Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

No Patent Infringement Found In Oracle vs. Google

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the and-there-we-go dept.

Android 234

sl4shd0rk writes "Today, the jury in the Oracle vs. Google trial found no infringement of patents by Google. The jury deliberated about 30 minutes to reach the verdict, bringing an end to the second phase of the trial, and a beginning to the damage phase, which may be very little of what Oracle originally asked for. Still no word on API copyright issues. Judge Alsup will be ruling on that in the near future, and it will certainly have an impact on the developer community."

cancel ×

234 comments

Does this mean Java really is free? (5, Insightful)

jonniesmokes (323978) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092033)

If the APIs turn out to be non-copyrightable, does this mean we can really all enjoy/suffer Java for free?

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40092059)

No. The summary specifically says:

Still no word on API copyright issues.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40092079)

Did you even read his post?

He qualified his question with If the APIs turn out to be non-copyrightable.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40092173)

And yet someone modded the GP up. Larry, don't you have better things to do with your time?

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40092279)

And yet someone modded the GP up. Larry, don't you have better things to do with your time?

s/Larry/Florian/

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40092465)

You're probably right, in which case the answer to my question is "No."

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40092641)

Please keep your cult-of-personality obsession with turning this Florian guy into the Enemy Of The People over at Growklaw. Nobody else cares, thanks.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40092743)

Please keep your cult-of-personality obsession with turning this Florian guy into the Enemy Of The People over at Growklaw. Nobody else cares, thanks.

Oh, I apologize most profusely, Mr. Ballmer, er, Ellison, er... Please nudge Florian, wake him up, and convey my apology to him.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40092811)

That's quite a picture to imagine, Balmer, Ellison and Mueller bending over the keyboard to post anti-Google comments, with Cook looking over the shoulder and Jobs' ghost hanging around in the corner... Kinda like this [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40092865)

Also, "is that you steve ballmer? haw-haw-snort" was a really unfunny autist joke the first one thousand times you guys posted it. I guess crippling aspbergers means your cult-of-personality is unable invent a better comeback, but what you don't realize is that these conspiracy theories make you sound schizophrenic too.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40093205)

what you don't realize is that these conspiracy theories make you sound schizophrenic too.

I don't care about that and neither do I. Hey guys, I don't care about that either.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40092125)

It doesn't matter anyway. There were only nine lines of copied code and the only reason it was there is because the guy that submitted it originally to openJDK is the same guy that put it in Android. The judge learned java for this trial and even he said he could have wrote rangeCheck in a few minutes and had even done so accidentally many times.

Suck it, Oracle. You lose. Good day, sir!

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (-1, Offtopic)

pinkas (2646191) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092249)

That's the copyright issue, not this patent verdict. Stop posting misinformation.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40092301)

You idiot troll. The GGP asked about the copyright portion of the case. Amongst all of your shilling (I notice you're posting at 0 now) at least try to keep up.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (0)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40093023)

There were only nine lines of copied code

As I recall, the "nine lines" included several blank lines....

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (5, Informative)

RatherBeAnonymous (1812866) | more than 2 years ago | (#40093151)

If you recall, 2-3 weeks ago the jury ruled that Google had violated Oracle's copyrights on the Java API's. The caveat being that it is not established in US law whether or not API's are protected by copyright. The judge instructed the jury to deliberate as is API's are protected by copyright. Now, we are just waiting on the judge's ruling as to whether or not API's are protected by copyright. If he rules that they are not, which I personally expect will be the ruling, then the jury's ruling on the API copyright issue will be moot. This was the copyright issue mentioned in the article, not the rangeCheck code, which is apparently a non-issue.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40092065)

This was "only" the patents, copyrights aren't decided yet - still up to the judge (with some luck he'll let us know after the weekend).

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (-1, Offtopic)

pinkas (2646191) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092077)

Still no word on API copyright issues.

