This article makes it sound like Google's only hope is the use of web apps through Chrome if they lose the lawsuit to Oracle. Google has already developed an alternative to Dalvik which is present on any device running Android 4.4 KitKat--it's called ART. Not only does it supposedly avoid all of these issues with Oracle, but it is also supposed to speed everything up on the OS. A double win!
A double win? So Google can steal IP and use it until they come up with something better and not have to pay any consequences for past infringement all those years?
Still funny hearing whiners complaining about Mueller. Sure he's been under the employment of Oracle and Microsoft, but that doesn't change whether or not Google is guilty of anything. And he still provides links to original documents so anyone can read the source for themselves.
It's too bad Groklaw isn't around to see this. PJ chickened out and used that e-mail NSA thing as a pathetic excuse to stop reporting on these issues. I think she just couldn't stand the fact she was about to be proven wrong on so many fronts.
Google is moving towards ART like you mentioned which compiles downloaded apps to native code rather than interpreted via Dalvik. Plus, it yields far better performance.
That make me laugh, ART is still a VM but instead of a JIT like Dalvik, ART is an OAT (Ahead-of-time), this mean apps still got a performance taxes from running inside a virtual machine abstraction layer.
If ART yields so much better performance, but still can't match native compiled C code, does it confirm how bad current Dalvik performances are?
This article makes it sound like Google's only hope is the use of web apps through Chrome if they lose the lawsuit to Oracle. Google has already developed an alternative to Dalvik which is present on any device running Android 4.4 KitKat--it's called ART. Not only does it supposedly avoid all of these issues with Oracle, but it is also supposed to speed everything up on the OS. A double win!
Does ART use a different API? Because the court case involves copyright infringement of the Java API. ART appears to be a compiler for Java... ahem, Dalvik code, and the Java API is still utilized.
Does ART use a different API? Because the court case involves copyright infringement of the Java API. ART appears to be a compiler for Java... ahem, Dalvik code, and the Java API is still utilized.
You've got a good point here, ART can run Dalvik apps, so it should use the same Java-ish API from Dalvik.
A double win? So Google can steal IP and use it until they come up with something better and not have to pay any consequences for past infringement all those years?
Examples of Google's IP theft are a little sparse eh? I think if you actually checked you might discover Apple has been found guilty of IP infringement in a court of law more often than Google. I'm quite certain when Apple is found to be infringing you don't consider it theft do you?
Examples of Google's IP theft are a little sparse eh? I think if you actually checked you might discover Apple has been found guilty of IP infringement in a court of law more often than Google. I'm quite certain when Apple is found to be infringing you don't consider it theft do you?
Google copied millions of books in their entirety without authorization by the copyright holders. Yes, Google was just let off the hook after a major court battle that just about only Google would dare to encourage and just about only Google could afford to defend, but Google did settle earlier with publishers in exchange for money. Did you furget that?
When has Apple infringed another's IP in a major way? Kinda sparse and largely inconsequential in the scheme of things is it?
That make me laugh, ART is still a VM but instead of a JIT like Dalvik, ART is an OAT (Ahead-of-time), this mean apps still got a performance taxes from running inside a virtual machine abstraction layer.
If ART yields so much better performance, but still can't match native compiled C code, does it confirm how bad current Dalvik performances are?
An ahead-of-time (AOT) compiler is a compiler that implements ahead-of-time compilation. This refers to the act of compiling an intermediate language, such as Java bytecode, .NET Common Intermediate Language (CIL), or IBM System/38 or IBM System i "Technology Independent Machine Interface" code, into a system-dependent binary.
...
AOT in most cases produces machine optimized code, just like a 'standard' native compiler. The difference is that AOT transforms the bytecode of an existing virtual machine into machine code. AOT compilers can perform complex and advanced code optimizations which in most cases of JITing will be considered much too costly. On the other hand AOT can't usually perform some optimizations possible in JIT, like runtime profile-guided optimizations, pseudo-constant propagation or indirect/virtual functioninlining.
Very good read, and for those who thing ART is the fix, think again. It just another band-aid in an already poor architecture Andy choose to go forward with. I never realize that Android was an interrupter and the apps were not actually compiles. This allows for bad programming habits and explain why Android apps just do not work as well as they iOS equivalent.
