or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google engineers defend source code, email in Oracle lawsuit over Java
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google engineers defend source code, email in Oracle lawsuit over Java - Page 2

post #41 of 66

A fairly major piece of news from the Judge. Instead of the jury deciding if API's are copyrightable in the first place, Judge Alsup is going to make that call himself. Sounds much more fair than an ill-informed or confused set of jurors trying to make that decision.

 

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120421131810380

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #42 of 66

Agreed. It also ties in to the "don't fix code that already works" rule. If you already solved a problem at some employer, trying to fix it in another way, and possibly create subtle bugs, is dumb, and might even qualify as a professionnal fault, as in "letting your ego (I'm zo good I can solve this in many wayz) be bigger than your duty to your company". Not to mention the fact that there are not that many ways to write a concise, clean, maintainable version of an algorithm, while retaining your own personal coding habits, your company's coding rules, etc.

For example, since we're talking Java here, I expect that two engineers solving a classic problem (say Fibonacci for the sake of example) using SUN's editing rules using the classic algorithm will write pretty much the same code.

 

Unless you actually invent something revolutionary, such as a new algorithm, you're mainly using simple rules, blocks and recipes. That's because rocket science or programming aren't_complicated, they are _complex_, which is very different, and doesn't mean either that they are easy. Rewriting these blocks again and again in asimilar fashion, but vonluntarily different introduces useless risks. Moreover, I can't help but find that writing code that does the same thing as code you wrote previously but is slightly different (say write two lines in a different order if it doesn't impact the algorithm, or use x=x+1 instead of x++, or whatever stupid trick...) is exactly like changing a few words/lines in an essay.(Yes, obviously, the person who wrote the essay would then be someone else, but it's just to make the point that if you end up rewriting code that's identical to code you already wrote and then have to "alter" it to avoid "intellectual property issues", you're deep in kafkaian territory). I'd even argue that code that's semantically/logically equivalent to another code IS that code... which then means that either, due to your better experience and further years of programming, you now wrote a better version of the code, you wrote the same code in a "disguised" way, you have identical code, or you PURPOSEDLY wrote worse code.

 

Since it seems to me that the first situation will actually rarely happen, the last situation seems like a professionnal fault and the two other solutions  seem to be illegal if I read the case right... what happens then? Should programmers stop working anytime they are askedto do something that has already been done? Looks like web development would stop instantly, among many other things :D

 

So, what should be done? It's a complicated world where you solve real problems using "virtual" tools, such as "Law". The good thing is, real people called judges (and sometimes extremely competent ones) are designated to arbitrate these real problems :D

 

-----

 

Talking about fixing things that worked... CAN I HAVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT SYSTEM THAT LOADED FAST AND WAS EASY TO READ BACK PLEASE? Or maybe thereis a toggle I don't see?

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #43 of 66

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

Agreed. It also ties in to the "don't fix code that already works" rule. If you already solved a problem at some employer, trying to fix it in another way, and possibly create subtle bugs, is dumb, and might even qualify as a professionnal fault, as in "letting your ego (I'm zo good I can solve this in many wayz) be bigger than your duty to your company". Not to mention the fact that there are not that many ways to write a concise, clean, maintainable version of an algorithm, while retaining your own personal coding habits, your company's coding rules, etc.

 

Except in a work for hire situation it's NOT your code.  It belongs to the company you worked for.  Which is why I typically rely on open source code for many of the reusable components and typically try to contribute enhancements back with my company's permission.  Or I blog the snippets and code examples and make sure my old employer is aware and okay that I'm doing that.  There's a lot of older code I wish I still had access to but meh...there's lots of newer code examples on the net these days to build from.

 

Besides, most code isn't directly reusable anyway or of such poor quality that a rewrite doesn't introduce more bugs or have been superseded by newer ways of doing things.

