Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

Post by maemilius » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 7:14 PM UTC

mtgx wrote: post #320

ABCLAW wrote: post #175

It 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 i…

From the ruling: > The Java API is a collection of “pre-written Java source code programs for common and more advanced computer functions.” I'm not too familiar with Java, but I believe they are mistaking APIs for libraries there. Did Google infringe on the libraries or the actual API? Like did Google actually infringe on what Oracle calls the "Java API" (but is actually a library), and are we all talking past each o…

Post by joshAg » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 7:16 PM UTC

dtech wrote: post #362

joshAg wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So then theoretically, Intel could sue AMD for supporting their x86 ISA? 1) AMD chips aren't free and the usage is totally for a commercial purpose. 2) ISAs are an API. 3) While the implementation is probably clean-room, it's still a total copy of the ISA structure and function call/return value. 4) Intel has been directly harmed by AMD competition, which results in them needing to be price competitive in certain mar…

AMD has a long-standing cross licensing agreement with Intel regarding x86

Post by stephen » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 7:16 PM UTC

gsnedders wrote: post #33

stephen wrote: post #22

I wonder how the $$ Google might pay to Oracle compares to the $$ it is spending to move away from Java by building replacements (v8, Go, Dart, Flutter/Fuschia, etc.) that are all essentially "GC languages with a great runtime VM". E.g. I can understand Oracle/Sun needing some amount of money for stewarding Java, as the teams required to build/maintain/QA/release the JVM were AFAIU in the hundreds, so not cheap. But…

V8 has little to do with Oracle, fundamentally. V8 came about because they wanted a higher performance JS VM for their browser; the JVM was never in contention there.

Post by s2g » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 7:18 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #309

mlindner wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? No those are the same thing. Why is an API suddenly not copyrightable if its 0x51234 offset 5 bits, vs human readable text? That is nonsense. Numbers and words should not be treated differently. What if I named my function 015342342(String 123949)? How does that change anything?

Copyright has a creativity requirement. I can easily see a court ruling that 0x51234 bit 5 is not creative whereas SetBrickMode(true) has a spark of creativity in that it could have been named multiple things. Without endorsement, there is definitely a line between text in which one can be "creative" and numbers in copyright law as written. The problem here isn't the line between creative and non-creative, the proble…

Post by pbhjpbhj » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 7:23 PM UTC

hcknwscommenter wrote: post #275

lmm wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google believed they could implement their own VM and get something cheaper (and/or better) than they would get by licensing one from Sun. That seems like a perfectly legitimate business decision for them to make. A clean-room reimplementation of an existing API had long been thought to be legally clear, going all the way back to Compaq reimplementing the IBM BIOS and starting the "IBM-compatible" competitive ecosyst…

Google did not do a clean-room reimplementation. They copied. This is not disputed by Google.