails of a competitor AFTER the fact. Notice how Oracle bought Sun AFTER Android was released.

Timeline for those that forgot the details:

*Java came out in 1995.
* Google announced Android in 2007 and shipped the first device in 2008.
* Oracle bought Sun in 2010.
--
The Lie of Islam: God commanded his children to kill one another.