 

That last is ESPECIALLY true for Java.  I've seen a lot of coders use the old constructs from Java 1.1 that have been largely replaced by newer ways of doing things.  For example enumerators vs iterators, vectors vs current collection classes, etc.  I can understand for legacy code but for new programs it drives me batty when they do that.  If you choose enumerators because they are faster than iterators, that's one thing but 99% of the time its because either they are used to the old way or their old crufty "toolbox" is full of crufty old code from the 90s they are still reusing.

post #44 of 66

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

 

Except in a work for hire situation it's NOT your code.  It belongs to the company you worked for. 

 

I also explained how some (most?) programmers deal with this.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

Besides, most code isn't directly reusable anyway or of such poor quality that a rewrite doesn't introduce more bugs or have been superseded by newer ways of doing things.

 

 

I am confounded by such a statement coming from a (self-professed) professional programmer.  Even before the days of object-oriented programming, code reuse (templates, libraries, functions, procedures, etc.) was a common and necessary practice.  It is all the more the case now.  And please don't tell me you're superior to the Google programmers.

 

For Chrissakes, they even teach comp sci students how to write reusable code. You are not a programmer if you don't do it. Simple as that.


Edited by stelligent - 4/23/12 at 5:15am
post #45 of 66

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

Agreed. It also ties in to the "don't fix code that already works" rule. If you already solved a problem at some employer, trying to fix it in another way, and possibly create subtle bugs, is dumb, and might even qualify as a professionnal fault, as in "letting your ego (I'm zo good I can solve this in many wayz) be bigger than your duty to your company". Not to mention the fact that there are not that many ways to write a concise, clean, maintainable version of an algorithm, while retaining your own personal coding habits, your company's coding rules, etc.

For example, since we're talking Java here, I expect that two engineers solving a classic problem (say Fibonacci for the sake of example) using SUN's editing rules using the classic algorithm will write pretty much the same code.

 

 

Sort of agree. But it's neither about not fixing working code nor about ego-feeding. It's a matter of practicality. We just cannot write code fast enough to keep up if we don't reuse. Anyone who denies this is not a programmer.

post #46 of 66

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

 

 

If you truly program for a living and have worked for more than one company, you reuse/recycle code as a matter of course. There are different ways of doing it. Never met a true programmer who does not recycle code in some ways.  Copying and pasting is VERY common but it is wise to modify it after you are close to a deadline. My point was that, sometimes, we just forget to *fix* everything.

 


Here is the problem with what you just said, it means that programers when the walk out the door of a company they left with code in their pockets which is not really theirs for the taking. I know in the software world this is pretty easy and innocent to do, however, as much as most programmers would like to believe the code belongs to them, it does not they were paid by an employer for that work therefore they do not own it. In the hardware world this generally does not happen as much, people do walk out with designs but it much hard to do.

 

In this case if they copies specific code from another source they are sitting on shaky ground, I do not care if it is open source or not or even if it was copyrighted or not. This is a problem in the programmer world most see no value in the code and they tend to treat it that way all the time.

post #47 of 66

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

 

 

There are two fundamental misunderstandings in your perspective.  First of all, we are talking about reusing one's own code, not plagiarizing (although plagiarism is rampant too).  Now, arguably, that's still illegal (well, perhaps there is no argument about that) if you develop code on someone's payroll.  

 

Second, programmers do not need any lesson here.  It's a matter of practicality.  Reality is that the software industry simply CANNOT function with code recycling. It's an unspoken but universal practice.  Some try to as ethical as possible and take care to reuse an algorithm but not the code.  Some change the variable names, etc.  Sometimes, when you have to deliver something functional in 24 hrs, you just copy and paste, and fix the copyright problem later.  

 

Do you honestly believe there are that many people who can produce 1000 lines of original code day in day out?

 

Do you honestly believe that there are an infinite number of ways to code certain fundamental functions?

 

How do you think full-featured apps and websites can be developed so fast?

 

Many experienced programmers have code catalogues.  There are even programs that recycle code automatically (with basic changes). 

