Following a two-week trial, a jury has found that Google's Android operating system does not infringe Oracle-owned copyrights because its re-implementation of 37 Java APIs is protected by "fair use." The verdict was reached after three days of deliberation.
The verdict in Google's favor ends the trial, which began earlier this month. If Oracle had won, the same jury would have gone into a "damages phase" to determine how much Google should pay. Because Google won, the trial is over, although the result will surely be appealed.
Google's win somewhat softens the blow to software developers who previously thought programming language APIs were free to use. It's still the case that APIs can be protected by copyright under the law of at least one appeals court. However, the first high-profile attempt to control APIs with copyright law has now been stymied by a "fair use" defense.
It isn't clear how much Oracle would have asked for in the damages phase, but it could have been as much as $9 billion. That's how much Oracle asked for in an early expert report.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by SanityCheck on Friday May 27 2016, @01:18PM
Sanity prevails!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday May 27 2016, @02:28PM
#suddenoutbreakofcommonsense
Ahhh, there's nothing like hearing that Oracle lost a big lawsuit to get your Friday off to a great start :)
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 27 2016, @02:59PM
Is Oracle the new SCO? Seems obvious, in hindsight. Both have an O and a C in their names.
(Score: 4, Touché) by DannyB on Friday May 27 2016, @04:21PM
SCOracle
People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Saturday May 28 2016, @12:25AM
Excoriate it!
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Saturday May 28 2016, @03:12AM
I remember when Oracle was just a Data Base company. It was heavy on the install, and a bear to configure/tune but worked really well. Boy times changed, now they are a borderline patent troll company and a blight on computers in general. I really hope that something comes along to make the company something worth dealing with rather than just scrapping off the bottom of your shoes.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @01:28PM
n/t
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @04:56PM
Indeed. But Google is also growing more evil over time. At their current "evilution" rate, they'll be like Oracle in a decade or so.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @01:29PM
The root problem is that APIs are now considered copyrightable. This ruling was that google's use in this case was fair use. But as long as APIs have copyright protection by default the risk of having to fight it out in court will always be there.
Oracle really fucked us over by appealing the original verdict that said APIs were not subject to copyright. And now he's not even going to get paid. He chose to burn down a cornerstone of the industry for nothing at all.
One
Real
Asshole
Called
Larry
Ellison
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Friday May 27 2016, @01:53PM
They should be rewarded accordingly by as much of a boycott of their products as can be done.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Wootery on Friday May 27 2016, @01:58PM
The problem being that Oracle's customers tend to be companies, and companies aren't interested in boycotts.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @02:25PM
Even if they were, Oracle would just whine about piracy losses to the BSA who will scrape in cash for them by other means (suing random people).
(Score: 3, Informative) by Nerdfest on Friday May 27 2016, @02:28PM
Companies are made of people. If those of us that have any say over software purchasing start doing what we can it will make a difference.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Sunday May 29 2016, @01:05PM
You're missing the point. Companies are interested in their own success, not the greater good.
Outraged boycotts are not something companies are normally capable of.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Sunday May 29 2016, @02:07PM
Companies with the ability to see farther than the next quarter should realize that what Oracle is trying to do here is extremely bad for anyone creating software. Unfortunately, that seems to be a rare ability these days.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @09:04PM
Companies need customers. Perhaps we can figure out what companies Oracle does business with and we can boycott those companies for doing business with Oracle. The problem is that this may be difficult. Say a company that sells chairs uses Oracle for their databases. You may have no good way of knowing this since this is not being advertised along with the sale of the chair. You would have to look for companies that specifically advertise they don't use Oracle products and what software a furniture company uses internally is typically not something they will announce.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @01:49PM
New Zealand now favored for the next America's Cup yacht racing series.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @02:09PM
No new yacht/island for Legal Suit Larry.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @02:23PM
Microsoft has its own implementation of the R programming language, which it acquired a couple years ago. Is that similar in the legal sense?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @02:42PM
Eh, half the software industry is similar in a legal sense. That's why the ruling that APIs are copyrightable is such a problem. Oracle (and the judicial system) fucked up things really, really bad for all of us.
For how helpful fair use is against copyright infringement allegations, try and post a dancing baby video with a blurry TV on in the background to Youtube.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 27 2016, @03:06PM
but, isn't the "reimplementation" important? Had Google simply used Sun Java, they probably would have their teats in the wringer right now. But, Google didn't just use Sun's Java - they more or less rebuilt Java. How many implentations of Java are there now?
The only thing that looked like it might work in Oracle's favor was, Google supposedly had a few lines of code somewhere in their implementation, that appeared to be cut/pasted from Sun's original implementation.
FFS, Linus Torvalds had to go back and do a little cleaning on Linux, as I recall. Snippets here and there that just didn't pass the "taste test".
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Friday May 27 2016, @04:27PM
> FFS, Linus Torvalds had to go back and do a little cleaning on Linux, as I recall. Snippets here and there that just didn't pass the "taste test". Reply to This
It still re-implements most of the POSIX API, by design. Yet Linus didn't have (didn't have the $$$) a copy of the POSIX standard, so he must have copied from elsewhere the function names argument names, types and ordering - in other words the API. Almost certainly without the rights to do so - precisely because no one thought such could be copyrighted. Doesn't matter if he copied it out of his head from vague memories of Minix - if you are a musician and vaguely remember a riff and re-use it, you can get sued and you can lose.
Linux libc (glibc - although they were different forks in those days) also had copyright issues early on, the GNU developers having played fast and loose with non-GPL compatible stuff.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @06:02PM
> but, isn't the "reimplementation" important?
Nope. That is completely unrelated to the case. This is about function declarations, not the function implementations.
Oracle has convinced the courts that:
int printf(const char *format, ...);
is covered by copyright.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by snick on Friday May 27 2016, @02:36PM
Google won at this level the first time around (when the issue was whether APIs were copyrightable) Oracle won on appeal and the supremes punted.
Oracle will appeal, given the history of the appellate court, Oracle will most likely win.
And then the real deal will start in the supreme court.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Friday May 27 2016, @02:41PM
I wish that Google would take Microsoft to court over their saying that linux infringes MS patents, to force MS to disclose WHICH patents EXACTLY. Let's find out if the racketeers have some substance.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 4, Informative) by Nerdfest on Friday May 27 2016, @02:50PM
Those patents have been released already I believe, both by B&N when MS screwed up with an NDA, and by a Chinese company. In my non-professional opinion (I'm not a patent lawyer), they all fail the 'patentable' test on multiple grounds. The problem is that MS hasn't sued Google yet and nobody else has the backbone to stand up to their legal team as it would be very expensive. Yes, what MS is doing should be illegal, and really, probably could be considered racketeering.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday May 27 2016, @03:19PM
Ah, didn't know that. Thanks.
Yeah, i'm hoping that MS keeps going down, down. They need to keep spending billions on more Nokia's, lol :)
Would be nice if Google publicly said, "If Microsoft sues a company over linux patents, we will bankroll that companies lawyer fees."
I'm dreaming, i know, but Google benefits so much, they could toss some money in that direction.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by stormreaver on Friday May 27 2016, @09:09PM
Now we just need some large corporation to determine which of its API's Oracle is (or has) violated, and sue for damages. Perhaps IBM could sue Oracle for the use of SQL (which IBM invented), and put Oracle out of business.