SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Oracle v. Google: Appeals Court Rules That Google Violated Oracle's Copyrights
A federal appeals court has ruled against Google in the Oracle v. Google legal war over the use of Java in Android. However, the case could move to the Supreme Court, a full panel of the appeals court judges, or to a third trial in district court:
An appeals court said on Tuesday that Google violated copyright laws when it used Oracle's open-source Java software to build the Android platform in 2009.
Tuesday's ruling is the latest development in a topsy-turvy eight-year battle between Google (GOOG) and Oracle (ORCL).
Oracle first brought its case against Google in 2010, claiming that Android infringes two patents that Oracle holds on its Java software, a ubiquitous programming language powering everything from phones to websites.
In 2012, a jury determined that Java does not deserve protection under copyright law. Two years later, an appeals court overturned the ruling, raising the question of whether Google's use of Oracle's API violated copyright law.
A jury determined in 2016 that Google's use of Oracle's APIs was legal under the copyright law's fair use doctrine, which allows the free use of copyrighted material under specific circumstances. Oracle appealed the decision, and a judge took its side on Tuesday.
Also at Bloomberg and The Verge.
Federal Circuit Sends Oracle v. Google Back for Third Trial
A while back Oracle sued Google various aspects of their clean-room Java reimplementation and Google initially won that back in 2012. However, appeals have dragged the case out. At issue now is whether APIs can be restricted under copyright.
The Federal Circuit has ruled for a second time in Oracle v. Google, the software copyright lawsuit over Google's Android platform. The new decision reverses the district court yet again and sends the case back for a third trial to determine damages for Oracle. In the last trial, Oracle sought almost $9 billion in damages.
The litigation has been dragging on for about eight years now, bouncing up and down through appeals and two whole jury trials. [...]
Obviously, whether APIs can soon be restricted by copyright would defeat the purpose of an API as well as have severe repercussions for all software development occuring in the US.
From The Verge : Federal Circuit sends Oracle v. Google back for third trial.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday March 28 2018, @05:19PM (11 children)
When Android was built, Oracle didn't own Java. Sun owned Java. Sun invited the community at large to work with Java, and that community included Google among other corporate interests. It was well known that Sun invited people to experiment, to embrace and extend Java.
Oracle bought Sun, and Java, fully aware that the copyright had been "weakened". Historically, if a copyright isn't protected, the copyright becomes null and void. That's a fact of life. Sun was aware of that fact, just as they were aware that there were thriving opensource communities working with Java.
Oracle doesn't have a leg to stand on. They got what they paid for, they can't go back and claim more than what they got, years after the fact.
Who the hell do they think they are, SCO?
(Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Wednesday March 28 2018, @05:22PM (4 children)
SCO vs IBM is still alive. The SCO vs IBM lawsuit just passed its 15th anniversary earlier this month on Mar 6. The courts are now moving monumentally slowly on this case. Perhaps in the hope that SCO's trustee will simply give up because the case stinks so badly by now no judge wants to read 700 boxes of docket material.
Please check back on SCO's progress in one quarter of a galactic rotation.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday March 28 2018, @05:33PM (2 children)
Do you think SCO might sue Oracle for misappropriating SCO's business model?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Wednesday March 28 2018, @05:41PM
Patent infringement, maybe. You can patent business methods sadly. (I don't believe SCO actually owns any patents, and I was on Groklaw daily for ten years. It's been analyzed to death.)
SCO no longer has the resources to afford the filing fee with the court. At least according to what I remember from the only forum left that is dedicated to SCO. But it has since turned into an off topic troll fest. Mostly consumed by a gang pile on to one lone conservative. But that is the wrong word. It is a guy who is blindly, loyally, unflinchingly trump-can-do-no-wrong and has-no-faults kind of cult mentality. I would say troll, except that prior to politics beginning in 2016, the guy had been on that forum for a long time. I mean nobody is without faults and mistakes. Left nor right.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday March 28 2018, @07:39PM
+1 Funny 'cause that got an actual out-loud laugh out of me :) It would be hilarious, and entirely fitting, if that happened.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Wednesday March 28 2018, @08:52PM
Hopefully, Oracle's business will be just as plentiful and stable as SCO's after 15 years of lawsuits.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 28 2018, @07:13PM (1 child)
That's completely untrue. You are confusing copyright with patents. You can choose to defend, or not, you copyright as you see fit.
(Score: 5, Informative) by pipedwho on Wednesday March 28 2018, @08:15PM
Patents and copyrights can be defended at any time descriminately as the holder sees fit. It is trademarks that must be defended. This is because a trademark can be indefinitely held (as long as fees are paid), and protect from ‘market confusion’ and brand association, which are relative to public perception. If you don’t defend, the associations brand is weakened.
(Score: 4, Informative) by moondrake on Wednesday March 28 2018, @08:47PM (2 children)
>Historically, if a copyright isn't protected, the copyright becomes null and void.
No it does not.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 29 2018, @01:34AM (1 child)
Maybe I overstated the case.
Key words in that quote are "unless you take some kind of action". In the case of Sun and Java, Sun took positive steps to include a very wide community of developers. In effect, Sun granted certain rights to members of the community who wanted to use Java. Sun's actions aren't so clear cut as relicensing Java under the GPL, but it was pretty damned clear that Sun was granting permission to the public to use Java.
(Score: 2) by arcz on Thursday March 29 2018, @04:46PM
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday March 28 2018, @11:32PM
Trademarks get weakened if you don't defend them but I don't think that's the case for copyright.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]