The google store will still be load with Apps design to run in a Java environment and you have to guess how long it will take developers to convert all their apps to be compiled code. You know as long as old non-ART version are still out there developers will hold off. Every time you load an apple it have to make sure the ART feature is enable so that it compiles the program so it will run faster otherwise it will be like running on non-ART systems. What a kludge they have put together here.
As I said before it will be another level of fragmentation they will introduce to developers and consumer to deal with.
I'm not a developer, so I can't speak to what's involved about writing apps for android. I do know that many, if not most android apps already run fine using ART. So I'm not sure what changes actually need to be made, though I'm sure there are optimizations to be made. There is no doubt that Apple went the right way from the start, while it took Google several years to realize its mistake. That being said, the apps I use on android work quite well, and compare favorably to what I use on iOS. There are some exceptions of course. The moves that Google has made recently to improve development, such as moving many native apps to the play store and allowing API's to be updated through the google play store services, are pretty significant. I understand the level of fanboyism here can be a little stifling, but don't let that fool you into thinking android is an inferior mobile OS to iOS.
An ahead-of-time (AOT) compiler is a compiler that implements ahead-of-time compilation. This refers to the act of compiling an intermediate language, such as Java bytecode, .NET Common Intermediate Language (CIL), or IBM System/38 or IBM System i "Technology Independent Machine Interface" code, into a system-dependent binary.
What is your points?
Yes they are other bytecode environment, iOS and OSX compiler itself is the prime example of a low level virtual machine bytecode runtime environment as LLVM stands for.
Beside you can't compare a byte coded binary apps coming from compiler like .NET or LLVM, running on a really thin abstraction layer more like a virtual hypervisor than fully Virtualized machine like Java SE, DalvikVM or ART. The performance taxes much less to do with how fast the code is running and more on how fast your can access the machines input and output ressources, this is why every java apps including Dalvik will always suffer in responsiveness and perceptible performance.
I'm just wondering - aren't any court wins for Oracle against Google at this point just pyrrhic victories?
The big win for Oracle would be bringing Dalvik "into the Java fold" by enforcing gpl licensing which would make all the closed parts of android truly open not hidden away by Google's bastardised apache license.
Samsung even used an Apple legal team mistake of "releasing some of Android's protected source code" in their current sanctions case over leaking "attorney's eyes only" licensing information to Samsung's executives.
I read this up until I saw the words "MORANIAN MULLEUR~"
Moranian has already admitted in court to being a paid schill for Oracle and Microsoft. For any one to quote him as an authority is just ridiculous. He should have lost all credibility last year when he guaranteed that Oracle had 6 BILLION in the bag on the initial complaint.
Author must be 12 years old or not able to research.
So why don't you tell us what went on in the courtroom, Mueller reported tweets made by others who were there.
Examples of Google's IP theft are a little sparse eh? I think if you actually checked you might discover Apple has been found guilty of IP infringement in a court of law more often than Google. I'm quite certain when Apple is found to be infringing you don't consider it theft do you?
Only by your twisted (and so often incorrect view).
Tell that to the dozens of Android OEMs that are paying Microsoft royalties for IP in Android that Google used (without even bothering to get a license for). Or how about VP8 that Google claimed was "free from patent encumbrances" and then later had to settle with MPEG-LA. Even now others (like Nokia) are going after VP8 as there's still more IP involved.
There's also a big difference between a company being found guilty of using some obscure IP a patent troll owns (like so many Apple cases) and intentionally using IP (the two examples I gave above) like Google does. Or are you so stupid you actually think Google was never aware Android infringed MS IP (or VP8 didn't use MPEG-LA or Nokia IP)?
Before you start mouthing off about Apple being found guilty of using Samsung SEP's (as an example) remember that Samsung has been abusing their SEP's and trying to make extortionist demands from Apple. Apple has always said they will pay a fair rate for use, but want a court to decide that amount. Please show me anywhere that Google made such a statement in regards to Microsoft (that they were willing to deal, but MS made ridiculous demands).
What I find strange is that Google wants to make itself look petty and cheap. They could easily admit their errors and simply broadly license Java from Oracle and be done with it. Instead they seem to be hell bent on turning the Androud ecosystem upside down. Even if Oracle charged a billion dollars Google could easily handle the costs.
The not going to license it. For 2 reasons.
