Beta
×

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!

Google To Pay $0 To Oracle In Copyright Case

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the alls-well-that-ends-well dept.

Android 250

An anonymous reader writes "In a hearing in the US District Court today, it was determined that Google will pay a net total of nothing for Oracle's patent claims against them. In fact, Google is given 14 days to file an application for Oracle to pay legal fees to Google (in a similar manner to how things are done for frivolous lawsuits). However, it is not quite peaches and roses for Google, as Oracle is planning on appealing the decision in the case.'"

cancel ×

250 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

wat??? (-1)

kcin (34043) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393539)

frost pist

first post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393557)

finally!

Oracle (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393559)

So Oracle is all, "well, we got screwed because we got the smart judge. Maybe in an appeal we can get the dilhole judge. The one who can't write rangeCheck in 2 minutes."

Re:Oracle (5, Insightful)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393597)

What a slap in the face... but one Oracle desperately needed.

Re:Oracle (5, Insightful)

Kagetsuki (1620613) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393643)

Let's hope they get a few more if they keep appealing.

Re:Oracle (1)

Lisias (447563) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394935)

How many coding judges USA have?

Re:Oracle (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393653)

yay :)))

Re:Oracle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393693)

An API is like a comma. Nice.

An API is a description of *what* a piece of software does. Facts have never been copyrightable; however, carefully curated collections of facts in the form of header files might be.

Re:Oracle (5, Funny)

Abreu (173023) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393835)

Considering that Larry Ellison is buying himself a frikking island, perhaps the slap in the face finally pushed him into super-villainy...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/larry-ellisons-island-ora_n_1614130.html [huffingtonpost.com]

Re:Oracle (5, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394291)

From the article:

Murdock [the current owner] said in a statement that selling Lanai [the sixth-largest Hawaiian island] was not an impulsive decision, but he has been looking for a buyer who would have the right enthusiasm, commitment and respect for the island's residents.

...so he decided to sell to freaking Ellison?!? Yeah, that'll end well.

Re:Oracle (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40394697)

Yeah, that'll end well.

According to the pattern, he will buy the thing, and then go behind those who support and use it, and sue them.

Re:Oracle (5, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#40395059)

Yeah, that'll end well.

According to the pattern, he will buy the thing, and then go behind those who support and use it, and sue them.

Then sue everyone else who lives on an island because the docks look the same - one end in deep water and the other on the island.

New Headquarters (3, Funny)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394745)

So will the new Oracle headquarters be inside the vulcano on Lanai? Next thing you know, he'll be putting lasers on the moon.

Re:New Headquarters (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40394989)

So will the new Oracle headquarters be inside the vulcano on Lanai? Next thing you know, he'll be putting lasers on the moon.

Or on his sharks. Maybe even make: LAWYER SHARKS WITH FREAKING LAZERS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEAD! Let's see a judge deny him his monies then.

Re:Oracle (3, Funny)

blackest_k (761565) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394447)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18529739 [bbc.co.uk]

only 98% of the island of Lanai thou , the plan was for Google to pay for the other 2% but things didn't quite work out...

Re:Oracle (1)

catmistake (814204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394837)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18529739 [bbc.co.uk]

only 98% of the island of Lanai thou , the plan was for Google to pay for the other 2% but things didn't quite work out...

check Google Maps.... the island Is crawling with Street View... and in high definition.

Re:Oracle (4, Funny)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394641)

perhaps the slap in the face finally pushed him into super-villainy...

I think he has been there for years.

It's just one more purchase in a long line of super villiany like purchases. Think about it. Yachts, Islands, massive Data Centers. It's like he decided to purchase everything he ever saw a James Bond villain have.

I wonder if he has a white cat....

Re:Oracle (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40395001)

I wonder if he has a white cat....

No, but he gets plenty of blonde pussy.

Re:Oracle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40394521)

ha ha

Re:Oracle (1)

AssholeMcGee (2521806) | more than 2 years ago | (#40395211)

You would have to wonder if Oracle did this on purpose? I believe other Judges would have ruled the same way, but I know that most or idiots anyway. Maybe they did this to see how far they could push the issue, or where they stood, maybe other companies try this out and find ways of convincing a smart judge to rule in there favor. As dumb as this lawsuit was, they had to have been experimenting to see where they stood or they just have incredibly dumb management!!!

