Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 23rd May 2012 18:25 UTC
Legal We've got some really good news for all of you: the jury verdict in the patent phase of the Oracle v. Google trial is in, and it's a unanimous one: no patent infringement. This means that the most Oracle could possibly get out of this is a few hundred thousand dollars if (and that's a very big if) judge Alsup rules that APIs are copyrightable. Oracle pretty much lost everything. Permit me to say, in your face, Ellison.
Order by: Score:
Thank God!!
by Brunis on Wed 23rd May 2012 18:35 UTC
Brunis
Member since:
2005-11-01

And i hope this sets a precedence for all patent infringement trials to come!

Reply Score: 12

RE: Thank God!!
by umccullough on Wed 23rd May 2012 18:40 UTC in reply to "Thank God!!"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

And i hope this sets a precedence for all patent infringement trials to come!


The interesting thing about jury trials is that regardless of facts and law - a jury can still rule in favor of whomever they believe is in the right.

Long live jury nullification!

This is why I never try to avoid jury duty...

Reply Score: 12

RE: Thank God!!
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd May 2012 23:43 UTC in reply to "Thank God!!"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

And i hope this sets a precedence for all patent infringement trials to come!


Unfortunately, this decision only applies to Android, Java source code and to two specific patents. There is no ruling yet as to the generic question if APIs are subject to copyright in the US (they aren't in the EU).

Reply Score: 5

...
by Hiev on Wed 23rd May 2012 19:03 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

So, Oracle acquired Sun for nothing?

Reply Score: 8

RE: ...
by Modafinil on Wed 23rd May 2012 19:05 UTC in reply to "..."
Modafinil Member since:
2012-04-28

So, Oracle acquired Sun for nothing?


It seems that way! ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by umccullough on Wed 23rd May 2012 20:12 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

"So, Oracle acquired Sun for nothing?


It seems that way! ;)
"

Well, except for the fact that Oracle has historically invested heavily in java-based technology and has a vested interest in making sure it continues to be relevant...

The lawsuit seemed to be just an extra money-grab that they salivated over during the purchase negotiations.

Reply Score: 9

RE[3]: ...
by AnXa on Wed 23rd May 2012 20:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
AnXa Member since:
2008-02-10

The lawsuit seemed to be just an extra money-grab that they salivated over during the purchase negotiations.

More like calculated attack against Android. Done as a favour for a friend. We have to remember that late Steve Jobs was friends with Oracle boss to the level that when Elliot got (re)married Jobs took the wedding photos... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Ellison#Personal_life

Reply Score: 11

RE: ...
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 23rd May 2012 19:11 UTC in reply to "..."
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Only if suing google was the only reason why they bought sun.

They also got Solaris, Java copyrights/ official control of language, Sparc, and Mysql.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: ...
by Modafinil on Wed 23rd May 2012 20:32 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Modafinil Member since:
2012-04-28

Only if suing google was the only reason why they bought sun.

They also got Solaris, Java copyrights/ official control of language, Sparc, and Mysql.


All true, but all of those things (bar the control) were all freely available for anyone to use and modify.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: ...
by cyrilleberger on Wed 23rd May 2012 21:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
cyrilleberger Member since:
2006-02-01

"They also got Solaris, Java copyrights/ official control of language, Sparc, and Mysql.


All true, but all of those things (bar the control) were all freely available for anyone to use and modify.
"

You cannot modify Java if you are not Oracle, and Sparc is also proprietary. Now, whether it is worth 7 billions $ is an other question (but then Facebook was valued at a 100 billions...)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: ...
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 23rd May 2012 22:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

You cannot modify Java and still call it Java without going through the certification process, but you can modify it and call it Jim's funky Language as long as you follow the GPL and other associated licenses.

http://openjdk.java.net/

Just looked there now, Ironically one of the companies to go through the certification process: Google.

http://openjdk.java.net/groups/conformance/JckAccess/jck-access.htm...

Obviously, this certification must relate to something other than Android as Sun/Oracle refuse to start the certification process on anything that runs on a mobile device. Which makes me wonder about Windows 8 and arm.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: ...
by Modafinil on Thu 24th May 2012 01:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
Modafinil Member since:
2012-04-28

You cannot modify Java if you are not Oracle, and Sparc is also proprietary. Now, whether it is worth 7 billions $ is an other question (but then Facebook was valued at a 100 billions...)


Java is GPL, ANYONE can use, modify and distribute GPL code quite freely.
http://openjdk.java.net/

SPARC is fully open-source, again, anyone can use, modify and distribute it quite freely.
http://www.opensparc.net/

Oracle didn't need to buy Sun to use and modify Java nor SPARC, nor the GPL MySQL.

Thanks for modding me down "incorrect" btw. I'd return the favour seeing as you actually are incorrect but I can't. :rolleyes:

edit:Cleanup

Edited 2012-05-24 01:16 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: ...
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 24th May 2012 02:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Mysql has always had a proprietary version which they license to other parties and sell support contracts for. Oracle did jack those prices up after taking over. It went from "maybe we should pay for licenses" to " no way in heck are we paying for licenses".

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: ...
by cyrilleberger on Thu 24th May 2012 06:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
cyrilleberger Member since:
2006-02-01

Java is GPL, ANYONE can use, modify and distribute GPL code quite freely.
http://openjdk.java.net/


Except you cannot call it Java, so yes, you can modify and distribute the SDK, and since you have to change the name, then no one will use it. So no, you cannot modify Java without being Oracle (or Sun back in the time).


