Google's Oracle appeal denied

[fjtorres]

http://www.cnet.com/news/supreme-cou...a-patent-case/

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it will not hear an appeal from Google over a copyright case that could force the search giant to pay Oracle licensing fees for using the Java programming language, Reuters reported. After an appeals court decided in favor of Oracle last year, Google took its appeal to the Supreme Court.

The implications of the case go further than Google possibly having to pay licensing fees and a potential $1 billion in damages to Oracle for the use of Java in the Android mobile operating system. The case brings to light the question of whether software developers can use copyright law to hold exclusive rights on basic code, a move that could limit the ability of other developers to build on that code.

More at the source.

[murg]

This is going to lead to some interesting things.

Firstly, Oracle will probably sue Microsoft for the same reason. The C# .Net library is almost a call for call rip-off of the Java library. (Ok, a caveat: I haven't done much Java, but every time I do a Google search for a C# library call, there seems to be an identical Java call).

Secondly, maybe people will have an incentive to finally realise that Java is a crap language.

Thirdly, Google will probably put some effort into developing a new language that fulfils the role of Java. And give it away for free. And actively push it.

Fourthly, now that Microsoft has open-sourced the .Net library, that library may start to become the defacto open source library. There are two parts to a language: the language syntax and the library. Or to be more accurate, the .Net library API may become the default API.

And a last comment. Now that Microsoft is effective giving away .Net languages and development environments (C# Express and VB.Net Express), if they move on this, they may be able to supplant Java for the roles that Java has.

And another last comment. The computer world is capable of quick change. I remember when PKZip went from 99% market share to 1% in a year or two.

[eschwartz]

Big groan. I still don't get how they were ever able to decide Oracle *might* be owed money.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by murg

This is going to lead to some interesting things.

Firstly, Oracle will probably sue Microsoft for the same reason.

Maybe not:

http://blogs.forrester.com/john_r_ry..._cloud_channel

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

http://www.cnet.com/news/supreme-cou...a-patent-case/






More at the source.

As a java programmer, I would say that Oracle is killing the golden goose. A lot of companies are going to be taking a much closer look at alternate languages.

[bgalbrecht]

The analysis I saw at another website (I think Ars Technica), the Supreme Court left it open to the possibility that Google's use was not copyright infringement due to fair use, and that Google may yet appeal on those grounds. Unfortunately, fair use is decided on a case-by-case evaluation, so even if Google gets the case dismissed because of fair use, another court could rule that another defendant using the exact same files is guilty of infringement because it's not fair use, and a company will never know without a court trial what the verdict will be.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

The analysis I saw at another website (I think Ars Technica), the Supreme Court left it open to the possibility that Google's use was not copyright infringement due to fair use, and that Google may yet appeal on those grounds. Unfortunately, fair use is decided on a case-by-case evaluation, so even if Google gets the case dismissed because of fair use, another court could rule that another defendant using the exact same files is guilty of infringement because it's not fair use, and a company will never know without a court trial what the verdict will be.

Conversely, google's use might not be fair use but somebody else's might.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murg

This is going to lead to some interesting things.

Firstly, Oracle will probably sue Microsoft for the same reason. The C# .Net library is almost a call for call rip-off of the Java library. (Ok, a caveat: I haven't done much Java, but every time I do a Google search for a C# library call, there seems to be an identical Java call).

Doubtful. As long as it was a "clean room" development and not based on the actual Java source code, they should be OK, just as there was no legal problem for the companies that produced "clones" of the original IBM PC. They were duplicating the functionality, but making no use of IBM's code. Similarly, the authors of the WINE Windows emulation environment for Linux are in the clear legally, because they've duplicated the Windows API, but used no Microsoft source code to do so.

[murg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Doubtful. As long as it was a "clean room" development and not based on the actual Java source code, they should be OK, just as there was no legal problem for the companies that produced "clones" of the original IBM PC. They were duplicating the functionality, but making no use of IBM's code. Similarly, the authors of the WINE Windows emulation environment for Linux are in the clear legally, because they've duplicated the Windows API, but used no Microsoft source code to do so.

It depends on if the API definitions are copyrightable or not. If so, then WINE may be in trouble. Although I think that Microsoft is a bit more cluey that that, now that Balmer's left.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by murg

It depends on if the API definitions are copyrightable or not. If so, then WINE may be in trouble. Although I think that Microsoft is a bit more cluey that that, now that Balmer's left.

What muddies the waters in this case is that Google was shown to have used Java copyrighted materials, which blocked the clean room defense. It is also the likely reason SCOTUS refused the appeal. That limits the finality of the decision; in another case, a different appeals court can still rule differently.

[leebase]

I can't write a book with the characters Captain Kirk, Mr Spock who explore the universe in a spaceship named the enterprise. Even if "the story" is my original implementation of the universe defined by Star Trek. Yes, people write fan fiction, but that too is copyright infringement that authors/publishers may ignore or promote or stop as is their choice.

Why anyone would think that you could just write your own implementation of another companies product in such a way that it's customers could switch to your implementation with no change whatsoever....that's copyright infringement.

Google knew this when they came out with Android and simply took a chance rather than sign up for a license. I hope they get hammered.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by leebase

I can't write a book with the characters Captain Kirk, Mr Spock who explore the universe in a spaceship named the enterprise. Even if "the story" is my original implementation of the universe defined by Star Trek. Yes, people write fan fiction, but that too is copyright infringement that authors/publishers may ignore or promote or stop as is their choice.

Why anyone would think that you could just write your own implementation of another companies product in such a way that it's customers could switch to your implementation with no change whatsoever....that's copyright infringement.

Google knew this when they came out with Android and simply took a chance rather than sign up for a license. I hope they get hammered.

Well, strictly speaking, in the coding world it *isn't* a copyright violation to write code that duplicates the function of somebody else's code as long as the coders do it 100.000% independently without referring to the original code.

Google's problem is their source code contained chunks of Java documentation, which proved their coders had used JAVA code in crafting their clone. That is why the case came down to the question of fair use.

The issue isn't that they cloned the APIs but *how* they cloned the APIs.

So yes, they cut corners and ran roughshod over other people's IP.
(And not just Oracle.)
And now the bill is due.

[murg]

So...Google is ultimately guilty of stupidity...

This is what you get when you hire teenagers...

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by leebase

I can't write a book with the characters Captain Kirk, Mr Spock who explore the universe in a spaceship named the enterprise. Even if "the story" is my original implementation of the universe defined by Star Trek. Yes, people write fan fiction, but that too is copyright infringement that authors/publishers may ignore or promote or stop as is their choice.

Why anyone would think that you could just write your own implementation of another companies product in such a way that it's customers could switch to your implementation with no change whatsoever....that's copyright infringement.

Google knew this when they came out with Android and simply took a chance rather than sign up for a license. I hope they get hammered.

According to that logic...

/**
 * AddTwoPlusTwo.java
 *
 * A basic program to add 2 + 2.
 *
 * Copyright June 30 2015 by Eli Schwartz. All Rights Reserved.
 */

class AddTwoPlusTwo
{
    public static void main(String[] args)
    {
        int ans = 2 + 2;
        System.out.println("The answer is: "+ans);
    }
}

The mathematical equation "2 + 2 = 4" as expressed through the java programming language is now copyrighted by me. Profit!

[rcentros]

The world is run by ****ing greedy lawyers.