You really did not read even the summary? He just found out that there is no patent abuse. But most of the talk has been about Google's copyright abuse, and that is more clear and probably will get Google fined.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40092161)

Haha. You troll idiot. There were only nine lines of copied code and the only reason it was there is because the guy that submitted it originally to openJDK is the same guy that put it in Android. The judge learned java for this trial and even he said he could have wrote rangeCheck in a few minutes and had even done so accidentally many times.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (2, Informative)

RatherBeAnonymous (1812866) | more than 2 years ago | (#40093227)

Nope, this is not about rangeCheck, it is about the earlier jury ruling that Google had violated copyright laws by duplicating the Java API. The judge still has to rule on whether or not API's are protected by copyright.


http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/jury-rules-google-violated-copyright-law-google-moves-for-mistrial/ [arstechnica.com]

"In what could be a major blow to Android, Google's mobile operating system, a San Francisco jury issued a verdict today that the company broke copyright laws when it used Java APIs to design the system. The ruling is a partial victory for Oracle, which accused Google of violating copyright law."

'Google spokesman Jim Prosser responded to the verdict quickly, saying via e-mail: "We appreciate the jury's efforts, and know that fair use and infringement are two sides of the same coin. The core issue is whether the APIs here are copyrightable, and that's for the court to decide. We expect to prevail on this issue and Oracle's other claims."'

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (4, Funny)

GodInHell (258915) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092217)

Muhahhaaha "fined" for the "time saved" in writing 9 lines of code that the judge already advised counsel he (the judge) could write in less than am afternoon. Ooooh look out, here cones a $10,000 fine. Quick, sell GOOG now!!!

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (4, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092113)

The Jury was leaning heavily on them not being copyrightable anyway. See: https://twitter.com/FedcourtJunkie/status/205370887078285313 [twitter.com]

We all just interviewed juror, who said jury was split 9-3 for google on copyright fair use. Um, wow.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (-1)

pinkas (2646191) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092169)

We all just interviewed juror, who said jury was split 9-3 for google on copyright fair use. Um, wow.

Yeah, I wonder how much in bribes they all got from Google?

Apart from bribes, remember that Google is master of marketing. They know how to play this game. This is also why I think jury system in courts is just plain wrong.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (3, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092243)

Well, you missed first post Mr. I'm-new-here. But keep on trolling. Somebody might believe you.

Come on editors. Catch a clue with this nonsense.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (1)

jonniesmokes (323978) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092361)

I am actually really looking for an answer to the question posed. Not trolling. Though maybe you mean poetmatt? The question is, would this trial settle the issue for good, or are there other legal time-bombs awaiting developers?

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (3, Informative)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092425)

If it gets ruled that API's are copyrightable then this creates a whole new can of worms that will send many industries into absolute chaos.

If it gets ruled that API's are not copyrightable then it is business as usual.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40092351)

That's absurd. Jackass.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (4, Funny)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092419)

Shit, juries get bribes? I need to stop trying to skip out on jury duty!

Jury not bribed (2)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092747)

The jury wasn't bribed. One of the Jurors was dismissed for being late because of car problems. The other was dismissed for being sick. With money on the line no juror would be dismissed for those reasons. If they were bribed they wouldn't have taken a week to reach a verdict either.

Re:Jury not bribed (5, Funny)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 2 years ago | (#40093081)

One of the Jurors was dismissed for being late because of car problems. The other was dismissed for being sick.

Oh yeah, and Google couldn't have possibly caused someone to have car problems or get sick.

Wake up! Google controls everything...

Re:Jury not bribed (0)

CAKAS (2646219) | more than 2 years ago | (#40093201)

Oh yeah, and Google couldn't have possibly caused someone to have car problems

This is especially funny because Google wants to have self-driving cars and they will be under their control then. Heh.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40092927)

lol - what you meant was, "you mean they voted that way despite the heavy bribes from oracle?" right? right? Bueller?

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (3, Insightful)

ais523 (1172701) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092557)

That wasn't the Jury deciding whether they were copyrightable; they'd been asked about their opinion assuming it was (juries are supposed to determine facts, rather than law). That was the jury (failing to) decide whether Google were nonetheless allowed to use the API under fair use, even if it were copyrighted.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092659)

That was 9 jurors holding that it was far use, which would trump the copyright question, and 3 jurors disagreeing. Had this been held in the affirmative, it would trump any question of whether they're copyrightable altogether - although had it been a finding on them not being copyrightable that would be better, as fair use is a defense - not copyrightable is just "there's no question, you can do that and don't need to defend it".

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092235)

If the APIs turn out to be non-copyrightable, does this mean we can really all enjoy/suffer Java for free?

