Law Google Could Owe Oracle $8.8 Billion in Android Fight - lol get fucked google

https://archive.fo/SFBq2

Google could owe Oracle Corp. billions of dollars for using Oracle-owned Java programming code in its Android operating system on mobile devices, an appeals court said, as the years-long feud between the two software giants draws near a close.

Google’s use of Java shortcuts to develop Android went too far and was a violation of Oracle’s copyrights, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Tuesday. The case -- first filed in 2010 -- was remanded to a federal court in California to determine how much the Alphabet Inc. unit should pay. Oracle had been seeking $8.8 billion, though that number could grow. Google expressed disappointment and said it’s considering its next steps in the case.

The dispute, which could have far-reaching implications for the entire software industry, has divided Silicon Valley for years between those who develop the code that makes software steps function and those who develop software programs and say their “fair use” of the code is an exception to copyright law.

“It’s a momentous decision on the issue of fair use,” lawyer Mark Schonfeld of Burns & Levinson in Boston, who’s been following the case and isn’t involved. “It is very, very important for the software industry. I think it’s going to go to the Supreme Court because the Federal Circuit has made a very controversial decision.”

Computer Instructions
At issue are pre-written directions known as application program interfaces, or APIs, which can work across different types of devices and provide the instructions for things like connecting to the internet or accessing certain types of files. By using the APIs, programmers don’t have to write new code from scratch to implement every function in their software or change it for every type of device.

“The Federal Circuit’s opinion upholds fundamental principles of copyright law and makes clear that Google violated the law,” Oracle General Counsel Dorian Daley said in a statement. “This decision protects creators and consumers from the unlawful abuse of their rights.”

Google and its supporters contend that the ruling, if left to stand, would harm development of new software programs and lead to higher costs for consumers.

“We are disappointed the court reversed the jury finding that Java is open and free for everyone,” Google said in a statement. “This type of ruling will make apps and online services more expensive for users.”

Limited Freedom
Oracle said its APIs are freely available to those who want to build applications for computers and mobile devices, but draws the line at anyone who wants to use them for a competing platform or to embed them in an electronic device.

“The fact that Android is free of charge does not make Google’s use of the Java API packages noncommercial,” the three-judge Federal Circuit panel in Washington ruled, noting that Android had generated more than $42 billion in revenue from advertising. It also said that Google had not made any alteration of the copyrighted material.

The damages are likely to be hotly contested, with Oracle wanting more than the $8.8 billion it sought at the trial, and Google arguing the value is minimal, said lawyer Ping Hu, who heads the intellectual property group at Mirick O’Connell in Boston. The could mean more public information on how Google profits off an operating system that it offers for free.

The decision “is a major win for Oracle, but it’s not the end of the war,” he said.

Rush to Mobile
Oracle claims Google was in such a rush in the mid-2000s to create an operating system for mobile devices that the company used key parts of copyrighted Java technology without paying royalties. Google, which gets the bulk of its profit from selling advertisements connected to search results, faced an “existential threat” because its search wasn’t optimized for mobile devices, according to Oracle.

Google countered that Oracle was just jealous because it did what Oracle could not -- develop an operating system for mobile devices that was free and wildly popular. Google said it used a minuscule percentage of Oracle’s code, only enough to enable programmers to write applications for Android in the Java language.

A federal jury in California agreed with Google in 2016, saying Google’s actions were a “fair use” that was exempt from copyright law. Tuesday’s Federal Circuit opinion reverses that verdict.

“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,” the appeals court ruled.

Next Steps
Google is likely to ask that either the three-judge panel reconsider its decision, or have the issue go before all active judges of the court. The losing party could then ask the Supreme Court to take the case, which Google supporters are calling for.

The Supreme Court had earlier declined to review a closely watched 2014 decision in which the Federal Circuit said the APIs were entitled to copyright protection. That ruling, along with Tuesday’s decision, “run counter to decades of software industry practice,” according to Meredith Rose, policy counsel at Public Knowledge. The group submitted legal arguments supporting Google.

It “could have devastating effects on the competitiveness, openness, and development of the technology industry,” Rose said in a statement. “This could lead to higher prices, fewer choices, and worse products for consumers.”

