Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
28 online now:
dwise1, JoeT, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 24 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,628 Year: 18,664/19,786 Month: 1,084/1,705 Week: 336/518 Day: 12/88 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Oracle Wins Ruling Against Google Over Java APIs
Modulous
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 3 of 62 (830413)
03-28-2018 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
03-28-2018 8:44 AM


This would have profound implications for the software industry. I predict Google will appeal, perhaps first to the full appellate court, perhaps directly to the Supreme Court, but in any eventually to the Supreme Court. I predict a great many amicus curiae briefs will be filed.

An appeal to the Supreme Court was made, and it was turned down.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/...urtorders/062915zor_4g25.pdf

quote:
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

This particular decision was the appeal. It was originally determined APIs weren't copyrightable, an appeal reversed that, then an argument regarding fair use was put forward as grounds for appeal this - the appeal decision today said it wasn't fair use.

The decision can be read here. The basic argument seems to be that Google's usage essentially supplanted Java SE causing material harm to Oracle.

quote:
Having undertaken a case-specific analysis of all four factors, we must weigh the factors together “in light of the purposes of copyright.” Campbel l , 510 U.S. at 578. We ORACLE AMERICA , INC . v. GOOGLE LLC 54 conclude that allowing Google to commercially exploit Oracle’s work will not advance the purposes of copyright in this case. Although Google could have furthered copyright’s goals of promoting creative expression and innovation by developing its own APIs, or by licensing Oracle’s APIs for use in developing a new platform, it chose to copy Oracle’s creative efforts instead. There is nothing fair about taking a copyrighted work verbatim and using it for the same purpose and function as the original in a competing platform. Even if we ignore the record evidence and assume that Oracle was not already licensing Java SE in the smartphone context, smartphones were undoubtedly a potential market . Android’s release effectively replaced Java SE as the supplier of Oracle’s copyrighted works and prevented Oracle from participating in developing markets. This superseding use is inherently unfair. On this record, factors one and four weigh heavily against a finding of fair use , while factor two weighs in favor of such a finding and factor three is, at best, neutral. Weighing these factors together , we conclude that Google’s use of the declaring code and SSO of the 37 API packages was not fair as a matter of law.

quote:
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Google’s use of the 37 Java API packages was not fair as a matter of law. We therefore reverse the district court’s decisions denying Oracle’s motion s for JMOL and remand for a trial on damages. The district court may determine the appropriate vehicle for consideration of infringement allegations regarding additional uses of Android. We dismiss Google’s cross-appeal.

Edited by Admin, : Fix errors in the cut-n-paste from the PDF.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 03-28-2018 8:44 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2018 4:43 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 5 of 62 (830416)
03-28-2018 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
03-28-2018 4:43 PM


That’s a bit of a dodgy argument, I think. As I remember it Sun didn’t want to put Java SE on mobile devices at the time.

However the court's decision notes that:

quote:
Even if we ignore the record evidence and assume that Oracle was not already licensing Java SE in the smartphone context, smartphones were undoubtedly a potential market .

And apparently even the potential market argument provides legal grounds. I expect however, actual vs potential will make a difference when it comes to decide the amount of the damages.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2018 4:43 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019