It's a great deal more important than that: If APIs are copyrightable, API-compatible implementations of anything without that thing's blessing would be on legally shaky ground. I'll leave imagining the technology world in an alternate universe where IBM simply sued Compaq for producing an API-compatible BIOS to the reader; but that's the sort of magnitude we are talking here...

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (4, Interesting)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092669)

It's a great deal more important than even you are suggesting. If APIs are copyrightable, then Linux and *BSD just became illegal for implementing POSIX without a license from The Open Group. Such a decision would absolutely have to be appealed up to SCOTUS, and if necessary, reversed by an emergency act of Congress. It simply cannot be allowed to stand, as it would essentially end Western civilization as we know it. Imagine 90% of the world's servers becoming illegal overnight. Imagine the machines that run 75% of the world's stock markets becoming illegal overnight. Such a decision would essentially bring the computing industry and every industry that depends on it to a grinding halt.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40092797)

I'm imagining that world... and I just see a whole lot of licenses being signed in a hurry. Big money creeps get richer, and independents get more shut out. Especially of the internet, and computing.

What? You think anyone is lobbying congress for the rights of the latter group? Nobody in power minds if this goes down at all, and very few people in the suburbs and Walmart do either.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (3, Insightful)

Bigby (659157) | more than 2 years ago | (#40093181)

That more along the right path. However, I think it will just wind up like the patent industry. APIs will be used as blackmail against each other...effectively crowding out the little guys and startups.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (3, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092915)

It could also be construed to cover virtually all protocols and file formats, as well, since those are descriptions of the 'interface' by which an application can interact with another system or data storage structure in a compatible way. You'd basically end up in a situation where interoperability would be possible only at the pleasure of the original vendor for the duration of an entire copyright term. That would be pretty dramatic.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 2 years ago | (#40093057)

That would indeed be interesting as both Microsoft's Windows and Apple's OS X derived some of their code from BSD.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40092801)

APIs are not copyrightable in Europe, the ruling was made recently to clear up this kind of crap. If the US court goes the wrong way, expect the most US IT companies to move their IP to Europe.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092245)

If the APIs turn out to be non-copyrightable, does this mean we can really all enjoy/suffer Java for free?

If they are copyrightable, will we all have to switch to Scala running on the JVM? I have to think about that a minute. As long as you expunged all java including libraries from the ecosystem, then... hmm.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (4, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092393)

If they are copyrightable, will we all have to switch to Scala running on the JVM?

If the APIs are copyrightable, the bytecode spec will also be copyrightable. So you cannot write a JVM without Oracle's permission. This was the problem for Apache Harmony. If APIs are found to be non-copyrightable but the bytecode spec still is for some reason, Google could write (or allow others to write) a Dalvik VM for other platforms and we could continue writing Java code but compile it for the DVM instead of the JVM.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (1)

muon-catalyzed (2483394) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092587)

APIs maybe. Java? No. Java(tm) is still a 'LIVE' mark owned by Sun Microsystems (now Oracle) according to this:

Word Mark JAVA Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: computer programs for use in developing and executing other computer programs on computers, computer networks, and global communications networks, and instruction manuals sold therewith; computer programs for use in navigating, browsing, transferring information, and distributing and viewing other computer programs on computers, computer networks and global communications networks, and instruction manuals sold therewith. FIRST USE: 19960100. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19960100 Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING Serial Number 74631225 Filing Date February 7, 1995 Current Basis 1A Original Filing Basis 1B Published for Opposition October 8, 1996 Change In Registration CHANGE IN REGISTRATION HAS OCCURRED Registration Number 2178784 Registration Date August 4, 1998 Owner (REGISTRANT) Sun Microsystems, Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE 4150 NETWORK CIRCLE SANTA CLARA CALIFORNIA 95054

(LAST LISTED OWNER) Oracle America, Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE 500 ORACLE PARKWAY REDWOOD SHORES CALIFORNIA 94065 Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED Attorney of Record Andrew Roppel Type of Mark TRADEMARK Register PRINCIPAL Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20080811. Renewal 1ST RENEWAL 20080811 Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092831)

More importantly, it means that you can write a bytecode VM without infringing on Oracle's patents.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40092939)

But you can't call it Java (tm), read the trademark post above. If you want to call it Java you'll have to pay Oracle for the test kit.

Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (3, Interesting)

mounthood (993037) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092981)

If the APIs turn out to be non-copyrightable, does this mean we can really all enjoy/suffer Java for free?

No, because Oracle will sue you for $6.1 billion anyway. The objective wasn't just money from Android, it was to assert control over Java. Oracle's actions since buying Sun have been consistent on this: making deals on OpenJDK for IBM to drop Harmony and Apple to drop their Java port, general patent FUD, and finally suing Google. With this ruling Oracle's control is clearly a financial 'might makes right' assertion without legal basis, but does that matter?

Hahahahahahaha... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40092067)

Hahahahaha...Android haters.. I'm looking at you Bonch, overlycriticaljackass, insightin140bytes(and your 50,000 alter egos).

How you like us now, bitches?

Re:Hahahahahahaha... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40093035)

I'm glad my mod points just expired. I'd know that I probably shouldn't mod this up...but I'd really really really want to.

Didn't take long, did it? (1, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092081)

Gotta love how the entire time we heard magic numbers from oracle, all fud, all pulling the microsoft blasphemy train, and the entire thing was clearly debunked by a jury faster than anyone's head can spin. Good thing I got to keep track of the shills.

groklaw [groklaw.net] had plenty of coverage highlighting exactly this.

I hope people know that this is typical for google [slashdot.org] and that people already knew the answer [slashdot.org] before the case even came forward. Now go back and stroll those articles to look who the trolls were from the old articles. History/Karma's a bitch, huh. one troll example [slashdot.org] .

Re:Didn't take long, did it? (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092181)

30 minutes of deliberation also says a lot about how crystal clear the whole thing was.

The one time I served on a jury (albeit criminal, not civil), after 2 weeks of the defendant trying to drag things out, we went into the jury room and promptly determined that the guy was so obviously guilty that we could discount everything the victim had to say and still be comfortable convicting him. That took us about 45-60 minutes, a lot of which was us lounging around so that the other jurors could finish their free coffee.

Re:Didn't take long, did it? (4, Informative)

zjbs14 (549864) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092251)

They were deliberating since last week. Summary was wrong.

He said she said. (2)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092335)

Basically Oracle failed to prove its case. Oracle had its expert say Google infringed. Google had it expert say they didn't infringe. The patent claims were a technical and vague. There was no way a layperson could find that one expert was right and the other was wrong. The Jury with no choice but to find Oracle didn't prove its case.

Re:He said she said. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40092431)

Actually, Oracle's expert had even said that Google did not infringe, because to find for infringement required the use of symbolic references. Google uses numeric references, and Oracle's expert noted that in his report. When cornered, he "changed his mind" and said that numeric references (i.e. references to specific memory locations) are just a form of symbolic references (i.e. references to memory by name that is later cross-referenced to a memory location).

It seems that the jury must have believed Oracle's witness initial report and not his later re-interpretation of said report.

Re:Didn't take long, did it? (4, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092327)

History/Karma's a bitch, huh. one troll example [slashdot.org] .

How is that a troll? It looks like a perfectly reasonable, logical, opinion. (note: we are allowed to have differing opinions, and "troll" does not mean "does not share my opinion")

Re:Didn't take long, did it? (2, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092457)

It was the standard "I hate microsoft , but....(opposite argument)" troll. It's done all the time, and the phrase is repeated almost the exact same way every single time. Any time people fail to remember that a convicted monopolist is a convicted monopolist is to deny facts that have been proven in court. Or as the phrase goes "leopards don't change their spots", and this has proven true, especially for large companies.

Re:Didn't take long, did it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40092677)

It was the standard "I hate microsoft , but....(opposite argument)" troll.

AGAIN, THAT ISN'T A TROLL.

Sweet jesus, is it that hard for you to figure out the definition of a troll?

Re:Didn't take long, did it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40092819)

It was the standard "I hate microsoft , but....(opposite argument)" troll.

AGAIN, THAT ISN'T A TROLL

Sure it is. It's called false flag or concern troll [wikipedia.org]

Re:Didn't take long, did it? (2)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092881)

Thank you. Not everyone fails to comprehend how this works. There is more to the fudtrain than just "google is evil" stuff, and false flag trolls are extremely common.

