Oracle wins key reversal in Java copyright case against Google's Android

1246789

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 176
    peterbobpeterbob Posts: 60member
    LOL. There's a reason why the original ruling has been reversed, Peterbob.

    He must be worried about losing his shill money….:lol:

    This reverse rulling has everything to do with copyright of APIs not fair use.

    There will be a new trial all about fair use.

    Even if oracle does win, monetary value has to be determine. And how much of that java code remains in android must be seen as well.

    Dalvik is being replaced by ART in the next version of android.

    Android is not going anywhere.
  • Reply 62 of 176
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post





    Your honor, it's coincidence those 7000 lines look the same, honestly!

     

    We had 50,000 monkeys typing on computers and this was the completely coincidental result!

  • Reply 63 of 176
    peterbobpeterbob Posts: 60member
    Your honor, it's coincidence those 7000 lines look the same, honestly!

    Your honor must of those 7000 lines of code has been replaced, it was fair use. Even if it's not, how much is it worth when million lines of code are used in android.

    Jury:fair use
    Jury:not fair use, but not worth much.

    Outcome: Google gets away. Google gives oracle a few pennies.
  • Reply 64 of 176
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,740member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post



    This reverse rulling has everything to do with copyright of APIs not fair use.



    There will be a new trial all about fair use.



    Even if oracle does win, monetary value has to be determine. And how much of that java code remains in android must be seen as well.



    Dalvik is being replaced by ART in the next version of android.



    Android is not going anywhere.

     

    Oh I have no doubt that they'll exploit the fuzziness of the copyright laws covering SDKs as much as they can.

     

    And now that they've had time to rework the internals of Android, they'll be sure to proclaim high & low that it's (now) not similar at all to Java.  All of that doesn't change the fact that, had they not cloned Java in the first place to get it to market quicker and with far less R&D costs, Android would not be where it is today.

  • Reply 65 of 176
    ruddyruddy Posts: 94member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Yet the Appeals Court did not find that code was protected. That's to be determined in a new trial over the issue of fair use.

     

    You are mistaken. The appeals court did reverse Alsup's ruling and find that the declaring code of what most people are calling "the APIs" (more specifically the structure, sequence, and organization of the 37 Java API packages), is copyrightable. There are and have been 4 questions for the courts. Each is kind of dependent on the answer that comes before it, except Alsup set the trial up so that #2 was answered before #1.

     

    1. Is the API declaring code copyrightable?

    Alsup said no, the Appeals Court now says Yes.

     

    2. Did Google infringe the API declaring code? 

    The original trial jury unanimously said yes, Google infringed. 

     

    3. Was Google's infringement a Fair Use exception?

    The original jury hung on this question (it must be unanimous), so this question is now going to a new jury (remanded back to Alsup).

     

    4. What are the damages?

    The original jury didn't get to this question. A new jury will only get to this question if they first decide the use wasn't a fair one.

  • Reply 66 of 176
    boeyc15boeyc15 Posts: 986member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post





    Your honor must of those 7000 lines of code has been replaced, it was fair use. Even if it's not, how much is it worth when million lines of code are used in android.



    Jury:fair use

    Jury:not fair use, but not worth much.



    Outcome: Google gets away. Google gives oracle a few pennies.



    GOOGLE -'Your Honor, we are SHOCKED, SHOCKED that copying has been going on here!'

  • Reply 67 of 176
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,340member
    ruddy wrote: »
    You are mistaken. The appeals court did reverse Alsup's ruling and find that the declaring code of what most people are calling "the APIs" (more specifically the structure, sequence, and organization of the 37 Java API packages), is copyrightable.

    AFAIK I'm not at all mistaken. That's exactly the reason the case was remanded, to determine if the claimed code was actually protected code. Being copyright-eligible is not the same thing at all and answers only a part of the question. Before it even gets to that tho expect a Google request for an En Banc hearing which also isn't out of the question.
  • Reply 68 of 176
    applesauce007applesauce007 Posts: 1,699member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Chandra69 View Post

     

    Larry suing Larry.


     

    Good one...

     

    Page is toast.  Go Ellison.  LOL

  • Reply 69 of 176
    chipsychipsy Posts: 287member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ruddy View Post

     

     

    If it's not fair use, then Android is fucked.




    How's that? Because of 3% of the total code, I don't think so. And it will in all likelihood be ruled fair use. And let's not forget it only concerns API packages, which BTW are pretty much necessary to assure compatibility.

  • Reply 70 of 176
    ruddyruddy Posts: 94member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post





    Your honor must of those 7000 lines of code has been replaced, 

     

    Not one of them has been replaced, and not one of them can be replaced without rewriting Android from scratch to replace those 37 Java API packages. 

     

    Quote:

     it was fair use. Even if it's not, how much is it worth when million lines of code are used in android.

     

    Google can afford to pay the couple billion for past damages that Oracle wants. However, Google can't can't afford the loss of face and credibility if Oracle gets the injunction they want, and all Android development at Google and among Android developers comes screeching to a halt. 

     

    I believe Google's case for fair use is quite weak.