 

 

 

 

Here is the issue as I pointed out before, if you work for company, you do not own the code, you never did and never will, it is the sole property of your employer, unless they turn it over to you.

 

Your correct they is not an infinite way of writes code to do the exact same thing. However, if you can show you wrote it yourself and have no exposure to code write by others they it will be mute point. This is why many companies will do what they call a clean room development. They do not hire people form a competitors or hire anyone with a particular background. They take these "clean people" have them go offer an develop a competing product. If they get challenge they can show they did it all on there own with no influence from a competitor.

 

This actually happen to apple back in the early 90, they developed a clean room mac clone and when Apple went after them they lost, because they showed they did without copying anything from Apple including the ROMs.

 

post #48 of 66

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

 

I am confounded by such a statement coming from a (self-professed) professional programmer.  Even before the days of object-oriented programming, code reuse (templates, libraries, functions, procedures, etc.) was a common and necessary practice.  It is all the more the case now.  And please don't tell me you're superior to the Google programmers.

 

For Chrissakes, they even teach comp sci students how to write reusable code. You are not a programmer if you don't do it. Simple as that.

 

Your code catalog:  code you've saved from old projects...

 

My code catalog:  Apache, github, java.net, java2s, stackoverflow, sourceforge, codeproject, google code...

 

Your reuse:  Need a REST interface?  Lift it from an old project.  Need DB scaffolding?  Lift it from an old project.  Etc.

 

My reuse:  Need a REST interface?  Use Restlet, Jersey or RestSharp.  Need DB scaffolding?  Use Hibernate or nHibernate.  Etc.

 

Who likely has more code to reuse?  

 

Which code catalog is likely to contain better code?  Which code catalog is likely to contain UP TO DATE code?

 

I've seen a lot of "sub-optimal" code being "reused".  Code you look at and think "this was not very good practice in 2002.  It sure as hell isn't good practice in 2012".  Code you look at and think "Jesus, WTF didn't they just use XXX from Apache like any other sane person and not some private library of their own that has no documentation, works like ass because its using constructs from 10 years ago, isn't thread safe and just plain sucks overall.  This damn code is older than my kid and he can probably write "Hello World" now."

 

I used to have a "code catalog"...back when I coded C and FORTRAN. 

 

Today, I have the internet.  Maybe you've heard of it?

 

Anything generic enough to be part of your personal toolbox/catalog is out there.  Anything NOT generic enough is valuable IP owned by your employer that they paid you to produce.  If you ask to open source it (either as a code snippet on your blog, an article/answer on stackoverflow/ or as a formal part of a FOSS project) and they agree then great.  Then it's not just part of your toolbox but everyone's.  If not and you want to use it on your next job...that's up to you.  It's just like piracy.  Call it what you want, justify it how you like, I don't really care. What you do is not my concern. I simply choose not to and I don't suffer not doing so given the amount of code out there today.

 

Besides, code reuse is nothing compared to pattern reuse in time savings.

 

Knowing how to solve problems is what makes a craftsman.  Not that whether or not he is "reusing" his previous employer's tools for the next job. 

post #49 of 66

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro64 View Post

 

This is why many companies will do what they call a clean room development. They do not hire people form a competitors or hire anyone with a particular background. They take these "clean people" have them go offer an develop a competing product. If they get challenge they can show they did it all on there own with no influence from a competitor.

 

From my understanding, we were basically arguing that people who rewrite code that does the same thing may end up with identical code than they had before. Are you saying that programmers should not be allowed to switch jobs ever, since they may "rewrite the same code"? 

 

After a stint at Apple/Microsoft/Google/IBM/Bank of America, you go and be a sailorman?

 

While it would vastly increase the amount of sailormen, I doubt this is what you meant...

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #50 of 66

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

 

From my understanding, we were basically arguing that people who rewrite code that does the same thing may end up with identical code than they had before. Are you saying that programmers should not be allowed to switch jobs ever, since they may "rewrite the same code"? 