Re:Didn't take long, did it? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092549)

also, having different opinions is great and important - but don't do it using the old arguments. We know when it's a rehashing of the same argument all the time with the intent to mislead. I would never expect that people should ever have to agree with me, but I would expect people to rely on facts to make their arguments, not make an argument entirely devoid of facts using either emotional arguments or moral ones.

Re:Didn't take long, did it? (2)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092409)

History/Karma's a bitch, huh. one troll example .

Maybe I'm missing something, but the "troll" you cite seems to be... well, not a troll. In fact, I completely agree with him/her/it.

Re:Didn't take long, did it? (3, Interesting)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092507)

I love shill bashing as much as the next guy, but that is a bad example.

Ouch (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40092107)

The jury deliberated about 30 minutes

That's kind of damning. Apparently Oracles case was so weak a group of largely non-technical people decided it was much of nothing in 30 minutes. That's basically the time it takes for them to go into the room, all get coffee and donuts and take a vote.

#0 minutes? Read the Groklaw accounts of this ... (4, Informative)

hedronist (233240) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092317)

I don't know where this "30 minutes" number came from. Maybe it was 30 minutes today, but all together it was at least 2 or 3 days, maybe even 4.

It's interesting to note that the only reason it took them that long was because the jury foreman was the only hold out in favor of Oracle. Apparently he was the one responsible for many of the questions that the jury kept sending to the judge.

Anyway, glad this is (almost) over. The only real thing left is for Judge Alsup to determine if the APIs are copyrightable at all. My personal bet is that he will rule that they are not and that this will drive a stake through the heart of Oracle and (hopefully) Larry Ellison.

But as PJ at GrokLaw keeps telling us: never make a bet on a legal ruling.

Re:#0 minutes? Read the Groklaw accounts of this . (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092745)

I believe the judge kinda lead his opinion by saying that he disagreed with them being copyrighted, based on his comments about RangeCheck ("I could do this myself any day"). There are zero damages on the table now though, which is a far cry from 6 billion dollars - so the rest of this case should finish quickly. However, there is a question of whether the CAFC gets involved at the appeal level and simply rules pro-patent like they seem to do with everything lately, and whether the recent supreme court decision will impact that as well.

Re:Ouch (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092681)

Apparently Oracles case was so weak a group of largely non-technical people decided it was much of nothing in 30 minutes.

I don't know where you get the impression that they were largely non-technical people. AFAIK, this trial was held in a SF Bay Area court. I doubt fewer than half the jurors worked at tech companies, and even the judge had programming experience.

damages? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40092129)

why is there even a damages phase if Google has been found to not be in violation?

Re:damages? (1)

Troyusrex (2446430) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092183)

I was wondering the same thing. I bet the answer is that the summary of the article left out some important details..

Re:damages? (1)

Troyusrex (2446430) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092215)

And the answer from the article would be " In the copyright phase of the trial, the jury returned a partial verdict, mostly in favor of Oracle."

Re:damages? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092219)

why is there even a damages phase if Google has been found to not be in violation?

Yes I was mystified that the /. summary claimed it was about to begin but the linked groklaw article explains how there isn't going to be one and the jury has been dismissed (dismissed as in bye bye go home thanks for playing and have a nice life).

Re:damages? (1)

ais523 (1172701) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092629)

There's still going to be a damages phase, but the numbers likely to be involved are so small that the sides agreed that the judge could set the damages himself, rather than having a jury do it.

No damages phase (3, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#40093053)

There's still going to be a damages phase, but the numbers likely to be involved are so small that the sides agreed that the judge could set the damages himself,

That's actually not certain until we have the ruling on the SSO copyright. Per the May 16 Stipulation and Order, one of two things will happen:

1. Alsup will rule the SSO's aren't protected by copyright, in which case rangeCheck and the copied test files are the only infringements to consider. In that event, both parties have waived trial by jury and Oracle has waived any claim to actual damages or infringers profits, and Alsup will set an award for statutory damages only, and the trial will be done. (And the appeals will start.)

2. Alsup will rule that the SSO are copyrightable, in which case neither party has waived jury trial on any portion of the copyright damages, and the parties have agreed to a two-part trial on the SSO Claim damages (and, it seems, a separate part covering rangeCheck and the test files), so it looks like in that case there would be a three-phase trial on damages with a whole new jury.

