Google's Oracle appeal denied - Page 3

Dopedangel · 07-13-2015, 02:44 AM

This ruling was because Judges don't understand programing and api's. The one judge that was a programer and understood programing ruled against Oracle. The US patent as well as the justice department needs to hire people that actually understand programing to have any realistic chance to stop patent trolls.
I count Oracle as patent troll in this as the only reason they bought Java was that they thought they could sue google and android.

Terisa de morgan · 07-13-2015, 03:20 AM

This is very confusing for me as an European developer. In Europe, you can not patent software. I could understand ruling against Google if they're using specific commercial libraries without licence but... paying by develop in Java language? :O What a sad day when Oracle bought Sun.

Terisa de morgan · 07-13-2015, 03:21 AM

Deleted

HarryT · 07-13-2015, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dopedangel

This ruling was because Judges don't understand programing and api's. The one judge that was a programer and understood programing ruled against Oracle. The US patent as well as the justice department needs to hire people that actually understand programing to have any realistic chance to stop patent trolls.
I count Oracle as patent troll in this as the only reason they bought Java was that they thought they could sue google and android.

To repeat yet again, this has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with patents. This was a case of copyright infringement. The US Patent Office was not involved in this in any way at all, and who they may or may not hire would not have affected the outcome of the case.

Terisa de morgan · 07-13-2015, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

To repeat yet again, this has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with patents. This was a case of copyright infringement. The US Patent Office was not involved in this in any way at all, and who they may or may not hire would not have affected the outcome of the case.

What's protected by copyright? The language itself or some other element?

HarryT · 07-13-2015, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

What's protected by copyright? The language itself or some other element?

The implementation of the language. They copied Oracle's code.

fjtorres · 07-13-2015, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

The implementation of the language. They copied Oracle's code.

Right down to the comments.
That is what guaranteed the loss.

Again: It is legal to duplicate the functunality of somebody else's software...as long as you do it *independently*. Once it became clear the Google guys had used the Java code the case was lost.

Google tried to muddy the waters by fighting over the APIs but it all came down to process, not product. It's not what they produced, but how. They cut lots of corners in creating Android and it all came back to bite them. And their OEMs.

latepaul · 07-13-2015, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

The implementation of the language. They copied Oracle's code.

The amount of code literally copied was very small. (I believe one 9-line function and some test files). The larger part of the claim was over the "Structure, sequence and organization" of the API. SSO is a technical term meaning, AIUI, that even though literal copying didn't take place, there was still infringement because the new code was deemed to be based on the old. IANAL and I can see how this could work but ISTM it's exactly the wrong sort of test for an API in particular, because an API by its nature is always going to have the same SSO whatever the implementation.

If an API can be copyrighted in this way it effectively locks out other implementations of the language, hence in the earlier judgement talk of

Quote:

...the danger of conferring a monopoly by copyright over what Congress expressly warned should be conferred only by patent.

HarryT · 07-13-2015, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Right down to the comments.
That is what guaranteed the loss.

Again: It is legal to duplicate the functunality of somebody else's software...as long as you do it *independently*. Once it became clear the Google guys had used the Java code the case was lost.

Google tried to muddy the waters by fighting over the APIs but it all came down to process, not product. It's not what they produced, but how. They cut lots of corners in creating Android and it all came back to bite them. And their OEMs.

Precisely. A "clean-room" reimplementation of the Java language and library not based on Oracle's source code would have been entirely legal. Google gambled on ripping off Oracle's source and lost.

Terisa de morgan · 07-13-2015, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

The implementation of the language. They copied Oracle's code.

So they copied the compiler/interpreter? My God...

eschwartz · 07-13-2015, 09:55 AM

HarryT, perhaps you would like to examine the actual, like, case and everything.

As latepaul pointed out, Google was found guilty of copying a single nine-line function. Here are the nine lines: https://majadhondt.wordpress.com/201...ogles-9-lines/

Additionally, Oracle waived their right to the minimal statutory damages they were eligible for.

The bulk of the case concerned APIs. The infamous concept of "structure, sequence, and organization".
The latest rulings on the Oracle vs. Google case have overturned all reason and a great deal of good precedence (and the pre-appeal verdict against Oracle) -- by declaring that APIs can be copyrighted, and that clean-room implementations violate copyrights on the APIs.

An excellent start to begin researching the case would be the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle...v._Google,_Inc.

HarryT · 07-13-2015, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eschwartz

HarryT, perhaps you would like to examine the actual, like, case and everything.

As latepaul pointed out, Google was found guilty of copying a single nine-line function. Here are the nine lines: https://majadhondt.wordpress.com/201...ogles-9-lines/

Additionally, Oracle waived heir right to the minimal statutory damages they were eligible for.

The bulk of the case concerned APIs. The infamous concept of "structure, sequence, and organization".
The latest rulings on the Oracle vs. Google case have overturned all reason and a great deal of good precedence (and the pre-appeal verdict against Oracle) -- by declaring that APIs can be copyrighted, and that clean-room implementations violate copyrights on the APIs.

An excellent start to begin researching the case would be the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle...v._Google,_Inc.

The details of what constituted the copyright infringement do not change the point I was making, which was that this was a copyright infringement case, not, as has been repeatedly and erroneously stated in this thread, a patent infringement issue.

fjtorres · 07-13-2015, 10:09 AM

9 lines is what was left *after* scrubbing the forensics.
Kinda like the killer that cleans up with bleach and misses a spot.

The whole process was tainted.
Sounds a lot like the scammers that do a global search and replace on character names and places on a story and republish it under their own name.