Re:Oracle (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393867)

Previous rulings are viewed as the starting point for appeals, and it's up to Oracle to try and prove why that ruling was flawed. Especially in a case like this, where a higher judge is much less likely to understand the matter, they'll treat Alsup's judgment very highly and are unlikely to overrule it.

Re:Oracle (3, Funny)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394205)

and yet only a small step from "6 billion dollars", huh.

Oracle has screwed up so badly even their lawyers are looking horrible.

Re:Oracle (2)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394509)

These are the same lawyers that shredded MS in the antitrust case, and then lost their bowels in SCO vs sanity. Seeing your username I think you knew that, but I wanted to point out the interesting history for others. I strongly suspect that Boies will modify their terms of engagement before taking on new clients in the future...

Re:Oracle (3, Informative)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394731)

Yes, it was BSF, but they also had hired the MoFos [mofo.com] (and, no, that's not a joke domain, it's legit).

The MoFos trashed BSF in the SCO/Novell suit.

Re:Oracle (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40394949)

Given how close that figure is to the amount that Oracle paid for Sun, I guarantee you that before Oracle bought Sun, someone doing analysis of potential take over targets shortlisted Sun based on the Java IP. I'll bet that they thought it was a slam dunk that Sun could have won an IP lawsuit against Google and that made them an ideal takeover target since they have what Oracle would call an underutilized asset in the Java IP.

Which of course is a massive miscalculation, but then again most corporate acquisitions turn out to be massive miscalculations.

$0? Even I usually tip 25 cents (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393579)

when I buy my cup of Java at DD.

Hey Oracle! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393623)

Suck it!

Re:Hey Oracle! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393637)

Will, is that you?

Cute (5, Funny)

multicoregeneral (2618207) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393645)

The best part of the article is in how they came up with the zero dollar figure. You can't make this stuff up. Well, I suppose you could...

Weird ruling (5, Insightful)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393665)

It blows my mind that Google can use a fairly complete Java clone over Oracles objections and pay nothing, while Apple sues people's socks off for making tablets shaped like rounded rectangles, and adding bounce to their scrollable views. I'm not a fan of software patents, so not saying I'm unhappy with the result. Just weirded out at the cluelessness of the legal system.

Re:Weird ruling (5, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393711)

They are not clueless.

They know damn well what they are doing.

Remember, this is the same legal environment that packed the DOJ with ex-RIAA attorneys.

Re:Weird ruling (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393753)

Can you please STFU about the RIAA? It has nothing to do with this other than to get groupthink fucks to agree with you. These are the same types of fucks who don't know a speeding ticket from a subpoena.

Re:Weird ruling (2)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394025)

Actually, the RIAA and the "clueless"-ness are simply both symptoms of corruption.

Re:Weird ruling (5, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394713)

Can you please STFU about the RIAA? It has nothing to do with this other than to get groupthink fucks to agree with you. These are the same types of fucks who don't know a speeding ticket from a subpoena.

Actually, it has quite a bit to do with it.

The point is that the legal system is broken, not clueless, because the people involved in the deciding part (judges, DOJ) have conflicting interests due to their associations with current/former clients.

That's why Oracle gets a much different result than Apple in the legal system. Not actual logic, ethics, or law, but who you know and where they used to work for.

Re:Weird ruling (1)

fredprado (2569351) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393719)

As far as I know (and I can be wrong on that) Apple has never won any copyright case yet. The maximum it achieved with its patent trolling was temporary injunctions in some markets like Germany and Australia.

Re:Weird ruling (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393763)

I think PsyStar would disagree that Apple hasn't won any copyright cases.

Re:Weird ruling (2)

fredprado (2569351) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393849)

That was about customization of MacOS in non Apple Machines and Apple's abusive EULA. PsyStar bough licenses from Apple and used them in a way that broke the EULA. It had nothing to do with copyright.

Re:Weird ruling (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393883)

It was also a DMCA violating because PsyStar circumvented the technological protection measures in OSX.

Re:Weird ruling (1)

fredprado (2569351) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394095)

What protections? I am not aware OSX has any DRM to be broken. And they certainly didn't do any pirate copy of the software. Psystar just hacked some drivers into OSX, which I am pretty sure is not covered by DCMA. AFAIK, this case it was a pure EULA violation and no DCMA violation claim was made by Apple.