Re:damages? (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40093071)

There's still going to be a damages phase, but the numbers likely to be involved are so small that the sides agreed that the judge could set the damages himself, rather than having a jury do it.

Not quite.

The judge will determine damages since Oracle and Google agreed to "statutory damages" on the copyright infringement.

Assuming that the judge doesn't decide that 9 lines of 15 million isn't de minimus (worth zero damages), then the damages will range from $200 to $150K, which are the legal limits....

Re:damages? (1)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092463)

Not in violation of patents != not in violation of copyright. There is more that one legal issue involved in this case (shocking, I know).

Re:damages? (1)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092477)

Though I see from other comments below that their will be no damages for the copyright portion either. I hereby blame the summary.

Re:damages? (2)

DickBreath (207180) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092599)

There is a damages phase because a 9 line RangeCheck function was copied. That 9 lines includes the blank lines in the function. The purpose of the function is to check if an array index is between zero inclusive and some upper bound. It's difficult to under estimate the tremendous potential damages value of such a complex and highly technical function.

Re:damages? (1)

ais523 (1172701) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092603)

There were two phases to the court case. The jury found that Google didn't infringe any of Oracle's patents. They also found that Google had illegally copied nine lines of code from J2SE, and also copied Oracle's Java API (but the judge hasn't yet ruled on whether APIs are even copyrightable, and 9 out of the 12 jurors thought the copying would be legal in this specific case even if they're copyrightable in general). The judge also ruled that Google had used some illegally copied test files. If the judge finds that APIs aren't copyrightable, my prediction's that Google will be found to owe Oracle $750, the statutory minimum for wilful copyright infringement. Seriously, nine lines?

30 minutes - try 5 days (4, Informative)

gus goose (306978) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092187)

Hmmm... Thursday last week till today... that's a about 30 minutes according to Oracle's 'simulations' ... ;-)

30 Minutes? Try One Week (4, Informative)

zjbs14 (549864) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092195)

The jury has been deliberating on the patent infringement since last Wednesday. Not sure where the submitter for the 30 minutes from.

Re:30 Minutes? Try One Week (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092271)

Not sure where the submitter for the 30 minutes from.

Maybe same place English went?

Re:30 Minutes? Try One Week (1)

zjbs14 (549864) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092315)

for -> got. Slashcode needs a keyboard transposition checker.

Re:30 Minutes? Try One Week (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40092365)

30 minutes to weigh the evidence for Oracle v. Google.... the rest of the time to tell lawyer and America's Cup syndicate owner jokes

No damage phase either (3, Informative)

T.E.D. (34228) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092201)

According to that Groklaw link in TFA, the jury has been dismissed and there will be no damages phase.

Our reporter provides this:

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.

Unanimous. The jury is dismissed. There will be no damages phase for them to endure.

Re:No damage phase either (5, Funny)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092451)

Foreman: "Does anyone understand these patents?"

Juror 7: "No, still don't."

Juror 5: "My head hurts."

Juror 6: "This better be over with soon, or I'm going to be the third juror to take a medical leave of absence. I can't stand this crap any more."

Juror 2: "All I know is if we find Google guilty, we're going to have to sit here for another week deciding damages"

{silence}

Foreman: "Case dismissed?"

Rest of jury in unison: "Not guilty!"

Re:No damage phase either (4, Funny)

pesho (843750) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092947)

You forgot:

Juror 3: What is this Oracle company doing? Never heard of them.

Juror 4 (while pulling his android phone out): Me neither. Let me Google them.

wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40092255)

Jury deliberated about a week, not 30 minutes. And the jury has been dismissed, there is no "damages phase" of the trial. Come on, /., it's not that hard to get it right.

Summary slightly wrong (5, Insightful)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092265)

There will be no damage phase. Judge has sent the jury home. Judge will handle damages himself based on agreements between Oracle and Google. Basically Oracle will get a few thousand for the 9 lines of code and a couple thousand for the test files. Then they will spend that money in one day in lawyer fees on the appeal. It is also important to note that this trial only covered 2 patents. Oracle can try again with different patents. However it should be noted that these were likely their best patents to use against Google.