 

After a stint at Apple/Microsoft/Google/IBM/Bank of America, you go and be a sailorman?

 

While it would vastly increase the amount of sailormen, I doubt this is what you meant...

 

Rewriting is one thing.  Copying is another.  Seems like Bloch knows it's not a good thing to do:
 
Quote:

"I don't recall," Bloch testified. However, he suggested in a deposition from 2011 that the fact that the code is in the same order and has the same name is "a strong indicator that it is likely" that he did copy the code. Bloch went on to say that he doesn't remember accessing copyrighted code, but that it might have happened.

 
"Under the circumstances I wrote the code, yes, I'm perfectly willing to believe it," he said. "If I did, it was a mistake, and I'm sorry I did it." 

 

9 lines isn't a lot but you don't accidentally cut and paste just 9 lines.  Who does that without doing more?
post #51 of 66

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

From my understanding, we were basically arguing that people who rewrite code that does the same thing may end up with identical code than they had before. Are you saying that programmers should not be allowed to switch jobs ever, since they may "rewrite the same code"? 

 

After a stint at Apple/Microsoft/Google/IBM/Bank of America, you go and be a sailorman?

 

While it would vastly increase the amount of sailormen, I doubt this is what you meant...

 


Actually what I am saying is your not allowed to walk out the door with a CD/DVD filled with a copy or source code, library and the such that you developred as part of being paid for working for a company. The problem is many companies are lacks in their protection of their code. However, I know some companies as soon as you tell the company you are leaving they will locked you out of your system and the company network so you can not take anything with you.

post #52 of 66

Somewhat related, Oracle has lost the GSA's business after a $200M False-Claims Act settlement where they were accused of billing the government for 10's of millions in falsified charges.

 

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2012/04/six-months-after-suit-between-them-settles-gsa-ends-contract-with-oracle.html

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #53 of 66

An interesting fact that I hadn't seen mentioned. There's been a lot of talk that Google copied numerous complete files and who knows how many lines of code belonging to Oracle. Not said was that Oracle designed a program to ferret out all that copying and gosh by golly, it didn't exist. The only thing they were able to find were 9 lines in a single file (rangeCheck) out of millions. Oracle isn't claiming Google copied Java code any longer. They're not even saying the 37 API's frequently mentioned are copies. It's more to the effect Google used the organization of those API's when they created the ones for Android. Oracle's IP arguments have changed significantly from the original claims suggesting multi-billions in damages.

 

From Ars:

Oracle is "not even in the ballpark" when it comes to proving similarities between the 37 Java APIs it claims ownership of, and Android's own APIs. And, he emphasized, Oracle isn't accusing Google of copying code—because it can't. After designing a computer program to analyze Android's millions of lines of code, Oracle found only nine lines of copied code in a function called rangeCheck(). That code, accidentally inserted by a Google engineer who testified last week, has been removed from all current versions of Android. "Other than the nine lines of code in rangecheck, everything in Android is original," said Van Nest—created entirely by Google engineers, or with Apache open source code.
 

In a few days we'll know how the jury views it. Microsoft, Amazon and several others are interested in finding whether coding language is copyrightable. The results will affect a whole lot of companies other than Google and Oracle.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #54 of 66

The jury in the Google/Oracle spat may be close to reaching a decision, with questions for the Judge on fair use. Oracle objected to the jury considering all the evidence presented including that which showed other uses of Java for which no license was required nor asked. According to Oracle the jury should only be concerned with Google's use, not evidence of permission granted to others sans licensing. That's an interesting objection: Don't allow the jury to consider all the evidence, instead only certain parts.

 

"Oracle attorney Michael Jacobs insisted that the jury not consider other companies' use of Java code, while Google's lead attorney Robert Van Nest countered that the jury should be allowed to consider "any and all evidence in record."