Re:Weird ruling (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394167)

OSX contains checks inside parts of the OS (e.g. windowing system) to verify that its running on legitimate apple hardware. (or at least it did last time I heard about it). That to me would count as a "technological protection measure" under the DMCA.
The fact that Apple didn't use the DMCA in court doesn't necessarily mean that what Pystar did isn't a DMCA violation.

Re:Weird ruling (1)

Pathwalker (103) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394729)

Ever look at the contents of /System/Library/Extensions/Dont\ Steal\ Mac\ OS\ X.kext/ ?

Re:Weird ruling (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393921)

That was about customization of MacOS in non Apple Machines and Apple's abusive EULA. PsyStar bough licenses from Apple and used them in a way that broke the EULA. It had nothing to do with copyright.

IANAL... but it seems to me a EULA draws its legal basis from copyright laws (like in "I'm giving you this piece of copyrighted work - in this case MacOS - and you agree to do with it as per EULA"). Pretty much the same as BSD/Apache/GPL/whatever open source license does.
You're sure PsyStar case has nothing to do with copyright?

Re:Weird ruling (5, Insightful)

fredprado (2569351) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394049)

EULA is a contract. It draws its legals base from an agreement between the parts involved. Certainly one of the parts needs to have some rights over whatever is being used by the other (be it copyright, ownership, etc), but to break the EULA you don't need to violate these rights, which was exactly what happened in PsyStar's case. PsyStar didn't copy Apple's product, they bought every one of the licenses they used. They didn't violate any copyright from Apple, but still they didn't obey the EULA they have agreed upon when they licensed the software.

So, yes, I am pretty sure the case wasn't about copyright, patents or anything remotely associated with suing someone for making a product in the same shape as yours.

Re:Weird ruling (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394105)

EULA is a contract. It draws its legals base from an agreement between the parts involved. Certainly one of the parts needs to have some rights over whatever is being used by the other (be it copyright, ownership, etc), but to break the EULA you don't need to violate these rights, which was exactly what happened in PsyStar's case.
PsyStar didn't copy Apple's product, they bought every one of the licenses they used. They didn't violate any copyright from Apple, but still they didn't obey the EULA they have agreed upon when they licensed the software.

Thanks. +Insightful

Re:Weird ruling (1)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394145)

Can you enter into a contract just by buying something? Isn't it true that EULAs have never really been tested in court? (If you're right, then Apple/Psystar is an example, maybe I'll have to read more about this.) Can I sell you a book with an attached EULA that says you may only read it in a blue rocking chair, and if you violate that you have to give the book back with no refund, and you agree to the contract merely by purchasing the book? Virtual property is problematic in many ways.

Re:Weird ruling (2)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394419)

Can you enter into a contract just by buying something? Isn't it true that EULAs have never really been tested in court?

The way I know, in civil laws, what it is not forbidden, then it is allowed. If that's true, then the fact that EULA hasn't been tested in a court as a contract (much less ruled that it is not), it means it is allowed to act as a contract.

(If you're right, then Apple/Psystar is an example, maybe I'll have to read more about this.) Can I sell you a book with an attached EULA that says you may only read it in a blue rocking chair, and if you violate that you have to give the book back with no refund, and you agree to the contract merely by purchasing the book?

By purchasing the software (by extension, a book would fall under the same) with a shrinkwrap [wikipedia.org] license that doesn't allow you to read its terms: it seems the precedents indicate it is not enforceable [wikipedia.org] .

But if you have had the occasion to read the license before buying it and/or if the seller offers you the opportunity to return it and get a refund in case you don't agree with the license, the answer seems to be yes, it is enforceable [wikipedia.org] .

Under some debate: EULA's that require to give away some rights (e.g. bring class actions, enter arbitration instead suing, benchmarking/criticizing the products), the things are still evolving [wired.com] .

Virtual property is problematic in many ways.

Otherwise, I agree with you: dam'd ferengies with their rules of acquisition [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Weird ruling (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394573)

Can you enter into a contract just by buying something?

Buying something IS a contract! At it's most basic level it is an agreement to exchange physical items or services.

Yep, but having the audactity to treat a judge like a fool by attempting to enforce it in court would likely backfire and do serious damage to your bank account.

Re:Weird ruling (2)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394587)

Sorry for the fucked up quote tags :( The missing quote is - "Can I sell you a book with an attached EULA that says you may only read it in a blue rocking chair, and if you violate that you have to give the book back with no refund, and you agree to the contract merely by purchasing the book?".