1 They had the blessing from SUN Micro to use Java... obviously that depends on who you ask.
2 They are not using Mobile Java which Oracle want to force them to use. They have forked the Java stack to suit their requirements which has got Larry's skipper pants in a knot.
Good for them to consolidate Chrome and Android it makes sense and it has always been on the cards.
If you read Mueller’s work he supports his opinions with legally sound ideas that, over time, have an extremely high accuracy rate. Compare that to the Android fans who love Google so much they are now on the fifth generation of expectation of the Coming of the Android Prophet Phone.
Google has failed worldwide in courts on both sides: found to be willingly infringing IP of others while professing a disdain for patents, and at the same time hypocritically suing other companies over Standards Essential Patents. That’s something that both the US and EU have been investigating as antitrust behavior. Abusively trying to hurt customers (like Apple’s push mail service in Germany, feature blocked by a temporary injunction that Google got before it failed to prove involved any infringement).
As for your personal attacks about how Mueller is a consultant in an industry where he works for some of the companies he reports on: baseless, character assassination makes you look very lacking in credibility.
You make your own bed, and if you're caught stretching theories to one extreme side of the argument - and being paid by that party - it's probably not a good time to keep digging.
The whole patent world is a complete mess; objective reporting and well argued journalism is of great value. If his name appears in an article, then his track record (as cited above) suggests we'll get neither. If he gets to cite his commercial interests where he's quoted, all fair game. The fact that this is not his norm - it's an ad written as an editorial - detracts from his own "brand values".
You make your own bed, and if you're caught stretching theories to one extreme side of the argument - and being paid by that party - it's probably not a good time to keep digging.
The whole patent world is a complete mess; objective reporting and well argued journalism is of great value. If his name appears in an article, then his track record (as cited above) suggests we'll get neither. If he gets to cite his commercial interests where he's quoted, all fair game. The fact that this is not his norm - it's an ad written as an editorial - detracts from his own "brand values".
First off, FOSS Patents posts scores of in depth reports on global cases every month. If you think citing one example of a possible outcome that didn’t immediately occur lets you confidently state that nothing Mueller writes is reliable, you need to get serious.
Also, if you say things like "stretching theories to one extreme side of the argument" you can’t then cite Graklaw, a one sided propaganda site that only argues a single extremist line of Google’s talking points, contradicting itself as much as Google’s own hypocrisy does.
Google bots like yourself attack Mueller because he cuts through the "open" rhetoric bandied about by Eric Schmidt and the company’s blatant disregard for every other company’s IP while attempting to abuse any patents it can obtain itself.
Google copied millions of books in their entirety without authorization by the copyright holders. Yes, Google was just let off the hook after a major court battle that just about only Google would dare to encourage and just about only Google could afford to defend, but Google did settle earlier with publishers in exchange for [SIZE=16px]money[/SIZE]. Did you furget that?
When has Apple infringed another's IP in a major way? Kinda sparse and largely inconsequential in the scheme of things is it?
So no proof of Google's "theft" then? By the way, I don't recall Google settling with publishers in return for money. While it sounds like it could be a reasonable outcome I'd love to read about how much they paid and if it's an ongoing thing. Any link?
Also, if you say things like "stretching theories to one extreme side of the argument" you can’t then cite Graklaw, a one sided propaganda site that only argues a single extremist line of Google’s talking points, contradicting itself as much as Google’s own hypocrisy does.
Google bots like yourself attack Mueller because he cuts through the "open" rhetoric bandied about by Eric Schmidt and the company’s blatant disregard for every other company’s IP while attempting to abuse any patents it can obtain itself.
One of the many things I've learned from Mr Mueller is that in tech there really is only one good guy, one company above all reproach. Only one company he's never had a bad thing to say about in his blog. Only one company that truly believes in "Don't be evil", that operates completely above board at all times. That company is Microsoft. All others, Apple included, are flawed in his view.
EDIT: Maybe two angelic companies as I can't find any complaint whatsoever about Oracle either. What a coincidence.
This case revolves around copyright, and the apparent misinterpretation of fair use as a measure of validity by Albright.
Albright?
Not misinterpretation of fair use but instead copyrightability. According to reports the Appeals Court isn't questioning "fair use" at this point but instead whether API's can be copyrighted in the first place. If it rules they can be then the next step would apparently be another trial by the original court to determine if Google properly made "fair use" of the copyrighted material.