Re:Summary slightly wrong (4, Informative)

phoenix_rizzen (256998) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092527)

Oracle started with 7 or 9 patents that they thought were worth $6 billion in damages/licensing/royalties/whatever.

All but 2 of the patents ('104 and '520) were found to be invalid and rejected by the USPTO. The '104 patent was found to be preliminarily invalid after the trial started.

And now Oracle is leaving with nothing but a huge invoice from the lawyers ... the same lawyers who lost the SCO trial(s). (Go figure.)

Re:Summary slightly wrong (3, Insightful)

DickBreath (207180) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092655)

The judge will be deciding the damages on the 9 line RangeCheck function which was found to be infringed. So there is a damages phase, of sorts. The 9 lines include some blank lines. RangeCheck is a function to check if an array index is between zero inclusive and some upper bound. I imagine that Oracle has been severely financially damaged by Google having copied this highly sophisticated function.

Re:Summary slightly wrong (2)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092987)

The judge will be deciding the damages on the 9 line RangeCheck function which was found to be infringed. So there is a damages phase, of sorts. The 9 lines include some blank lines. RangeCheck is a function to check if an array index is between zero inclusive and some upper bound. I imagine that Oracle has been severely financially damaged by Google having copied this highly sophisticated function.

The judge has already warned Oracle that he think a high-school student could write that function and not to expect much in damages from it, so I'm thinking OP's "a few thousand" might be a little optimistic for Oracle. It may well end up being in the hundreds (and it could be even lower, depending on how much of as example the judge wants to set).

Re:Summary slightly wrong (3, Insightful)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 2 years ago | (#40093163)

One dollar. That's usually the case when you're right but it doesn't matter.

the core issue in the trial is still undecided (2)

vivek7006 (585218) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092297)

"Though the jury has been dismissed, the core issue in the trial is still undecided. Judge William Alsup will rule himself on whether the Java APIs are subject to copyright, and he expects to do so sometime next week."

Re:the core issue in the trial is still undecided (1)

EvilBudMan (588716) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092417)

Yes, and that's the bigger deal. It doesn't ever end.

Re:the core issue in the trial is still undecided (1)

phoenix_rizzen (256998) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092551)

Even if the judge does the unthinkable and rules for Oracle, all they'll get from it is the $150,000 statutory limit. To go against their several million dollar lawyers fees.

Silly Oracle, trix are for kids (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40092399)

Kudos to the jury. They put a lot of effort into understanding the issue at hand. Based on courtroom reporting, the jury paid attention and they asked clarifying questions while deliberating to make sure they understood. Software patents are a mess. Oracle's arguments were terrible from a CS standpoint (and their expert should be embarrassed).

I believe the only issue still on the table is API copyrightability which Judge Aslup will rule on as a matter of law. The jury found for Oracle in that instance because the jury instructions essentially mandated it. I expect Aslup will rule for Google on that claim as well.

Oracle's current claim for money is literally for 9 lines of code called rangeCheck (which anyone in a high school intro to java class could write), and 8 test files copied by a subcontractor and never distrusted to end users.

A certain Oracle paid blogger will still manage to post how Oracle basically got everything it wanted.

Re:Silly Oracle, trix are for kids (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#40093049)

One of the things that probably tipped in Google's favor was that Sun CEOs disagreed whether Google did anything wrong. Former CEO and founder Scott McNealy said Google violated their rights. The last CEO (and CEO when Oracle acquired Sun), Jonathan Schwartz said Google did nothing wrong.

If I know my history (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092683)

This will not stop Sun Microsys... (ahem, sorry Oracle). Companies that choose to innovate in the courtroom will not let something like a dismissal of a single court case stop them from trying to leach on and suck innovation from other companies.

Oh my (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092899)

I cannot feel the slightest shred of sympathy for Oracle over this. When it comes to damages they'll be lucky if they receive a sum which pays for their legal expenses. This is somewhat removed from the beeelions they originally wanted.

Shocking! (5, Funny)

stevenfuzz (2510476) | more than 2 years ago | (#40092963)

Dear Oracle, Apparently your lawyers are about the same quality as your databases. When your lawyers lost, did they email technical support and receive the answer, "Please restart your database"--you know, because they hadn't tried that 5 times.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...