"There are two ways to look at copyright infringement - copy and substantial similarity," Van Nest (Google) said. "Apache's code was open source. Since the code is different in Android, it's clear it didn't come from Sun's source but from Apache. License or public dedication is for the judge to decide. Availability in regard to deciding whether infringement took place is for the jury to decide."
     

Jacobs fired back: "If they copied through Apache, that doesn't excuse their copying. So it's not proper to look at all evidence in the record."
  

Van Nest countered: "It's wrong to tell the jury they can't consider that Google copied from open source. All Oracle proved was similarity. The standard is comparing 37 to 166 [APIs]. It's wrong to tell the jury that can't look at all the evidence to determine infringement."

 

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/01/46138.htm
 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #55 of 66

This is a ruling handed down from the High Court (EU) yesterday on software and whether it can be copyrighted:

 

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that neither the functionality of a computer program nor the programming language and the format of data files used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of expression of that program and, as such, are not protected by copyright in computer programs for the purposes of that directive.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=122362&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=130587

 

It went on to say:

"To accept that the functionality of a computer program can be protected by copyright would amount to making it possible to monopolise ideas, to the detriment of technological progress and industrial development."

"In this respect, the Court takes the view that, in the present case, the keywords, syntax, commands and combinations of commands, options, defaults and iterations consist of words, figures or mathematical concepts, considered in isolation, are not, as such, an intellectual creation of the author of that program."

 

In other words had Oracle filed copyright claims in Europe it would have been dead on arrival. Proof again that North America and Europe have different standards on software protections.

 

EDIT: A link to the easier to read press release is here:

http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-05/cp120053en.pdf


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/2/12 at 6:24am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #56 of 66

Based purely on a question asked by the jury, they may rule (at least in part) in favor of Oracle.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #57 of 66

It now appears the jury may be unable to render a verdict. "Deadlocked " is the latest rumor. In the meantime Judge Alsop has asked both Google and Apple to submit answers to some questions he has put forth after having time to read the opinion of the EU High court from yesterday that API's are not copyrightable in the first place. 
 

This certainly isn't the slam dunk case that some prognosticators predicted. Mr Mueller may end up disappointed. FWIW he told me today that Google's use of JAVA was reckless infringement, and apparently he's no fan of the EU High Court's opinion on software copyrights going by today's blog. A safe guess he's no longer a FOSS advocate.

 

Ars also has a good synopsis of where things stand as of tonight.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/05/oracle-google-judge-asks-for-comment-on-eu-court-ruling.ars

 

Google may well come out on the losing end when all is done, but it's clearly not easy and obvious that Google is in the wrong. 

 

EDIT: Hill60, the Johnson Controls case I see you copy from FOSSPatents doesn't say what you (or he) thinks it does. It makes no ruling on whether API's can be copyrighted, and in addition was super-ceded by a case between Feist Publications and Rural Telephone Service. Florian just forgot to mention that one.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm

 

In any case whether API can be copyrighted to begin with is just what Judge Alsop may have to rule on, something that hasn't ever been determined in a US court AFAIK.


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/4/12 at 6:29am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #58 of 66

An interesting turn. The jury isn't able to come up with a decision on copyrights, but Judge Alsup would like to get a partial verdict rather than completely start over.
 


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/4/12 at 4:19pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #59 of 66

The jury, unable to render a verdict on one of the most important three questions they were tasked with, has gone home for the weekend. There's some shred of hope that they can come to an agreement Monday morning, but in any case Judge Alsup is not going to delay the patent portion of the suit. That's still expected to begin on Monday.

 

There's a possibility that the Judge may ask for a partial verdict on the points the jury was able to agree on if they can't move forward on Monday. Beyond that he has also signaled an issue with the copyrightability of API's, at the forefront of the copyright legal proceedings. (The trial is split into three parts: copyright phase, patents, and then damages if warranted). The counsels have until the middle of this month to submit pleadings on the EU High Courts determination that copyrights on API's aren't permissible. Keep in mind that Judge Alsup gave notice that he would determine the copyright-ability, not the jury.

