[Copernicus]

Clerk: Question 1: has Oracle proved by preponderance of evidence that Google infringed? Claim 11: not proven 27: no 29: no 39: no 40: no 41: no Question 2: not proven 1: no 20: no Question 3: no answer, no response, not applicable.

Google Response:

Today’s jury verdict that Android does not infringe Oracle’s patents was a victory not just for Google but the entire Android ecosystem.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20523125023818

[Jeff-DSA]

Pretty huge moment for Google/Android. That was supposedly the big ticking time bomb that people liked to speculate about. Apparently it was a dud.

[injurai]

Wow, was not expecting this. I feel a lot of money was involved or the fine print had finer print which had finest print.

[samus i am]

"This isn't over yet Google. I'll get you next time! NEXT TIME!"

[Jobiensis]

Wow, was not expecting this. I feel a lot of money was involved or the fine print had finer print which had finest print.

You must not have been following the trial.

[Divvy]

You'd think with so much money on the table, Oracle would have tried not to fumble it as badly as they did.

[SimleuqiR]

You'd think with so much money on the table, Oracle would have tried not to fumble it as badly as they did.

Did they even have a case to "fumble"?

[Divvy]

Did they even have a case to "fumble"?

Probably not, but you generally don't want to piss off the judge either way.

[SUPREME1]

"This isn't over yet Google. I'll get you next time! NEXT TIME!"

I found your post way funny. Thanks for the chuckle.

[AndyD]

"This isn't over yet Google. I'll get you next time! NEXT TIME!"

Is this about the Google car?

[SimleuqiR]

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20523125023818

Judge:

Jury discharged.. because phase 1 and 2 done, and phase 3 not happening due to agreements between lawyers. Jury can talk or not talk to anyone, but please be accurate because inaccuracy can lead to evidentiary hearing and impeachment of verdict. In his heart, you are respected, he said, and your verdict is respected. I haven't had a jury in a civil case that has gone this long, "longest civil trial" and you all have been a superb jury, and this country is a great country, because of citizens like you who are willing to sacrifice and come in as you have. Thanks them on behalf of country and Federal court. He will then thank them individually in jury room.

:-0

[Hari Seldon]

Wow that trial sounds like a giant clusterfuck trying to get a layman jury to decide on some minutia technical detail lol.

[andycapps]

Haha, Oracle crying bitter tears right now. Writing's been on the wall forever though.

[Divvy]

Haha, Oracle crying bitter tears right now. Writing's been on the wall forever though.

Then Oracle...



...should have seen it coming.

[planar1280]

Larry Ellison is in rage right now, I can feel it

[ReturnOfTheRAT]

Victory is sweet.

[Stumpokapow]

This whole suit was in phenomenal bad faith for Oracle, moreso than pretty much any case since the SCO case. I'm very glad a jury agreed.

Oracle are one of the worst companies in tech today.

I hope there are consequences for this mess. Heads should roll. In a moment of anger, I might perhaps suggest that Google should delist any and all results related to Oracle on their search engine as a start, even though I know that's childish and petulant.

[Copernicus]

Then Oracle... ...should have seen it coming.

Nice.

[SimleuqiR]

http://mashable.com/2012/05/23/google-wins-oracle-suit/

So where does the case go from here? The judge still needs to rule on 37 APIs to see if the sequence and structure of the software infringes on copyright issues. If he decides they are not protected by copyright laws, there would be no damages phase but Oracle may be subject to statutory damages of about $1 million. Note: This sum wouldn’t come close to covering Oracle’s legal bills.

:-O

[JonnyBrad]

Florian Mueller is getting a LOT of abuse on twitter atm lol. A paid shill spouting crap has been found out once again.

[JonnyBrad]

Jury was 9-3 for Google on fair use copyrights. So it was nearly a slam dunk.

[Copernicus]

Fosspatents:

Jury doesn't find Google to infringe two Oracle patents -- but the litigation is far from over

This was viewed as a patent case when it started, but it wasn't much of a patent case anymore when it went to trial.

lol

Here's Oracle's statement: "Oracle presented overwhelming evidence at trial that Google knew it would fragment and damage Java. We plan to continue to defend and uphold Java's core write once run anywhere principle and ensure it is protected for the nine million Java developers and the community that depend on Java compatibility."

So good.

[Dead Man]

Then Oracle... ...should have seen it coming.

Perfect.