Re:Weird ruling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40395103)

Rules with respect to EULAs vary quite a bit by country. However, purchase itself is by definition a contract.
With respect to EULAs (and similar terms and conditions for services), some countries, like the Netherlands and (most?) other EU countries, enforce strict rules as to how these should be presented to a customer[1]. Most notably, this means the EULA should be presented clearly, unambiguously and before purchase and in a way that makes it easy to save (such as on paper or with a pdf/print button). In addition, there typically exists a blacklist of statements that are explicitly banned from being included in a standard EULA (and a graylist of dubious statements, but I don't recall the details there).
I'm not sure about the US, unfortunately, but typically their consumer law is less protective.

[1] customer in this context excludes businesses, because it is consumer law.

disclaimer: IANAL, this is based on a law in cyberspace course I took and reading this nerd/lawyer's blog [thenextspeaker.com] .

Re:Weird ruling (1)

IntlHarvester (11985) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394287)

No, Psystar was found to be violating Apple's base copyrights. They weren't installing directly from the disks, they had copied the software to an imaging server, so each installation was considered to be an unauthorized copy.

Apple's case was brought on copyright, EULA, patents, trademarks, and I believe the DMCA. The judge gave them a total victory on all counts IIRC. Psystar wasn't exactly the greatest test case.

Re:Weird ruling (4, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394495)

Not according to the judge. Psystar lost both on copyright and DMCA counts [groklaw.net] .

After full briefing and oral argument, Psystar was found liable for infringement of Apple's copyrights in Mac OS X by violating Apple's exclusive reproduction right, distribution right, and right to create derivative works (Dkt. No. 214 at 10). Psystar was also found liable for contributory copyright infringement by intentionally inducing and encouraging its customers to directly infringe Apple's copyrights through its sale of unauthorized copies of Mac OS X to the public (Id. at 10). 1 Finally, Psystar was found liable for violating Sections 1201(a)(1), 1201(a)(2), and 1201(b)(1) of the DMCA for circumvention and trafficking in circumvention devices (Id. at 13-14). Each of Psystar's asserted defenses were rejected as either waived or without merit.

Re:Weird ruling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393745)

Design patent vs. software patent. Not only that, but Google's rewritten something to be (more or less) compatible with Java, so it's more like if Apple could sue people to stop them from making appliances/accessories that can fit an iPad in it.
 
(Even so, yes, I do think those design patents are bullshit. And pretty much every software patent.)

Re:Weird ruling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393787)

Copyright and Patents are different, If two people come up with the same solution but did not copy then thats not breaking copyright. But Patents give you exclusive rights to the idea, even if someone never saw your product they can still infringe on a patent, no so with copyrights.

You also can't copyright a utlitiarian thing, like a font, Fonts can not be copyrighted - but their names can be....

Re:Weird ruling (2)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393979)

no, a patent is not on an idea.

a patent (at least, how they used to be) describes an invention. the invention is an implementation of an idea.

i hate to nitpick, but there's a difference between selling an invention and sitting at home going "i thought of that!" and whining that everyone steals your ideas when an idea cannot be owned unless you work to manifest it in the physical world.

the problem with the patent system is all the "...on a computer" rehashes of existing _ideas_ providing a loophole that allows patents to effectively be granted on ideas.

a software patent would be fine if it covered more than dead simple subroutines. if the software performed a similar function to a machine designed for a task, and the patent was on the entire implementation, it'd all be peachy. the problem is code is not math, it's not literature, and it's not a physical object, so the patent system is just not equipped to deal with it in an analogous way to machines.

Re:Weird ruling (0)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393869)

I'll be honest, I find it amusing that you talk about cluelessness of others in regards to the legal system while complaining about "Apple sue(ing) people's socks off for making tablets shaped like rounded rectangles". Your gross over-simplification of the situation shows a complete lack of understanding of trade dress issues (or simply an overwhelming anti-Apple bias that makes you blind yourself to the truth of matters). When Samsung's own lawyer can't tell the difference between their tablet and Apple's, perhaps Apple has a valid point.