SPARC is fully open-source, again, anyone can use, modify and distribute it quite freely.
http://www.opensparc.net/


OpenSparc is a old Sparc design, the more recent version of Sparc are fully proprietary.

Oracle didn't need to buy Sun to use and modify Java nor SPARC, nor the GPL MySQL.


And since all of that is GPL, if you want to make proprietary version, you need to buy the copyright holder. And making proprietary product is exactly how Oracle intend to make money out of their acquisition of Sun. And if you have not noticed, they have already started, they killed OpenSolaris, they do release closed source improvement to MySQL, the last news on OpenSparc is 2 years old (before that they were quiet active, it shows how much the project is going to go forward...). Only Java still remains relatively "free", but that was probably part of the deal with regulators.

Reply Score: 5

RE: ...
by Fergy on Wed 23rd May 2012 20:25 UTC in reply to "..."
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

So, Oracle acquired Sun for nothing?

You would think you would buy a company because of its technology, contracts and people. Buying Sun so you can sue Google is almost as dumb as throwing out all your current and future products so you can be a windows phone shop.

Reply Score: 12

RE[2]: ...
by Rugxulo on Thu 24th May 2012 22:53 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Rugxulo Member since:
2007-10-09

I know I'm naive, but if they loved money so much, why did they spend $7 billion anyways? Why not just keep what they had (what, it's not enough?)? Spending $7 billion just to make more money seems a bit silly.

Reply Score: 1

Corporatism
by Modafinil on Wed 23rd May 2012 19:04 UTC
Modafinil
Member since:
2012-04-28

This is a triumph of ordinary people (The jurors) over the power of corporations.

I too hope this sets a precedent in the US legal system for subsequent software patent trials to bring it in-line with the saner parts of the world that do not allow software patents.

Reply Score: 2

FunkyELF
Member since:
2006-07-26

Google does a real good job of writing things like this. They did it for the SOPA and PIPA thing, they did it when they started acquiring Motorola Mobility.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Radio
by Radio on Wed 23rd May 2012 19:42 UTC
Radio
Member since:
2009-06-20

"In your face, Ellison"?

Pardon my french, but it is more "in your fesses, Ellison" ;)

Reply Score: 6

Actually...
by cyrilleberger on Wed 23rd May 2012 21:20 UTC
cyrilleberger
Member since:
2006-02-01

... Oracle already won at least 150k$ for the checkRange function and the test files (not sure if it is 150k$ total or multiply by the number of test files + 1). However, if API are ruled to be copyrightable, a new trial would have to be held to determine if Google is protected by fair use, and if not, the damage earned by Oracle could amount in several millions.

But anyway, it is all going to be appealed, so lets meet again in a year...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Actually...
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd May 2012 23:40 UTC in reply to "Actually..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

... Oracle already won at least 150k$ for the checkRange function and the test files (not sure if it is 150k$ total or multiply by the number of test files + 1). However, if API are ruled to be copyrightable, a new trial would have to be held to determine if Google is protected by fair use, and if not, the damage earned by Oracle could amount in several millions.

But anyway, it is all going to be appealed, so lets meet again in a year...


$150K is a maximum, not a minimum. We are only talking about 9 lines of code, after all.

PS: Oracle's estimated costs to bring this lawsuit amounts to about $10 million.

Edited 2012-05-23 23:44 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE: Actually...
by Radio on Thu 24th May 2012 07:32 UTC in reply to "Actually..."
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Nope. They may win that. But remember we were told (by the usual suspects) that this was a "billion dollar case" which would "spell doom on Android".

And now?

Oracle has 9 lines of code written by the author of the code, who may have copied it or just redid it the same, but code the judge himself said he could have written it's so basic. And Oracle has some test files that a contractor, contrary to Google's express instructions, somehow put in, but they were never shipped and Google removed them when they were notified that they were in there. That's all Oracle has so far.

(Groklaw)

Uhuhuh.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Actually...
by foregam on Thu 24th May 2012 16:08 UTC in reply to "Actually..."
foregam Member since:
2010-11-17

Right, except they started out asking $6bln. and they get at most $150k. That's a 40000-fold smaller sum, or 0,0025% if you prefer. Not really a big win...

Reply Score: 3

Copyrightable Patents
by ruinevil on Wed 23rd May 2012 21:24 UTC
ruinevil
Member since:
2009-01-08

If API are copyrightable, Oracle is gonna get eviscerated by IBM, which owns the original SQL copyrights. Selling SQL databases and services is Oracle's primary business after all.

Reply Score: 13

YEAH ! suck it Ellison
by bowkota on Wed 23rd May 2012 21:32 UTC
bowkota
Member since:
2011-10-12

Views on software didn't appear to be the only influencing factor in play either, with Thompson suggesting that "a couple of jurors admired the younger attorney on the Google side" — Daniel Purcell — "maybe not only because he seemed to be a good attorney, but for other reasons."


http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/23/3039284/oracle-google-jury-deadlo...

/facepalm

I don't know what's more stupid. Software patents or having a jury trial on something intricate as this?

Edited 2012-05-23 21:33 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: YEAH ! suck it Ellison
by JAlexoid on Thu 24th May 2012 00:12 UTC in reply to "YEAH ! suck it Ellison"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I find it funny, that the whole legal process can be described as a lawyer popularity battle, rather than logical evidence analysis.

Reply Score: 4

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Wed 23rd May 2012 21:46 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

Decision on copyrightability of APIs is more critical for everyone in general, but the current outcome is already great.

Reply Score: 7