What is the point of a copyright or patent trial if the biased Federal Circuit can just overturn the jury verdict? It's an straightforward violation of the 7th amendment.
Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
171–180 of 643 posts
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#172I think the part that gets lost in all of this is that Sun offered to license Java to Google previously for $100M. [1] Google turned that down and bypassed Sun because they didn't want to pay (or license). At the time, Sun was happy to see Java being used by Google, even without the license. Still, Google knew exactly what they were doing. [2] My point is, they did this to themselves and they knew what they were poss…
> My point is, they did this to themselves
Whether or not they knew that someone would come along and sue them doesn't matter if the lawsuit is unjust.
Even if Oracle is correct, and even if APIs can be copyrighted, Google's intent still doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is whether or not they infringed.
I consider this to be a form of victim blaming. You should argue the case on its own merits, not posit that Google was "asking for it."
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m don't agree with that, the big reason why what Google did was so vexing was the timing. Java was just starting to get revitalized after a long period of stagnation. Java 7 was a big deal and for a long time Android devs were limited to a weird amalgamation of Java 6 and a few Java 7 features. Then Java 8 came with lots of great Stream goodies (and a lot more) while Android devs are still forced do to make due wit…
> Java was just starting to get revitalized after a long period of stagnation. Java 7 was a big deal and for a long time Android devs were limited to a weird amalgamation of Java 6 and a few Java 7 features. Counterclaim: If it were not such a big legal hazzle, it would have been a lot more easy for Google to update to new Java versions fast on Android.
Counter-counter-claim: No, it wouldn't, because Google screwed the pooch with their update mechanism. The reason people were faced with the decision of not using the new features, using unofficial backports, or cutting off older devices is because Google could not update their devices in a reasonable manner.
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#174Its really interesting how Microsoft changed their JVM into .net, with a nearly identical library API but so slightly different (often Upper case methods instead of lower case). Would be an interesting idea if Google could compile JVM bytecode apps to run on .net VM. Of course JSV8 engine would be better, but is more difficult.
Something like https://blog.xamarin.com/android-in-c-sharp/ ?
Yes looks great. Blog post is 6 years old though, is it still valid?
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#175It may be helpful for readers to look at the actual meat and potatoes of the decision itself. I recommend jumping in at Page 27 of the decision so that they can see how the fair use factors were evaluated in this case:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-or...
Fair use has four factors, lets see how it shook out:
1) Purpose and Character: Google tried to argue that because android is free that it isn't commercial. Bzzt. Nope. You don't need direct monetization to make something commercial.
Was it transformative? They verbatim copied shit. Google claimed it was transformative because they used it in smartphones, yo. No. You guys who think patents that slap "but use a computer to do it" onto the end of some existing process are bad? Google's trying to say the same thing per computer form factor.
2) Nature of the Copyrighted Work: Dealt with previously - APIs are copyrightable. Lots of people have an issue with this, but the previous opinions on that point are where you should go for material on that point.
3) Amount and Substantiality: Bad faith usage came out around neutral; wasn't a huge amount copied but it was important material, as admitted by Google themselves.
4) Effect on Work's Value: Direct evidence of market harm demonstrated by showing that Amazon leveraged Google's infringement to lower their license payment. Slam dunk.
Overall, I agree with the other posters indicating that once API copyrights were upheld that this was going to be a clear loser for Google. Maybe they'll get cert and have the supreme court take a look at this following the re-trial.
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
Law of the case, not law of the land. This only stands as law of the land when the plaintiff manages to include a patent claim (even a weak one that later gets thrown out) to force the case under the Federal Circuit's jurisdiction, as happened here. They don't normally hear copyright cases. While I'm sure more such patent claims will get bundled with API copyright claims in the future where a plaintiff can credibly m…
As I understand the CAFC to work, subject matter jurisdiction only applies to determining whether CAFC can rule on a case. Once they so rule, that ruling is precedent throughout the land -- irrespective of whether the topic of their ruling fell within their subject-matter jurisdiction.
> irrespective of whether the topic of their ruling fell within their subject-matter jurisdiction.
The opposite. Binding only within their subject-matter jurisdiction.
Which is good, because this ruling is so broad it's essentially trying to argue there's no such thing as fair use (because plagiarists arent protected by fair use, and all copyright infringers are plagiarists, and fair use is inherently copyright infringement, therefore...)
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#177I think the part that gets lost in all of this is that Sun offered to license Java to Google previously for $100M. [1] Google turned that down and bypassed Sun because they didn't want to pay (or license). At the time, Sun was happy to see Java being used by Google, even without the license. Still, Google knew exactly what they were doing. [2] My point is, they did this to themselves and they knew what they were poss…
But the thing is Google didn't use the Oracle Java engine. They implemented their own runtime environment that's mostly API compatible with Java (and getting further from that as the years go on). This gets into really critical concerns around APIs. If commercial product A sucks and I'm in a shop where we made our own drop in replacement that implement's A's APIs .. then we open source that drop-in replacement and pu…
Key line from the article:
"In a closely watched 2014 decision in the dispute, the Federal Circuit said the APIs were entitled to copyright protection."
Apparently, header files (which were subject to much discussion in the case) are still a legal minefield.
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure it does. Why did they want a higher performance JS VM for the browser? The language of choice to build interactive applications on the web before JS was really viable was Java. A high performance JS VM means we don't need to use applets anymore.
Not Flash? In my experience Java applets never got anywhere close to the level of adoption of Flash. I suppose it might've been different in corporate environments. I had Flash enabled in my browser long after I stopped using Java applets altogether, if only for video streaming.
Corporate environments were different (easy was to expose Java business program to user without hiring Web people), but the doom of Java in the browser was the whole applet concept and not the DOM integration that JavaScript had. It might have been quite a difference if the JVM could have controlled the webpage like JavaScript.
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#179from TFA: "Oracle claims Google was in such a rush in the mid-2000s to create an operating system for mobile devices that the company used key parts of copyrighted Java technology without paying royalties. " If this is true, it certainly isnt happening again. Google dominates smartphones and could very easily decide to phase out java for go/rust, torpedoing whatever rent-seeking strategy Oracle had originally devised…
> torpedoing whatever rent-seeking strategy Oracle had originally devised
They will get damages for everything that has already happened if they win, which is more than zero, so they do have a clear profit motive.
Oracle gains nothing by having Android use Java so if they force Google to use something else it doesn't matter to them.
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get why it's a scary issue or even controversial why an API would be subject copyright. An API, in my mind, is similar to design drawings or blueprints. Independently figuring out how to implement those drawings doesn't change the fact that you copied the design.
If you apply this view to all APIs, the computer revolution would never have happened. The PC was a clone of IBMs API. They fought this battle and lost and now we can argue about it on little handheld clones all day long.
There's a fundamental difference between:
Blackbox testing -> API Specification -> Implementation
and
Copy API Specification -> Implementaton
In the first case, you will come up with something similar but ultimately original. In the second case you are blatantly copying someone else's work.