There are numerous tablets on the market that aren't drawing Apple's ire over trade dress issues because they look nothing like an iPad, even if they have rounded corners. Samsung, however, blatantly copied Apple's design to an extreme extent (and any claim to the contrary shows either ignorance or rabid anti-Apple fanboyism) and that trade dress is protected by design patents. Thus, the lawsuit against Samsung but not against other tablet makers who have managed to design their own tablets without infringing Apple's trade dress patents.

But, hey, please continue talking about the cluelessness of others in regards to the legal system.

Re:Weird ruling (3, Funny)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393961)

fanboyism

We certainly wouldn't want any of that.

Re:Weird ruling (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393971)

Remove the logos and brandnames from most laptops and I bet the same sort of lawyers won't be able to tell which laptop was made by which manufacturer.

Heck I know people who don't know the model or even brand of cars they are using. They just know the colour.

Re:Weird ruling (2)

Xenx (2211586) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394089)

Depending on the circumstances, I might have trouble telling them apart. However, under any realistic viewing I can tell them apart. Add to that the fact that I have a tablet that doesn't look anything like the iPad. What do people always think it is? an iPad.

So, I would take that whole thing with a grain of salt.

Re:Weird ruling (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40394267)

If anything that should actually hurt Apple, as iPad seems to have become generic...

Re:Weird ruling (3, Informative)

oxdas (2447598) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394629)

And yet many judges have decided that Samsung did not violate Apple's designs, starting with Apple's opening salvo in the Netherlands. Apple's design is of a rounded cornered rectangle with a display in the center (that's it). Any media device could be seen to violate it.

Apple is suing Samsung because they are their biggest competitor. Samsung outsold Apple in smartphones for 2011 by 5.5 million units and widened their lead in the first quarter of 2012 to 10 million more units (45 million to 35 million). Samsung has also made tablet inroads and are now the number two tablet company. Smartphones are the cash cow of both Apple and Samsung. Apple's marketshare in smartphones has fallen to 23% while Android has increased to 56%. This has to concern Apple.

Re:Weird ruling (4, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393885)

How is it a weird ruling?

It's one of the most sane rulings to come down the pike.

The other rulings that shock the conscience are the weird rulings.

--
BMO

Re:Weird ruling (5, Insightful)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393943)

thats what makes it weird. The fact that it actually makes sense.

Re:Weird ruling (4, Interesting)

steveha (103154) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393917)

I think Apple's patents fall into two major categories: "design patents" that cover appearance, and UI innovations that come about because Apple has done a good job of pushing the frontiers of the user experience.

"Rounded corners" and such are an example of the design patents, and that is a whole different category from technology patents like the ones on Java. Does not apply; moving on.

Apple's UI innovation patents, as far as it seems to me (a non-lawyer), are mostly about doing something that hasn't been done before and trying to patent as much of it as possible. Some of these patents are bogus (IMHO the pinch-zoom gesture is an obvious thing to do if you have a multitouch display, so shouldn't be patentable) but some of these might not be bogus.

On the other hand, the Java patents were really weak. The Java Virtual Machine (JVM) was hardly the first VM ever; the UCSD "p-System" VM is over three decades old, so Sun couldn't patent the basic idea of a VM to let programs run anywhere. So they patented a few aspects of Java, and then Oracle claimed in court that the Dalvik VM infringed those patents. But I've read several analyses of these patents, and they pretty much agreed that the patents were weak. It seems the court agreed.

Finally, why should Google pay Oracle? Google is using a different VM, all new and all original code. Google isn't using the Java trademark, and doesn't have any agreement with Oracle. As people have observed here on Slashdot: If you want to argue that Oracle "owns" Java so completely that nobody may copy it, then maybe the creators of the C programming language and the C standard library could collect staggering royalties from pretty much the whole world.

Google making Dalvik over the objections of Oracle is just like Dodge making a car over the objections of Ford. You can see why there might be objections, but society shouldn't interfere.

steveha

Re:Weird ruling (0, Flamebait)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393953)

Apple didn't sue Samsung because the Tab has rounded corners. If you think that's wrong feel free to look up the article and find where the number twenty five is significant. I'd tell you straight up, but since you didn't read the article originally and because you and a few guys with mod-points hace some sort of brain damage that prevented you from asking the question of why Apple doesn't have a hundred other lawsuits over devices with rounded corners, I don't think you'd listen to me.

Re:Weird ruling (4, Insightful)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394925)

It blows my mind that Google can use a fairly complete Java clone over Oracles objections and pay nothing...