Plagiarism is a lot like pregnancy; it is binary test.
Yes-or-no.
Either they did none of it or they did it.
And the court found that the evidence proved to their satisfaction the entire body of work was based in some measure on Oracle's code.

eschwartz · 07-13-2015, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

The details of what constituted the copyright infringement do not change the point I was making, which was that this was a copyright infringement case, not, as has been repeatedly and erroneously stated in this thread, a patent infringement issue.

Unfortunately for you, you then proceeded to make another point entirely, that is, to stick up for Oracle by asserting that (emphasis mine):

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

The implementation of the language. They copied Oracle's code.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

Precisely. A "clean-room" reimplementation of the Java language and library not based on Oracle's source code would have been entirely legal. Google gambled on ripping off Oracle's source and lost.

And even more unfortunately for you, that is what I was responding to.

You can tell, because those were the points I debunked.

Which would you like to detract:

your assertions in posts #36 & #39
or your defense in post #42

But make up your mind, because they don't make much sense coming from the same person.

leebase · 07-13-2015, 10:38 AM

Whether you copied the code directly (which is analogous to taking a book and doing a search/replace on the character names, then selling it as your book)...

Or whether you just copied the "api's"/language syntax while completely writing your own code that makes it work (which is analogous to writing a book using the characters and universe set up in someone else's work...ala Star Trek) - it's still wrong/theft/appropriation of someone else's hard work devaluing their property and enhancing your own.

Now I said "wrong" because "illegal" is a lot more complicated. Then again, I subscribe to the notion of personal property and intellectual property and do not think society would be best served without those concepts.

07-13-2015, 03:21 AM	#33
Terisa de morgan Grand Sorcerer Posts: 6,628 Karma: 12595249 Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Device: Kobo Clara/Aura One/Forma,XiaoMI 5, iPad, Huawei MediaPad, YotaPhone 2	Deleted Last edited by Terisa de morgan; 07-13-2015 at 03:22 AM. Reason: Duplicated message

07-13-2015, 09:55 AM	#41
eschwartz Ex-Helpdesk Junkie Posts: 19,421 Karma: 85400180 Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: The Beaten Path, USA, Roundworld, This Side of Infinity Device: Kindle Touch fw5.3.7 (Wifi only)	HarryT, perhaps you would like to examine the actual, like, case and everything. As latepaul pointed out, Google was found guilty of copying a single nine-line function. Here are the nine lines: https://majadhondt.wordpress.com/201...ogles-9-lines/ Additionally, Oracle waived their right to the minimal statutory damages they were eligible for. The bulk of the case concerned APIs. The infamous concept of "structure, sequence, and organization". The latest rulings on the Oracle vs. Google case have overturned all reason and a great deal of good precedence (and the pre-appeal verdict against Oracle) -- by declaring that APIs can be copyrighted, and that clean-room implementations violate copyrights on the APIs. An excellent start to begin researching the case would be the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle...v._Google,_Inc. Last edited by eschwartz; 07-13-2015 at 10:10 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Google settles and pays damages over Oracle lawsuit	JoeD	News	8	06-22-2012 12:43 PM
Jury finds that Google doesn't infringe Oracle patent	afv011	News	8	05-31-2012 06:51 PM
Android 'important but not critical' to Google, says Page in Oracle trial	monkeyluis	Android Devices	8	04-20-2012 02:39 PM
Active ID Oracle	Oracle	Introduce Yourself	5	04-06-2010 07:06 PM

07-13-2015, 02:44 AM	#31
Dopedangel Wizard Posts: 1,793 Karma: 30548723 Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Singapore Device: Boyue	This ruling was because Judges don't understand programing and api's. The one judge that was a programer and understood programing ruled against Oracle. The US patent as well as the justice department needs to hire people that actually understand programing to have any realistic chance to stop patent trolls. I count Oracle as patent troll in this as the only reason they bought Java was that they thought they could sue google and android.

07-13-2015, 03:20 AM	#32
Terisa de morgan Grand Sorcerer Posts: 6,628 Karma: 12595249 Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Device: Kobo Clara/Aura One/Forma,XiaoMI 5, iPad, Huawei MediaPad, YotaPhone 2	This is very confusing for me as an European developer. In Europe, you can not patent software. I could understand ruling against Google if they're using specific commercial libraries without licence but... paying by develop in Java language? :O What a sad day when Oracle bought Sun.

07-13-2015, 10:09 AM	#43
fjtorres Grand Sorcerer Posts: 11,732 Karma: 128354696 Join Date: May 2009 Location: 26 kly from Sgr A* Device: T100TA,PW2,PRS-T1,KT,FireHD 8.9,K2, PB360,BeBook One,Axim51v,TC1000	9 lines is what was left after scrubbing the forensics. Kinda like the killer that cleans up with bleach and misses a spot. The whole process was tainted. Sounds a lot like the scammers that do a global search and replace on character names and places on a story and republish it under their own name. Plagiarism is a lot like pregnancy; it is binary test. Yes-or-no. Either they did none of it or they did it. And the court found that the evidence proved to their satisfaction the entire body of work was based in some measure on Oracle's code.

07-13-2015, 10:38 AM	#45
leebase Karma Kameleon Posts: 2,960 Karma: 26738313 Join Date: Aug 2009 Device: iPad Mini, iPhone X, Kindle Fire Tab HD 8, Walmart Onn	Whether you copied the code directly (which is analogous to taking a book and doing a search/replace on the character names, then selling it as your book)... Or whether you just copied the "api's"/language syntax while completely writing your own code that makes it work (which is analogous to writing a book using the characters and universe set up in someone else's work...ala Star Trek) - it's still wrong/theft/appropriation of someone else's hard work devaluing their property and enhancing your own. Now I said "wrong" because "illegal" is a lot more complicated. Then again, I subscribe to the notion of personal property and intellectual property and do not think society would be best served without those concepts.

Advert

Advert