Java was created by Sun Microsystems Inc. in the 1990s, and some have accused Oracle of violating Sun’s pledge to ensure that Java is widely available. Oracle bought Sun in January 2010 for $7.4 billion and sued Google fewer than eight months later.

Part of Google’s defense focused on the idea that Java was developed for desktop computers, while Android was created for phones and other mobile devices. Oracle sought to extend the case to desktops, where Android is now available, but the trial judge said he wanted to keep the case narrowly focused.

The case is Oracle America Inc. v. Google Inc., 17-1118, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Washington). The trial court case is Oracle America Inc. v. Google Inc., 10cv3561, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco).
 
This is pretty darn :late: because this has been going on since like 2012. Anyway the long and short of it comes down to Android using a JVM implementation, dalvik, for it's applications. Oracle, which owns the Java programming language, argues that Google used patented API code in their implementation. The previous ruling on this was that, for programming, necessary implementations should be protected under fair use. That means if there's literally only one way to write the code you cannot claim it as intellectual property. The final ruling on this will be important because it determines just how source code can, and cannot, be protected by IP laws.

For a more direct response to the OP, it's stupid to just want Google to get kicked in the dick for this simply because they're Google considering Oracle is more or less just trolling for an absurdly huge sum. What Oracle is doing is absolutely pathetic. Google also stopped using the dalvik JVM a couple years ago and replaced it with ART. This all comes down to 170 lines of necessary API code and it's Oracle looking to get a quick buck out of it.

All in all, it's a bit worrisome if necessary implementation may not be protected under fair use as it can actually impede projects. At least in a commercial setting, GPLv2 and Apache licensed code is probably safer to use.
 
This is pretty darn :late: because this has been going on since like 2012. Anyway the long and short of it comes down to Android using a JVM implementation, dalvik, for it's applications. Oracle, which owns the Java programming language, argues that Google used patented API code in their implementation. The previous ruling on this was that, for programming, necessary implementations should be protected under fair use. That means if there's literally only one way to write the code you cannot claim it as intellectual property. The final ruling on this will be important because it determines just how source code can, and cannot, be protected by IP laws.

For a more direct response to the OP, it's stupid to just want Google to get kicked in the dick for this simply because they're Google considering Oracle is more or less just trolling for an absurdly huge sum. What Oracle is doing is absolutely pathetic. Google also stopped using the dalvik JVM a couple years ago and replaced it with ART. This all comes down to 170 lines of necessary API code and it's Oracle looking to get a quick buck out of it.

All in all, it's a bit worrisome if necessary implementation may not be protected under fair use as it can actually impede projects. At least in a commercial setting, GPLv2 and Apache licensed code is probably safer to use.
I don't think the basis of the lawsuit is a "only one possible implementation" argument. At least, I haven't found anything that says anything like that.

Everything I've read has said the argument is about API interfaces. (inb4 ATM machine) There's no actually functional code being litigated. Basically just header files (or the Java equivalent).
 
  • Agree
Reactions: LocalFireDept
I don't think the basis of the lawsuit is a "only one possible implementation" argument. At least, I haven't found anything that says anything like that.

Everything I've read has said the argument is about API interfaces. (inb4 ATM machine) There's no actually functional code being litigated. Basically just header files (or the Java equivalent).
That's mostly what I'm talking about since using the same method names and headers is necessary for the implementation of interoperability. Considering the circumstances the 8.8 billion is horribly inflated.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Marvin
That's mostly what I'm talking about since using the same method names and headers is necessary for the implementation of interoperability. Considering the circumstances the 8.8 billion is horribly inflated.
I think fair use based on interoperability can be fine (thus Google might be in the right) but it's very context dependent. Many APIs are arbitrary and basically amount to mutually-understood conventions. (ie making the last argument pointer to use as a return argument) So yeah, those kinds of APIs aren't really that unique.

But other times, the API interface reveals quite a bit about the nature of the service. Some APIs describe a novel way to design some sort of service or interaction, and thus should be protectable by patent. It usually has to do with straddling the line between "theoretical but inefficient" and "efficient but ugly".

Like some APIs, by their very nature, describe complicated network protocols that require significant investment to develop. When the API has you filling out buffers and programmable cache rules and things like that, you kinda get an idea of how the internals work.