 

Nothing of importance expected before Monday morning.
 

EDIT: My apology for not writing what those three "most important" questions are:

 

A. Has Oracle proven that Google has infringed the overall structure,
sequence and organization of copyrighted works?

Yes __________ No __________(IF YOU ANSWER “NO” TO QUESTION 1A, THEN SKIP TO QUESTION NO. 2.)

B. Has Google proven that its use of the overall structure, sequence
and organization constituted “fair use”?

Yes __________ No __________

Second question:

2. As to the documentation for the 37 Java API packages in question taken as a
group:A. Has Oracle proven that Google has infringed?<p>

Yes __________ No __________(IF YOU ANSWER “NO” TO QUESTION 2A, THEN SKIP TO QUESTION NO. 3.)

B. Has Google proven that its use of Oracle’s Java documentation
constituted “fair use”?

Yes __________ No __________

And the third question:

 

3. Has Oracle proven that Google’s conceded use of the following was infringing,
the only issue being whether such use was de minimis:
         (Infringing)      (Not Infringing)
A.The rangeCheck method in TimSort.java and ComparableTimSort.

B.JavaSource code in seven files and the one in ACL file

C.The English-language comments in CodeSourceTest.java and
CollectionCertStoreParametersTest.java

Edited by Gatorguy - 5/4/12 at 2:12pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #60 of 66

A couple more notes from the past few days while we wait for court news Monday morning:

 

 

Some of Judge Alsup's comments in the courtroom in recent days suggested that he is skeptical of Oracle's position.

"If someone were to give you an assignment and say, 'Go write a guide book on how to drive from San Francisco to Monterey,' and everybody could sit down and write their own two-page thing on that, there would be some similarities. But the idea is not protected," Alsup said in court last Friday.

"Implementations are not derivative works. They are independent works, that simply start with the idea of the specification," he argued. "When somebody looks at a specification, and says, this is the input, and these are the outputs... programmers each use their own creativity" to implement it. This line of argument may lead Alsup to conclude that the "sequence, structure, and organization" of APIs are not copyrightable.

Indeed, some of the questions Alsup raised in his Thursday memo pressed further on this point. "Is the input-output (i.e., argument and return) scheme of a method copyrightable?" he asked. "For example, can someone copyright the function of inputting an angle and outputting the cosine of that angle? If someone has a copyright on a particular program to find cosines, does that copyright cover all other implementations that perform the identical function (input = angle, output = cosine)?"

Alsup also asked about the significance of a precedent that Oracle has cited repeatedly. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit—whose rulings Judge Alsup is not necessarily bound to follow—found that some aspects of a dental taxonomy are eligible for copyright protection.

Google and Oracle have a week to submit their detailed 20-page briefs responding to the Judge's questions.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/05/oracle-google-judge-asks-for-comment-on-eu-court-ruling.ars

 


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/6/12 at 5:15pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #61 of 66

Still no jury agreement in the copyright phase, but over the weekend one dumb juror decided it was a good idea to discuss patents with her husband "who knows a lot about it". She's now in a private conference with the judge. I'd expect she'll no longer be involved since the patent phase is now getting underway. Could be lucky if he only sends her home as punishment.

 

EDIT: The judge is letting her continue. He called in the rest of the jury to ask if anyone was influenced by anything she said today. Since they weren't he's allowing her to finish this part at least. Neither counsel is challenging it since neither can figure out who she favors.

 

Probably no more than additional icing for an expected appeal no matter who wins the copyright portion of the trial.


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/7/12 at 11:07am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #62 of 66

You;ll need to refer to the jury questions I posted above. They're unable to arrive a a complete verdict and neither Oracle or Google is happy with what they did agree on. For question 1A they ruled there was some level of copyright infringement. On whether it was fair use, 1B, they couldn't come to agreement, tho some of the onsite reporters guess that they were primarily going with Google on this one with one holdout juror.