[JonnyBrad]

Fosspatents: So good.

Poor Florian :(

[Cipherr]

Billion dollar trial AMIRITE? A blind man could have seen this coming. And lol at the 9-3 Jury in Googles favor on Fair Use. Jesus Christ Oracle was losing by a mile in every way possible.

So where does the case go from here? The judge still needs to rule on 37 APIs to see if the sequence and structure of the software infringes on copyright issues. If he decides they are not protected by copyright laws, there would be no damages phase but Oracle may be subject to statutory damages of about $1 million. Note: This sum wouldn’t come close to covering Oracle’s legal bills.

SMH

[SimleuqiR]

Fosspatents: lol Here's Oracle's statement: "Oracle presented overwhelming evidence at trial that Google knew it would fragment and damage Java. We plan to continue to defend and uphold Java's core write once run anywhere principle and ensure it is protected for the nine million Java developers and the community that depend on Java compatibility." So good.

What happens if most of those said Jave programmers shift their focus to just Android development?

[tfur]

Total victory.

It's been interesting to observe how easily one person could affect biases over all this time. So many websites and people have used Florian as source of knowledge, when he was really a created PR voice. A lot of people were duped.

Time for Google to take Android out of hibernation.

[Copernicus]

Apparently this is what Google offered Oracle:

Before trial, Google offered to pay Oracle roughly $2.8 million in damages on the two patents remaining in the case, covering the period through 2011, according to a filing made jointly by the companies. For future damages, Google proposed paying Oracle 0.5 percent of Android revenue on one patent until it expires this December and 0.015 percent on a second patent until it expires in April 2018. Oracle rejected the settlement offer.

I guess they shoulda taken the deal.

--

Ars Techinca Article:

As to the finding of infringement, Thompson said that the jury actually didn't debate it that long. The feeling was that the answer to the infringement question—the first one on the copyright verdict form—had basically been dictated by the judge's instructions. (Judge Alsup told the jury, among other things, that they must assume that the Java APIs are copyrighted.) "We felt that the judge's instructions put us a lot of the way towards finding infringement," Thompson explained. That caused the jury to focus on fair use, which actually wasn't a particularly extensive part of the argument. The feeling was that the computer code being dealt with was basically a functional tool, and when a copyrighted work is functional rather than creative, that weighs in favor of fair use (and thus, Google.) The pro-Google majority wasn't exactly all warm and fuzzy towards Google, though. During the case, Google's lawyers repeatedly showed off the statements that ex-Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz made congratulating Google on Android's launch. Some jurors believed Google relied on that blog post by Schwartz too heavily, however. "We felt like it wasn't a good business practice to rely on a blog," Thompson said. "Some of us had an underlying feeling that Google had done something that wasn't right." He didn't get into details about what pro-Google jurors were feeling, but Thompson did suggest there was a general sense among some jurors that Oracle's intellectual property claims might not be in the public's best interest. "The more tech savvy a person is, the more difficult it might be to convince them of something that would limit [technology]... and future expansion of the common good," he said.

[Gattsu25]

Fantastic news.

He didn't get into details about what pro-Google jurors were feeling, but Thompson did suggest there was a general sense among some jurors that Oracle's intellectual property claims might not be in the public's best interest. "The more tech savvy a person is, the more difficult it might be to convince them of something that would limit [technology]... and future expansion of the common good," he said.

This.

[gcubed]

Lawl Oracle and a hearty lol to the hack Florian

[The Faceless Master]

that settlement sounds good in retrospect, but it probably didn't sound so great when it was offered.

[Andrex]

"This isn't over yet Google. I'll get you next time! NEXT TIME!"

It's funny, but Dr. Claw is less than 1% as evil as Oracle.

Today’s jury verdict that Android does not infringe Oracle’s patents was a victory not just for Google but the entire Android ecosystem.

Not just Android, but Java and hell, programming on the whole.

[Copernicus]

Oracle can't copyright parts of Java-court ruling

A U.S. judge rejected Oracle Corp's contention that parts of the Java programming language can be copyrighted, dealing a further blow to Oracle as it seeks damages against Google over intellectual property rights

Welp, that about wraps this up.

[DarkFlow]

Oracle can't copyright parts of Java-court ruling Welp, that about wraps this up.

There was no way this judge was going to rule API was copyrightable. He would almost break the internet and most software if he did that. Companys would come flying out of the woodwork to sue each other over that.