By the way this appeal is still vaguely attached to Oracle's patent infringement claims. If not for the original patent complaints Oracle could not have appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Comments
This article makes it sound like Google's only hope is the use of web apps through Chrome if they lose the lawsuit to Oracle. Google has already developed an alternative to Dalvik which is present on any device running Android 4.4 KitKat--it's called ART. Not only does it supposedly avoid all of these issues with Oracle, but it is also supposed to speed everything up on the OS. A double win!
A double win? So Google can steal IP and use it until they come up with something better and not have to pay any consequences for past infringement all those years?
Still funny hearing whiners complaining about Mueller. Sure he's been under the employment of Oracle and Microsoft, but that doesn't change whether or not Google is guilty of anything. And he still provides links to original documents so anyone can read the source for themselves.
It's too bad Groklaw isn't around to see this. PJ chickened out and used that e-mail NSA thing as a pathetic excuse to stop reporting on these issues. I think she just couldn't stand the fact she was about to be proven wrong on so many fronts.
Google is moving towards ART like you mentioned which compiles downloaded apps to native code rather than interpreted via Dalvik. Plus, it yields far better performance.
That make me laugh, ART is still a VM but instead of a JIT like Dalvik, ART is an OAT (Ahead-of-time), this mean apps still got a performance taxes from running inside a virtual machine abstraction layer.
If ART yields so much better performance, but still can't match native compiled C code, does it confirm how bad current Dalvik performances are?
This article makes it sound like Google's only hope is the use of web apps through Chrome if they lose the lawsuit to Oracle. Google has already developed an alternative to Dalvik which is present on any device running Android 4.4 KitKat--it's called ART. Not only does it supposedly avoid all of these issues with Oracle, but it is also supposed to speed everything up on the OS. A double win!
Does ART use a different API? Because the court case involves copyright infringement of the Java API. ART appears to be a compiler for Java... ahem, Dalvik code, and the Java API is still utilized.
Does ART use a different API? Because the court case involves copyright infringement of the Java API. ART appears to be a compiler for Java... ahem, Dalvik code, and the Java API is still utilized.
You've got a good point here, ART can run Dalvik apps, so it should use the same Java-ish API from Dalvik.
Examples of Google's IP theft are a little sparse eh? I think if you actually checked you might discover Apple has been found guilty of IP infringement in a court of law more often than Google. I'm quite certain when Apple is found to be infringing you don't consider it theft do you?
Examples of Google's IP theft are a little sparse eh? I think if you actually checked you might discover Apple has been found guilty of IP infringement in a court of law more often than Google. I'm quite certain when Apple is found to be infringing you don't consider it theft do you?
Google copied millions of books in their entirety without authorization by the copyright holders. Yes, Google was just let off the hook after a major court battle that just about only Google would dare to encourage and just about only Google could afford to defend, but Google did settle earlier with publishers in exchange for money. Did you furget that?
When has Apple infringed another's IP in a major way? Kinda sparse and largely inconsequential in the scheme of things is it?
That make me laugh, ART is still a VM but instead of a JIT like Dalvik, ART is an OAT (Ahead-of-time), this mean apps still got a performance taxes from running inside a virtual machine abstraction layer.
If ART yields so much better performance, but still can't match native compiled C code, does it confirm how bad current Dalvik performances are?
From Wikipedia:
Very good read, and for those who thing ART is the fix, think again. It just another band-aid in an already poor architecture Andy choose to go forward with. I never realize that Android was an interrupter and the apps were not actually compiles. This allows for bad programming habits and explain why Android apps just do not work as well as they iOS equivalent.
The google store will still be load with Apps design to run in a Java environment and you have to guess how long it will take developers to convert all their apps to be compiled code. You know as long as old non-ART version are still out there developers will hold off. Every time you load an apple it have to make sure the ART feature is enable so that it compiles the program so it will run faster otherwise it will be like running on non-ART systems. What a kludge they have put together here.
As I said before it will be another level of fragmentation they will introduce to developers and consumer to deal with.
I'm not a developer, so I can't speak to what's involved about writing apps for android. I do know that many, if not most android apps already run fine using ART. So I'm not sure what changes actually need to be made, though I'm sure there are optimizations to be made. There is no doubt that Apple went the right way from the start, while it took Google several years to realize its mistake. That being said, the apps I use on android work quite well, and compare favorably to what I use on iOS. There are some exceptions of course. The moves that Google has made recently to improve development, such as moving many native apps to the play store and allowing API's to be updated through the google play store services, are pretty significant. I understand the level of fanboyism here can be a little stifling, but don't let that fool you into thinking android is an inferior mobile OS to iOS.
