Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

Post by pbhjpbhj » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 7:25 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #115

redm wrote: post #28

I 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…

> I think the part that gets lost in all of this is that Sun offered to license Java to Google previously for $100M. Google turned that down and bypassed Sun because they didn't want to pay (or license). I'm not sure I follow - Google believed they didn't need a license, just like everyone who used Linux despite SCO offering to license Linux to them. If Google needed a license, and Sun had not offered one, it would n…

Post by Zigurd » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 7:29 PM UTC

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…

Post by loup-vaillant » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 7:32 PM UTC

ABCLAW wrote: post #319

maire wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RE> Nature of the Copyrighted Work: Dealt with previously In my entire career you could not copyright an API. There is good reason for this. If you wanted to do business with certain entities, the implementation had to be multisource. The new implementation had to come from a cleanroom, but in this case it came from open source (which seems equivalent). Therefore you have one judge making one decision that is an anom…

There's a lot of similar responses regarding the API copyright issue. APIs have been 'subject to copyright' for 4 years, since the 2014 decision in this case. Lets see some key details: This is the 2012 ruling: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1202.pdf Alsup indicates that SSO isn't dead law, but finds that APIs aren't copyrightable because they are 'the only one way to write" things to get the key functionality…

Post by carussell » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 7:37 PM UTC

shmerl wrote: post #187

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sure hope so. That decision definitely needs to be appealed. I very much hope it's overturned. (The industry has pretty much assumed - and acted - that APIs were not copyrightable, and that's worked out all right. Suddenly shifting to APIs being copyrightable is going to cause some change the rules under existing activity, in ways that it's hard yet to define the full scope of.) But even if it's not, the decision n…

Didn't White House administration try to interfere with this case, and persuade judges not to declare APIs non copyrightable? That was really weird. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/white-house-side... I wonder what will happen this time.

Post by shmerl » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 7:38 PM UTC

carussell wrote: post #377

shmerl wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't White House administration try to interfere with this case, and persuade judges not to declare APIs non copyrightable? That was really weird. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/white-house-side... I wonder what will happen this time.

That's an interesting way to characterize it. When the Supreme Court was considering Google's petition to hear the case, the court asked the White House to voice an opinion—where by "White House administration", you mean the Solicitor General. That's not "weird"; that's a normal part of the job. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitor_General_of_the_Unite...