(Unless you don't really agree with patents in general, but I think that's a different discussion altogether.)

Heh, and I guess when I think about it, I can't imagine wrangling yet another way to provide cross platform access to files and directories and shit is particularly innovative. But then again, I don't know Java's API very well.
 
This is pretty darn :late: because this has been going on since like 2012. Anyway the long and short of it comes down to Android using a JVM implementation, dalvik, for it's applications. Oracle, which owns the Java programming language, argues that Google used patented API code in their implementation. The previous ruling on this was that, for programming, necessary implementations should be protected under fair use. That means if there's literally only one way to write the code you cannot claim it as intellectual property. The final ruling on this will be important because it determines just how source code can, and cannot, be protected by IP laws.

For a more direct response to the OP, it's stupid to just want Google to get kicked in the dick for this simply because they're Google considering Oracle is more or less just trolling for an absurdly huge sum. What Oracle is doing is absolutely pathetic. Google also stopped using the dalvik JVM a couple years ago and replaced it with ART. This all comes down to 170 lines of necessary API code and it's Oracle looking to get a quick buck out of it.

All in all, it's a bit worrisome if necessary implementation may not be protected under fair use as it can actually impede projects. At least in a commercial setting, GPLv2 and Apache licensed code is probably safer to use.

I dunno about worrisome, the most likely response is tech corporations will just be more squirrely about trying to make their product Java-friendly because Oracle is basically "Patent Trolling: the Corporation" these days. Especially if they're actually awarded that 8 figure sum. If this case gets enough press VC firms could actually steer upcoming startups away from using Java to build their product.

Like I said earlier, Google did Oracle a fucking favor making an increasingly unpopular language like Java Android-compatible, and if all they get for it is a copyright infringement lawsuit, in the future Oracle could find themselves the proud owners of a mostly-dead language, just like their dead-on-arrival cloud computing service and their mercy-killed OS.
 
I think fair use based on interoperability can be fine (thus Google might be in the right) but it's very context dependent. Many APIs are arbitrary and basically amount to mutually-understood conventions. (ie making the last argument pointer to use as a return argument) So yeah, those kinds of APIs aren't really that unique.

But other times, the API interface reveals quite a bit about the nature of the service. Some APIs describe a novel way to design some sort of service or interaction, and thus should be protectable by patent. It usually has to do with straddling the line between "theoretical but inefficient" and "efficient but ugly".

Like some APIs, by their very nature, describe complicated network protocols that require significant investment to develop. When the API has you filling out buffers and programmable cache rules and things like that, you kinda get an idea of how the internals work.

(Unless you don't really agree with patents in general, but I think that's a different discussion altogether.)

Heh, and I guess when I think about it, I can't imagine wrangling yet another way to provide cross platform access to files and directories and shit is particularly innovative. But then again, I don't know Java's API very well.
I guess I just have a lot of hope for projects like React OS. It's an open source kernel trying to create a clean room reimplemtation of Windows NT and the Win32 API. Progress is slow as balls, bit I feel it's an incredibly important project. I'd hate for precedence to allow Microsoft to stomp it into the dirt, though I guess thoughts of a slippery slope aren't always well founded.

I dunno about worrisome, the most likely response is tech corporations will just be more squirrely about trying to make their product Java-friendly because Oracle is basically "Patent Trolling: the Corporation" these days. Especially if they're actually awarded that 8 figure sum. If this case gets enough press VC firms could actually steer upcoming startups away from using Java to build their product.

Like I said earlier, Google did Oracle a fucking favor making an increasingly unpopular language like Java Android-compatible, and if all they get for it is a copyright infringement lawsuit, in the future Oracle could find themselves the proud owners of a mostly-dead language, just like their dead-on-arrival cloud computing service and their mercy-killed OS.
I have to agree. This is also why people love the shit out of Ruby and Python to the point of evangelism. Portable interpreted languages are pretty much on par with Java and it's dogshit bytecode/JVM if not better for just picking stuff up to make tiny projects. Java's real strength back in the day was you could use it anywhere you could run a JVM and even that is becoming less true. With Android pushing Kotlin as it's new "first class" language I don't think Java will matter too much longer outside of Minecraft (what a mistake).
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Splendid
While $8.8 billion sounds monstrously inflated, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the entire market Google has moved in on and occupied. My opinion is that would be a reasonable value for such an infringement. My disagreement is I don't think there's even infringement here.