From Wikipedia:
An ahead-of-time (AOT) compiler is a compiler that implements ahead-of-time compilation. This refers to the act of compiling an intermediate language, such as Java bytecode, .NET Common Intermediate Language (CIL), or IBM System/38 or IBM System i "Technology Independent Machine Interface" code, into a system-dependent binary.
What is your points?
Yes they are other bytecode environment, iOS and OSX compiler itself is the prime example of a low level virtual machine bytecode runtime environment as LLVM stands for.
Beside you can't compare a byte coded binary apps coming from compiler like .NET or LLVM, running on a really thin abstraction layer more like a virtual hypervisor than fully Virtualized machine like Java SE, DalvikVM or ART. The performance taxes much less to do with how fast the code is running and more on how fast your can access the machines input and output ressources, this is why every java apps including Dalvik will always suffer in responsiveness and perceptible performance.
I'm just wondering - aren't any court wins for Oracle against Google at this point just pyrrhic victories?
The big win for Oracle would be bringing Dalvik "into the Java fold" by enforcing gpl licensing which would make all the closed parts of android truly open not hidden away by Google's bastardised apache license.
Samsung even used an Apple legal team mistake of "releasing some of Android's protected source code" in their current sanctions case over leaking "attorney's eyes only" licensing information to Samsung's executives.
LOL @ this article and the people on here.
I read this up until I saw the words "MORANIAN MULLEUR~"
Moranian has already admitted in court to being a paid schill for Oracle and Microsoft. For any one to quote him as an authority is just ridiculous. He should have lost all credibility last year when he guaranteed that Oracle had 6 BILLION in the bag on the initial complaint.
Author must be 12 years old or not able to research.
So why don't you tell us what went on in the courtroom, Mueller reported tweets made by others who were there.
Which parts were changed?
Examples of Google's IP theft are a little sparse eh? I think if you actually checked you might discover Apple has been found guilty of IP infringement in a court of law more often than Google. I'm quite certain when Apple is found to be infringing you don't consider it theft do you?
Only by your twisted (and so often incorrect view).
Tell that to the dozens of Android OEMs that are paying Microsoft royalties for IP in Android that Google used (without even bothering to get a license for). Or how about VP8 that Google claimed was "free from patent encumbrances" and then later had to settle with MPEG-LA. Even now others (like Nokia) are going after VP8 as there's still more IP involved.
There's also a big difference between a company being found guilty of using some obscure IP a patent troll owns (like so many Apple cases) and intentionally using IP (the two examples I gave above) like Google does. Or are you so stupid you actually think Google was never aware Android infringed MS IP (or VP8 didn't use MPEG-LA or Nokia IP)?
Before you start mouthing off about Apple being found guilty of using Samsung SEP's (as an example) remember that Samsung has been abusing their SEP's and trying to make extortionist demands from Apple. Apple has always said they will pay a fair rate for use, but want a court to decide that amount. Please show me anywhere that Google made such a statement in regards to Microsoft (that they were willing to deal, but MS made ridiculous demands).
What I find strange is that Google wants to make itself look petty and cheap. They could easily admit their errors and simply broadly license Java from Oracle and be done with it. Instead they seem to be hell bent on turning the Androud ecosystem upside down. Even if Oracle charged a billion dollars Google could easily handle the costs.
The not going to license it. For 2 reasons.
1 They had the blessing from SUN Micro to use Java... obviously that depends on who you ask.
2 They are not using Mobile Java which Oracle want to force them to use. They have forked the Java stack to suit their requirements which has got Larry's skipper pants in a knot.
Good for them to consolidate Chrome and Android it makes sense and it has always been on the cards.
If you read Mueller’s work he supports his opinions with legally sound ideas that, over time, have an extremely high accuracy rate. Compare that to the Android fans who love Google so much they are now on the fifth generation of expectation of the Coming of the Android Prophet Phone.