 

On question two, no infringement by Google. That means the Judge won't necessarily need to rule on copyright-ability and part 2B doesn't apply.

Correction: He'll still be rendering a judgement in a week or so on whether API's can have a copyright to begin with.

 

Question three they found only Timsort, 3A, to be a problem and no infringement on any of the other files in parts 3B or 3C.

 

In the end, expect both parties to request a mistrial on the copyright phase. We'll see what the judge rules. As it stands now Oracle loses out almost across the board on their claims, getting only one line of statutory damages. Google apparently feels confident that can get rid of even that single affirmative claim in a retrial as they're pushing for a do-over.

 

If I was Google I might say it's fine as is and here's your $75K in damages rather than go thru the whole exercise again. Judge Alsup will make his ruling by Thursday. The judge has told the attorneys for both sides that unless he rules for Oracle that he (the judge) decides on the fair use question, then expect very little in the way of damages for the jury to consider.

 

EDIT2: The completed jury verdict form is linked here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/92725855/Completed-verdict-form-in-Oracle-Google

 

EDIT3: ... and I got all that in before Mr. Mueller. LOL

His article is here: http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/05/partial-verdict-finds-google-to-have.html


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/7/12 at 12:45pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #63 of 66

The LATimes has an article on today's court results. Oracle's not happy (nor is Google who wanted to be completely exonerated), with the damages from the copyright phase of the trial to be somewhere between $200 and $150,000. That's not nearly enough to even cover some of their legal costs. In addition there won't be any injunctions and no need for Google to re-write Android. 

 

 

"Although the jury found that Google infringed on the largest of Oracle’s claims, it could not agree on whether Google was legally protected under the fair use doctrine, a key issue in the case. That limits Oracle to statutory damages, which range from $200 to $150,000. And Google will not have to redesign its Android software."

"After the jury left the courtroom, Oracle attorney David Boies suggested Oracle was entitled to more than statutory damages and should receive a share of Google’s profits. U.S. District Judge William Alsup said the request bordered "on the ridiculous."

http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-partial-verdict-seen-as-setback-for-oracle-in-copyright-case-against-google-20120507,0,1923611.story

 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #64 of 66

I think it's more to cover their butts on the outside chance Judge Alsup were to accept Oracle's argument and rule on "fair use" as a matter of law, and go even further and rule for Oracle. In that case the statutory damages wouldn't apply. However nothing the judge has said to this point would indicate he's leaning in that direction.

 

On a side-note Florian Mueller is quite upset and disappointed by what's happened going by his blog. I find that highly unusual for someone supposedly committed to FOSS. How could someone with a claimed career-long advocacy of Free and Open Source Software strongly support the copyright-ability of API's? IMHO the likely explanation is he's being driven by Oracle and it's money.


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/8/12 at 4:00pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #65 of 66

As a sign of just how insignificant this suit has become the Judge is encouraging the attorneys to agree that the damages portion of the case should just be done away with. The potential penalties are so small that he doesn't want to bother a jury with arguments for each side. Barring any change the maximum statutory damages are $150K, something the judge can set himself.

 

Predictably Oracle has changed their tune since the trial began, and now it's all about the money. Principles, if there ever were any, are out the window. They want Judge Alsup to give them some of Google's profits too, which he called ridiculous for using only 9 lines of Oracle code in the millions that make up Android.

 

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/05/damages-oracle-google/?utm_source=Contextly&utm_medium=RelatedLinks&utm_campaign=Previous

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #66 of 66

The jury finally rendered it's verdict regarding 8 Oracle claims that Google had appropriated their IP .

 

Google not guilty of any IP infringement. 

 

The third part of the trial to determine damages won't be needed, at least for now.

 

http://www.mobileburn.com/19667/news/jury-finds-google-not-guilty-of-infringing-oracles-java-patents-with-android

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google engineers defend source code, email in Oracle lawsuit over Java