Perhaps, the case would have been a little bit different if Sun had not open sourced Java in the first place.

Also, it wasn't against Oracle's objections. You've got to remember that Oracle didn't even own Java at the time Google cloned it. Sun owned it and Sun had no problems with Google cloning it. So it's not like Oracle can even claim it was a victim in all of this, it wasn't.

Re:Weird ruling (2)

Gumbercules!! (1158841) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394947)

There's a marked difference in those cases.

In the case of Google vs Oracle, you had an American judge with 2 American companies, so the case was judged on its merits.

In the case of Apple vs Samsung you had an American judge with Apple (American) and Samsung (Korean). The case does not appear to have been judged on its merits (as I am fairly sure Apple didn't really invent the rectangle).

Call me a troll if you wish but this is how we (the rest of the World) understands these cases to be judged.

Re:Weird ruling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40395017)

> It blows my mind that Google can use a fairly complete Java clone over Oracles objections and pay nothing

There is nothing wrong with writing your own code. There is nothing wrong with making a functional clone of someone elses product, as long as it is not a literal copy.

Ask GM and Ford about this if you have any questions. The driver's API on their products is identical.

Simpsons did it (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393697)

In Bart Gets Hit By A Car [snpp.com]

      Burns: I'm going to write a figure on this piece of paper. It's not quite
                    as large as the last one, but I think you'll find it fair.
                    [draws a giant zero]
      Hutz: I think we should take it.

Bad Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393727)

That was one of the most convoluted articles ever. I though it was patents not copyrights. I feel like he used the terms interchangeably since his example is complete incorrect for copyright.

Re:Bad Article (4, Informative)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394005)

it started on patents. when bullshit was called, it moved to copyright infringement of the headers.

that's the big problem - to not use a car analogy, think of a program as like a giant recipe. the code is the method, the headers are the ingredients list. Oracle wanted to assert imaginary copyright on the lists of ingredients for Java.

i use the food analogy because food recipes are not copyrightable. you can steal all the recipes from all the cookbooks and publish them yourself and be perfectly fine, so long as you don't copy the photos or pontificating between recipes.

also note that cookbooks sell very very well in spite of this.

Re:Bad Article (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394017)

extending the analogy, i suppose Oracle could assert copyright on the comments in the code. the only problem there is they'd almost certainly not be the same unless google had access to Sun's source tree back in the day.

Re:Bad Article (1)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394789)

The Java Development Kit has always come with source code, apart from a few binary blobs. This was even before OpenJDK. It is one of the beauties of Java, the source was pretty much always available, which was a big help in diagnosing your own bugs (looking at the class library source was very illustrative in how you were supposed to use the libraries). Furthermore, the author of the code that Oracle challenged Google on basically gave the code he had given to Sun to Google as well. Oracle's legal team were incredibly stupid in the way they proceeded - but I guys lawyers at that level are so used to being right they forget they need to check their facts in case they are wrong (and very many techies are smarter than lawyers - we don't charge much because we love what we do, unlike many lawyers).

Honor among chefs, lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40394329)

n/t

Re:Bad Article (2)

Warhawke (1312723) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394437)

Note that recipes can be patented, however, so long as the recipe does something particularly novel and non-obvious. Like tomato beer, or salsa without spicy chili peppers. Software patents are kind of dumb, though, because it's awfully hard to think of a series of programming lines as non-obvious.

Re:Bad Article (4, Informative)

oxdas (2447598) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394487)

It was a two part trial. One part was on copyright infringement and the other part was on patent infringement. The outcome was that Google violated Oracle copyrights on 9 lines of code (out of 15 million) and some test cases. Google was not found to have infringed on any Oracle patents. The judge decided that the damages amounted to $0 for the copyright violations. Oracle can appeal.

A positive spin, according to expert Mueller (4, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393767)

It's incredible that expert Mueller still puts a positive spin on the case...from predicting "triple damages" to Oracle, to what he termed as the "smoking gun Lindholm email", to the general disdain of anything not sanctioned by his cronies.

When one visits his blog, you cannot fail to see the little coverage he accords news unfavorable to those who bankroll him.

Re:A positive spin, according to expert Mueller (5, Funny)

grouchomarxist (127479) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394627)

If it is triple of $0, I think Google can afford it.