Google has failed worldwide in courts on both sides: found to be willingly infringing IP of others while professing a disdain for patents, and at the same time hypocritically suing other companies over Standards Essential Patents. That’s something that both the US and EU have been investigating as antitrust behavior. Abusively trying to hurt customers (like Apple’s push mail service in Germany, feature blocked by a temporary injunction that Google got before it failed to prove involved any infringement).
As for your personal attacks about how Mueller is a consultant in an industry where he works for some of the companies he reports on: baseless, character assassination makes you look very lacking in credibility.
Legally sound with an extremely high accuracy rate? Oh dear. He predicted a $6Bn Payola for Oracle last time around and you may like to have a look to see what the payout ended up as, and who had to pay costs. Or if you want to go have a read of the sort of things he was rolling out during the last trial on the way to that particular gross miss, such as http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120724125504129 or http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20130706091033171. And when the judge ordered both parties to name bloggers they had retained/paid at the time of trial, whose name came up? See yourself: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120817151150419. ;
You make your own bed, and if you're caught stretching theories to one extreme side of the argument - and being paid by that party - it's probably not a good time to keep digging.
The whole patent world is a complete mess; objective reporting and well argued journalism is of great value. If his name appears in an article, then his track record (as cited above) suggests we'll get neither. If he gets to cite his commercial interests where he's quoted, all fair game. The fact that this is not his norm - it's an ad written as an editorial - detracts from his own "brand values".
Why not this guy just paid owner for technology they use? Don't be evil.
Legally sound with an extremely high accuracy rate? Oh dear. He predicted a $6Bn Payola for Oracle last time around and you may like to have a look to see what the payout ended up as, and who had to pay costs. Or if you want to go have a read of the sort of things he was rolling out during the last trial on the way to that particular gross miss, such as http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120724125504129 or http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20130706091033171. And when the judge ordered both parties to name bloggers they had retained/paid at the time of trial, whose name came up? See yourself: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120817151150419. ;
You make your own bed, and if you're caught stretching theories to one extreme side of the argument - and being paid by that party - it's probably not a good time to keep digging.
The whole patent world is a complete mess; objective reporting and well argued journalism is of great value. If his name appears in an article, then his track record (as cited above) suggests we'll get neither. If he gets to cite his commercial interests where he's quoted, all fair game. The fact that this is not his norm - it's an ad written as an editorial - detracts from his own "brand values".
First off, FOSS Patents posts scores of in depth reports on global cases every month. If you think citing one example of a possible outcome that didn’t immediately occur lets you confidently state that nothing Mueller writes is reliable, you need to get serious.
Also, if you say things like "stretching theories to one extreme side of the argument" you can’t then cite Graklaw, a one sided propaganda site that only argues a single extremist line of Google’s talking points, contradicting itself as much as Google’s own hypocrisy does.
Google bots like yourself attack Mueller because he cuts through the "open" rhetoric bandied about by Eric Schmidt and the company’s blatant disregard for every other company’s IP while attempting to abuse any patents it can obtain itself.
Just look at Graklaw’s cheering over Samsung’s efforts to sue Apple over using IP already licensed in broadband chips. Obvious case of egregious patent abuse supported by Graklaw. http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/05/samsungs-vetoed-push-for-an-itc-ban-against-apple-inc-in-pictures ;
So no proof of Google's "theft" then? By the way, I don't recall Google settling with publishers in return for money. While it sounds like it could be a reasonable outcome I'd love to read about how much they paid and if it's an ongoing thing. Any link?
One of the many things I've learned from Mr Mueller is that in tech there really is only one good guy, one company above all reproach. Only one company he's never had a bad thing to say about in his blog. Only one company that truly believes in "Don't be evil", that operates completely above board at all times. That company is Microsoft. All others, Apple included, are flawed in his view.
EDIT: Maybe two angelic companies as I can't find any complaint whatsoever about Oracle either. What a coincidence.
The whole patent world is a complete mess;
Patents?
What patents?
This case revolves around copyright, and the apparent misinterpretation of fair use as a measure of validity by Albright.
Albright?
Not misinterpretation of fair use but instead copyrightability. According to reports the Appeals Court isn't questioning "fair use" at this point but instead whether API's can be copyrighted in the first place. If it rules they can be then the next step would apparently be another trial by the original court to determine if Google properly made "fair use" of the copyrighted material.
By the way this appeal is still vaguely attached to Oracle's patent infringement claims. If not for the original patent complaints Oracle could not have appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.