[Nils]

"This isn't over yet Google. I'll get you next time! NEXT TIME!"

Why is Doctor Claw eyeing one of Google's self-driven cars?

[Stumpokapow]

I just hope Google is as vindictive as possible in light of this.

[massoluk]

I thought it was over right after the former CEO of Sun delivered the huge blow in the court.

[Copernicus]

Thanks stump.

SUMMARY OF RULING So long as the specific code used to implement a method is different, anyone is free under the Copyright Act to write his or her own code to carry out exactly the same function or specification of any methods used in the Java API. It does not matter that the declaration or method header lines are identical. Under the rules of Java, they must be identical to declare a method specifying the same functionality — even when the implementation is different. When there is only one way to express an idea or function, then everyone is free to do so and no one can monopolize that expression. And, while the Android method and class names could have been different from the names of their counterparts in Java and still have worked, copyright protection never extends to names or short phrases as a matter of law. It is true that the very same functionality could have been offered in Android without duplicating the exact command structure used in Java. This could have been done by re-arranging the various methods under different groupings among the various classes and packages (even if the same names had been used). In this sense, there were many ways to group the methods yet still duplicate the same range of functionality. But the names are more than just names — they are symbols in a command structure wherein the commands take the form : java.package.Class.method() Each command calls into action a pre-assigned function. The overall name tree, of course, has creative elements but it is also a precise command structure — a utilitarian and functional set of symbols, each to carry out a pre-assigned function. This command structure is a system or method of operation under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act and, therefore, cannot be copyrighted. Duplication of the command structure is necessary for interoperability. ..... Oracle has made much of nine lines of code that crept into both Android and Java. This circumstance is so innocuous and overblown by Oracle that the actual facts, as found herein by the judge, will be set forth below for the benefit of the court of appeals.

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1202.pdf

[SRG01]

Thanks stump.

Woah, so would this example set a precedent for other lawsuits then? Or would this simply apply to copyright cases?

[Stumpokapow]

Woah, so would this example set a precedent for other lawsuits then? Or would this simply apply to copyright cases?

No one else is idiotic enough to sue someone over writing their own code to implement a pre-existing API spec / header.

[SimleuqiR]

I just hope Google is as vindictive as possible in light of this.

They better never stop releasing the code for Android, that's for sure (As long as they keep.development going )

[Copernicus]

Woah, so would this example set a precedent for other lawsuits then? Or would this simply apply to copyright cases?

There more or less already is precedent:

A. Baker v. Seldon. The general question predates computers. In the Supreme Court’s decision in Baker v. Seldon, 101 U.S. 99 (1879), the work at issue was a book on a new system of double-entry bookkeeping. It included blank forms, consisting of ruled lines, and headings, illustrating the system. The accused infringer copied the method of bookkeeping but used different forms. ... The Supreme Court explained that only patent law can give an exclusive right to a method: To give to the author of the book an exclusive property in the art described therein, when no examination of its novelty has ever been officially made, would be a surprise and a fraud upon the public. That is the province of letters-patent, not of copyright. The claim to an invention or discovery of an art or manufacture must be subjected to the examination of the Patent Office before an exclusive right therein can be obtained; and it can only be secured by a patent from the government. Id. at 102. The Supreme Court went on to explain that protecting the method under copyright law would frustrate the very purpose of publication: The copyright of a work on mathematical science cannot give to the author an exclusive right to the methods of operation which he propounds, or to the diagrams which he employs to explain them, so as to prevent an engineer from using them whenever occasion requires. The very object of publishing a book on science or the useful arts is to communicate to the world the useful knowledge which it contains. But this object would be frustrated if the knowledge could not be used without incurring the guilt of piracy of the book

Haha, so awesome.

In view of the foregoing, this order concludes that our immediate case is controlled by these principles of copyright law: • Under the merger doctrine, when there is only one (or only a few) ways to express something, then no one can claim ownership of such expression by copyright. • Under the names doctrine, names and short phrases are not copyrightable. • Under Section 102(b), copyright protection never extends to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation or concept regardless of its form. Functional elements essential for interoperability are not copyrightable. • Under Feist, we should not yield to the temptation to find copyrightability merely to reward an investment made in a body ofintellectual property.

