Jury finds that Google doesn't infringe Oracle patent

[afv011]

It appears that the jury has come to a conclusion in the Oracle v. Google trial, determining that Android does not infringe Oracle patents. Judge William Alsup of the US District Court for Northern California exonerated the search giant following a trial that lasted three weeks, ruling that Google did not infringe on six claims in US Patent RE38,104, along two claims in US Patent 6,061,520.

Source

[elcreative]

Better source here... http://www.bbc.com/news/business-18184079

End paragraph not mentioned in earlier source:

The jury concluded that Google infringed on 37 copyrighted APIs but it also agreed that Google demonstrated that it was led to believe it did not need a license for using Java.

so not entirely "didn't infringe" but basically covered by fair usage...

[afv011]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Better source here... http://www.bbc.com/news/business-18184079

End paragraph not mentioned in earlier source:

so not entirely "didn't infringe" but basically covered by fair usage...

That was the 1st phase of the trial, what I linked to refers to the 2nd phase. There would have been a 3rd phase if Google had been found guilty, to determine damages.

What is left to determine, by the Judge, is whether APIs are copyrightable, as Oracle implies. For reference, in Europe it has been determined that they are not copyrightable, and I would expect common sense here to prevail and determine the same.

If APIs are not copyrightable, all Oracle will get is compensation for 2 small infringements, one relating to 9 (!) lines of code, the other for some test files. Apparently the maximum is $150K for each, a far cry for the $6 billion Oracle started with.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Better source here... http://www.bbc.com/news/business-18184079

End paragraph not mentioned in earlier source:

so not entirely "didn't infringe" but basically covered by fair usage...

As Afv mentions, that's not quite the whole story. The jury were told to assume that APIs are copyrightable (which they're not, in the EU anyway and most likely not in the US either, judge still to decide that.) and if APIs are copyrightable, did Google infringe. Well, Yes is really the only answer anyone could ever give to that question.

The judge seems quite technically knowledgable and has programmed so I find it quite likely he'll decide APIs are not copyrightable and clear google of that.

The patent violation offence, I'm really glad the jury found in favour of Google. If you read the details of the court case where the discussion of simulation vs pattern matching and static vs run-time symbol replacement occurred, it was clear oracle were spreading fud even in the face of experts, who originally agreed with oracle, having changed their minds upon hearing how Googles dex functioned.

When I read it though, I had doubts over whether a non-technically inclined jury would be able to make the same conclusion any programmer would. It's good to see they have

Regarding the 9 lines, the judge wasn't all that impressed that Oracle wanted to go for damages on it. It seems like he realises nobody in their right mind would deliberately copy a handful of lines of range checking code that every high school programmer (and he himself) can and has written numerous times. Most likely google goofed and made a mistake by including the code instead of deliberately copying it. They should be forced to remove it (or license it ) but to show it cost Oracle money or helped Google, that's going to be an impressive feat if they pull it off.

Judge: We heard the testimony of Mr. Bloch. I couldn't have told you the first thing about Java before this problem. I have done, and still do, a significant amount of programming in other languages. I've written blocks of code like rangeCheck a hundred times before. I could do it, you could do it. The idea that someone would copy that when they could do it themselves just as fast, it was an accident. There's no way you could say that was speeding them along to the marketplace. You're one of the best lawyers in America, how could you even make that kind of argument?

Oracle: I want to come back to rangeCheck.

Judge: rangeCheck! All it does is make sure the numbers you're inputting are within a range, and gives them some sort of exceptional treatment. That witness, when he said a high school student could do it--

For anyone interested in the full details, check out http://www.groklaw.net/

It's irritating that media places like the BBC mis-report things. In this case what they've said is true, but they've missed sufficient details (like the judge saying assume they're copyrightable when making your decision) that it leads readers to the wrong conclusions.

[kennyc]

This is great news and once the judge upholds the non-copyrightable aspect of API's this stupidity is over.

[RainingLemur]

Originally Posted by kennyc

This is great news and once the judge upholds the non-copyrightable aspect of API's this stupidity is over.

Once this stupidity is over, we'll be on to the next round of "Oh, god, what are they thinking?"

I hope that the judge determines that API's aren't copyright-able. Can't say that I'm 100% optimistic that they will rule that way, but I like to think that common sense will prevail. A man can dream...

[afv011]

Originally Posted by RainingLemur

Once this stupidity is over, we'll be on to the next round of "Oh, god, what are they thinking?"

I hope that the judge determines that API's aren't copyright-able. Can't say that I'm 100% optimistic that they will rule that way, but I like to think that common sense will prevail. A man can dream...

Well, if the judge were to decide they are copyrightable, then the whole software world would be in turmoil, it would be chaos (think of the current mess we have for the patent system, 10 fold).

And it is not over by a long shot, Oracle have hinted that they intent to appeal. I can see the lawyers salivating.

[rdfry]

Well I guess Larry Ellison can waste more of Oracles money. He is a bigger idiot than even Steve was

[afv011]

Things weren't looking good for Oracle after the jury found that Google hadn't infringed upon the company's patents in the second phase of the trial between the two behemoths, but the issue of infringement of the structure, sequence, and organization of 37 Java APIs was still up in the air. Judge William Alsup ended the discussion today, ruling that the SSO of the APIs is not covered under current copyright law — and dismissing Oracle's related infringement claims outright.

Source

So, common sense has prevailed for once.