The Federal Circuit has had a bad track record lately in being overturned by the Supreme Court, though, and is widely viewed as having become too big for its britches (the Federal Circuit has in past decades become nearly a one stop shop for big intellectual property cases and seems to view itself as a junior varsity Supreme Court and the actual Supreme Court has had to explain to them repeatedly that they are not and do not get to make up their own law).
 
While $8.8 billion sounds monstrously inflated, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the entire market Google has moved in on and occupied. My opinion is that would be a reasonable value for such an infringement. My disagreement is I don't think there's even infringement here.

The Federal Circuit has had a bad track record lately in being overturned by the Supreme Court, though, and is widely viewed as having become too big for its britches (the Federal Circuit has in past decades become nearly a one stop shop for big intellectual property cases and seems to view itself as a junior varsity Supreme Court and the actual Supreme Court has had to explain to them repeatedly that they are not and do not get to make up their own law).

Is this a pattern that exists across all of the circuits, or just the 9th? Because most of the time I see some federal court come up with an utterly retarded ruling that will inevitably get smacked down by the Supreme Court, it's the 9th circuit.
 
Is this a pattern that exists across all of the circuits, or just the 9th? Because most of the time I see some federal court come up with an utterly exceptional ruling that will inevitably get smacked down by the Supreme Court, it's the 9th circuit.

This isn't the Ninth Circuit. It's the D.C.-based Federal Circuit, which has national jurisdiction and exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals.
 
I guess I just have a lot of hope for projects like React OS. It's an open source kernel trying to create a clean room reimplemtation of Windows NT and the Win32 API. Progress is slow as balls, bit I feel it's an incredibly important project. I'd hate for precedence to allow Microsoft to stomp it into the dirt, though I guess thoughts of a slippery slope aren't always well founded.
Copyright-wise, I think interoperability should almost always be an acceptable excuse provided you're not redistributing the actual header files themselves.

If you want to stop interoperability, it should require at least a patent.
I have to agree. This is also why people love the shit out of Ruby and Python to the point of evangelism. Portable interpreted languages are pretty much on par with Java and it's dogshit bytecode/JVM if not better for just picking stuff up to make tiny projects. Java's real strength back in the day was you could use it anywhere you could run a JVM and even that is becoming less true. With Android pushing Kotlin as it's new "first class" language I don't think Java will matter too much longer outside of Minecraft (what a mistake).
I think the fact that the JVM is a thoroughly tested platform is more relevant to big business than you'd think. Like, the types of jobs that enthusiastically use it employ a lot of old dudes in their 50's, but that's also why there'll be a demand for JVM work for a long time.

But yeah, I know what you mean.

What's amazing to me are people creating new languages based on the JVM. Good ones too. Like Scala and Clojure. Like why?

With Scala, it makes sense because it's used with big data processing, which I would imagine is common in enterprise environments. But the Clojure guy just really wanted to play around with Java objects using a Lisp, I guess.

Heh, my favorite thing about Clojure is that the JVM's security model fucks up its implementation. Clojure couldn't implement tail call optimization because the JVM doesn't let you make unrestricted jumps. (Which is pretty important for lisps.)
 
If your language needs unrestricted jumps, you should throw it out and start over.
And if your language uses the fucking awful Lisp syntax, then you should definitely throw it out.
 
If your language needs unrestricted jumps, you should throw it out and start over.
Not the language, the bytecode interpreter. Java went way too high level in designing their bytecode interpreter. Implementing it both efficiently and portably is a bitch. I'm not even sure what the point was.
And if your language uses the fucking awful Lisp syntax, then you should definitely throw it out.
Every other language keeps trying to running in to the exact same problem that Lisp macros solve, and every solution they come up with is garbage.

Allow me to explain:
itkeepshappening.jpg


I guess Ocaml's extension point syntax isn't that bad. Writing macros for it is still more annoying than it has to be though.
 
Back