Contrary to Oracle, copyright law does not confer ownership over any and all ways to implement a function or specification, no matter how creative the copyrighted implementation or specification may be. The Act confers ownership only over the specific way in which the author wrote out his version. Others are free to write their own implementation to accomplish the identical function, for, importantly, ideas, concepts and functions cannot be monopolized by copyright

Much of Oracle’s evidence at trial went to show that the design of methods in an API was a creative endeavor. Of course, that is true. Inventing a new method to deliver a new output can be creative, even inventive, including the choices of inputs needed and outputs returned. The same is true for classes. But such inventions — at the concept and functionality level — are protectable only under the Patent Act. The Patent and Trademark Office examines such inventions for validity and if the patent is allowed, it lasts for twenty years. Based on a single implementation, Oracle would bypass this entire patent scheme and claim ownership over any and all ways to carry out methods for 95 years — without any vetting by the Copyright Office of the type required for patents. This order holds that, under the Copyright Act, no matter how creative or imaginative a Java method specification may be, the entire world is entitled to use the same method specification (inputs, outputs, parameters) so long as the line-by-line implementations are different. To repeat the Second Circuit’s phrasing, “there might be a myriad of ways in which a programmer may . . . express the idea embodied in a given subroutine.” Computer Associates, 982 F.2d at 708. The method specification is the idea. The method implementation is the expression. No one may monopolize the idea.

CONCLUSION This order does not hold that Java API packages are free for all to use without license. It does not hold that the structure, sequence and organization of all computer programs may be stolen. Rather, it holds on the specific facts of this case, the particular elements replicated by Google were free for all to use under the Copyright Act. Therefore, Oracle’s claim based on Google’s copying of the 37 API packages, including their structure, sequence and organization is DISMISSED. To the extent stated herein, Google’s Rule 50 motions regarding copyrightability are GRANTED (Dkt. Nos. 984, 1007). Google’s motion for a new trial on copyright infringement is DENIED AS MOOT (Dkt. No. 1105).

[tfur]

Seems like only yesterday the internet was telling me that Android copied Java, and was doomed because of Oracle was going to sue for 6 billion dollars.

Good times...

[Copernicus]

In unrelated related news:

Google Points Finger at Microsoft, Nokia Google Inc. GOOG -1.25% said it filed an antitrust complaint Thursday in Europe arguing that Microsoft Corp. MSFT -0.51% and Nokia Corp. are using proxy companies to brandish patents and hurt the prospects of Google's Android mobile-phone software to the advantage of Microsoft's technology. Google also plans to share its complaint about patent "trolls" with U.S. competition regulators. ---- "Nokia and Microsoft are colluding to raise the costs of mobile devices for consumers, creating patent trolls that sidestep promises both companies have made," a Google spokesman said in a statement. "They should be held accountable, and we hope our complaint spurs others to look into these practices." A representative for Microsoft said: "Google is complaining about patents when it won't respond to growing concerns by regulators, elected officials and judges about its abuse of standard-essential patents, and it is complaining about antitrust in the smartphone industry when it controls more than 95% of mobile search and advertising. This seems like a desperate tactic on their part."

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/...TEzNDEyWj.html

[SimleuqiR]

In this litigation, Oracle has made much of this problem, at times almost leaving the impression that if only Google had replicated all 166 Java API packages, Oracle would not have sued. While fragmentation is a legitimate business consideration, it begs the question whether or not a license was required in the first place to replicate some or all of the command structure. (This is especially so in as much as Android has not carried the Java trademark, and Google has not held out Android as fully compatible.) The immediate point is this: fragmentation, imperfect interoperability, and Oracle’s angst over it illustrate the character of the command structure as a functional system or method of operation.

BEST JUDGE EVER!

[Auron_Kale]

I've been keeping tabs on this case for a while now, especially during the trial, but I can now admit that the outcome has everyone in my workplace proud of the work done to get this ruling.

...and for why I'm proud? I know the team of people that won this for Google, since I work with them everyday.

[ides of march]

Glad the judge said that the java API's are not under copyright. if all API's were under copyright I am not sure how software development would even work. honestly I don't think it could.

[gcubed]

Judge orders Oracle to pay Googles lawyer fees, not to exceed $300,000

http://gizmodo.com/5916512/oracle-or...al-humiliation

[Copernicus]

That's actually just reimbursement for the damages expert($300K!).

[gcubed]

That's actually just reimbursement for the damages expert($300K!).

i need to be an expert somewhere