  • Reply 71 of 176
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

     

    Origins of Android in Sun's Java Mobile

    Google acquired Andy Rubin's Android startup in 2005, at a time when the small company was working on a Java Mobile device as a sequel to Danger, a similar Java Mobile product that also licensed its use of Java software from Sun.

     
    Andy Rubin





     

     

    What a convoluted graphic! Appropriate, I suppose...

     

    I still have a General Magic based Sony Magic Link PDA with all the accessories. I think it came out in 1994, but by 1996 it was already a failed product--Good Guys was giving them away with the purchase of Sony VAIO desktop computers. I bought the computer without even knowing about the give away, and as I was checking out, the sales guy says, "here, you get all of this with your purchase for free." It actually did a fair amount of stuff for its time. I kept it all these years as sort of a curiosity. It's fun to bring it out every once in a while as a conversation piece.

     

    Anyway, so this is where Andy Rubin came from? Interesting.

  • Reply 72 of 176
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,340member
    What a convoluted graphic! Appropriate, I suppose...

    I still have a General Magic based Sony Magic Link PDA with all the accessories. I think it came out in 1994, but by 1996 it was already a failed product--Good Guys was giving them away with the purchase of Sony VAIO desktop computers. I bought the computer without even knowing about the give away, and as I was checking out, the sales guy says, "here, you get all of this with your purchase for free." It actually did a fair amount of stuff for its time. I kept it all these years as sort of a curiosity. It's fun to bring it out every once in a while as a conversation piece.

    Anyway, so this is where Andy Rubin came from? Interesting.

    The graphic leaves out that he was a robotics engineer with Carl Zeiss before going to Apple.
  • Reply 73 of 176
    monstrositymonstrosity Posts: 2,234member

    Go Oracle!

  • Reply 74 of 176
    chipsychipsy Posts: 287member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by auxio View Post

     

     

    If it's fair use, then it's a loophole in the system that Google knowingly exploited.  Because clearly Sun/Oracle didn't give them permission to do what they did.

     

    Look, I came from the same technology background as many of the people at Google did: hacking Linux systems in my basement, trying to make it look like other OSes, cloning existing commercial applications, etc.  But not once did I think that it would be right to commercially release my work.  It was for fun and learning purposes only, and I eventually grew up/out of it.

     

    The fact that some people at Google did just that: cloned Java and then licensed it commercially to others, shows that they never really grew out of that mentality.  In fact, it seems like they went to great lengths to find ways to do it using grey/fuzzy areas of the law.  Which is even worse than simply being naive.  Just because it isn't against the law doesn't make it right.




    Actually Sun didn't have a problem with it. It was only after Sun was acquired by Oracle that Oracle decided to pursue this. It also only concerns about 3% of the total code and only API's so to say to Google just cloned everything is off the mark.

  • Reply 75 of 176
    ruddyruddy Posts: 94member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    AFAIK I'm not at all mistaken. That's exactly the reason the case was remanded, to determine if the claimed code was actually protected code. Being copyright-eligible is not the same thing at all and answers only a part of the question. Before it even gets to that tho expect a Google request for an En Banc hearing which also isn't out of the question.

     

    Suit yourself. Having followed this case from the beginning I'm not at all surprised at the levels of denial people indulge in. Google can request an en banc hearing, doesn't mean they'll get one, and certainly doesn't mean it would go their way. Especially when three of the judges in that banc have already ruled unanimously on the question. Google can also appeal to the Supremes, doesn't mean the Supremes will take the case either.

  • Reply 76 of 176
    tastowetastowe Posts: 108member
    Go Oracle too. I am going to love it and thumbs up
  • Reply 77 of 176
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,340member
    chipsy wrote: »

    Actually Sun didn't have a problem with it. It was only after Sun was acquired by Oracle that Oracle decided to pursue this.
    I wouldn't go so far as to say Sun was happy as a clam. I recall reading the they weren't particularly pleased with Google deciding against a partnership. Still they did send congrats on Androids release and wished them the best.
  • Reply 78 of 176
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,340member
    ruddy wrote: »
    Suit yourself. Having followed this case from the beginning ...

    You're hardly the only one who has followed it "from the beginning". :\ Its importance extends well beyond Google and Oracle and so has attracted a lot of followers.
  • Reply 79 of 176
    ruddyruddy Posts: 94member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post

     



    How's that? Because of 3% of the total code, I don't think so. And it will in all likelihood be ruled fair use. And let's not forget it only concerns API packages, which BTW are pretty much necessary to assure compatibility.


     

    Arguments for fair use are more persuasive than mere assertions and one's feelings. Compatibility with what? As the Appeals Court noted, Android is not interoperable with Java, and Google deliberately made them incompatible

  • Reply 80 of 176
    ruddyruddy Posts: 94member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post



    Actually Sun didn't have a problem with it. It was only after Sun was acquired by Oracle that Oracle decided to pursue this. It also only concerns about 3% of the total code and only API's so to say to Google just cloned everything is off the mark.


     

    If that were true, why didn't Sun ever grant Google a license? They negotiated and negotiated, and Sun refused to give Google a license.

Sign In or Register to comment.