Out of curiosity... (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393821)

Would there be a risk of being considered in contempt of court if one were to write a gigantic novelty check for the value of $Zero, sign it with a flourish, and hand it to the opposing counsel?

Re:Out of curiosity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40394021)

I can imagine that something like this will happen

http://www.snopes.com/business/bank/zero.asp

Re:Out of curiosity... (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394037)

it would be worth it.

Oracle new business plan (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393827)

Don't worry about Oracle they have an exit strategy, buying Hawaiian island's before they go out of buisness.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57457495/oracle-corp-ceo-larry-ellison-to-buy-most-of-hawaiian-island-of-lanai/

Re:Oracle new business plan (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393923)

Oracle wont be going out of business anytime soon, too many people use their database products and middle-ware for that to happen.

Obligatory: I don't think anyone will find Oracle (5, Funny)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393915)

Appealing

Narcisissm (2)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394763)

Narcisissm makes that Oracle will find themselves appealing?

I think I know how this went down (5, Funny)

ddd0004 (1984672) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393957)

Google: I'm going to write a figure on this piece of paper. It's not quite as large as the last one, but I think you'll find it fair.
Oracle's Lawyers: I think we should take it.

You dropped some zeroes there (4, Funny)

Sarusa (104047) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394007)

Corporate lawsuits never involve such small numbers.

I believe you meant $00,000,000

Re:You dropped some zeroes there (1)

bussdriver (620565) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394225)

Why can't judges in these cases immediately rule "I pass" since we know they will always appeal and bribe things as far as possible.

Actually, I think in such cases the cost to tax payers should be paid for doing the appeal, or even the lawsuit itself (regardless of outcome.) I doubt it would amount to much of the legal expenses since their lawyers are way more expensive than use of the court room and judge's time. Why should tax payers fund these guys abusing our system? Its not like they actually pay their corporate taxes (even so, a corporation who sues a lot should pay a lot just like trucking services pay more road tax due to their increased wear on our roads.)

Re:You dropped some zeroes there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40394605)

Pay to the order of Oracle the amount of $0x10^100

Obligatory. (2)

sensationull (889870) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394009)

Alright, who has Oracle's big pile of nothing... :)

Like? (5, Funny)

Alter_3d (948458) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394207)

Google is given 14 days to file an application for Oracle to pay legal fees to Google

Dammit... where is Slashdot's "like" button??

laymen... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40394465)

This clearly show that the court is manned by laymen... they should have made the decision that the ammount should be null, not zero.

Re:laymen... (1)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394809)

Maybe they had a not null constraint on that (Oracle :)) database table, so zero was the correct token to use.

Seriously though, awarding Oracle zero damages is not the same as not awarding them damages at all. This recognizes that Oracle was "right" in the case, even if no material damage is caused. I would have preferred that the result be that Google was not liable for damages at all (even the nominal sum of zero - but I haven't read the legal summary, I could well be wrong and that is what the judgement actually means).

Re:laymen... (1)

CoolGopher (142933) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394875)

And while they're at it, they should declare software patents NULL and void too... though I'm not sure what compiler would accept such a mix of value and type.

Re:laymen... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40395113)

Uh, any C compiler? Pointer type only affects pointer arithmetic, but the null pointer is just about having a value of zero... I don't even see why you'd think there'd be a problem.

Re:laymen... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40395285)

#define NULL (void *)0

Captcha: pointer

It couldn't happen to nicer people (2)

davydagger (2566757) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394475)

I hope this becomes precedent for dealing with patent trolls.

I COULD be mistaken, but didn't sun open source java before oracle bought them. If so, wouldn't it invalidate the claim, as google would have a prior license.

Oracle... I wonder..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40394645)

If Oracle is of merit, they should have foreseen they would lose. Obviously, they didn't.

Or maybe they do know?

But what about due process?

I wonder...

Oracle wanted $6Billion -- Judge chopped one digit (3, Funny)

darkonc (47285) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394939)

... The leading one. A common enough programming trick .. sometimes a bug.

Hopefully it will never be patented.

For your information: (-1, Redundant)

million_monkeys (2480792) | more than 2 years ago | (#40395227)

You are currently reading slashdot.

Oracles (1)

LucyMary (2645509) | more than 2 years ago | (#40395295)

What a slap in the face... In fact, Google is given 14 days to file an application for Oracle to pay legal fees to Google (in a similar manner to how things are done for frivolous lawsuits).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?