Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 9th May 2014 18:36 UTC
Legal

A San Francisco federal judge had decided that Oracle could not claim copyright protection on parts of Java, but on Friday the three-judge Federal Circuit panel reversed that ruling.

"We conclude that a set of commands to instruct a computer to carry out desired operations may contain expression that is eligible for copyright protection," Federal Circuit Judge Kathleen O'Malley wrote.

This is terrible news for the technology industry and us enthusiasts.

This case should have ended with this. Everything after that is a sham.

Permalink for comment 588602
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
pgeorgi
Member since:
2010-02-18

When Microsoft did that, everyone was cheering Sun as a saviour for suing them.

The main difference that Microsoft Java was marketed as a drop-in replacement for Sun Java. Same class files, same complete set of APIs.
And then added their own byte code extensions to make things a one-way street, but kept it compatible enough so it's only visible when trying to run MS Java code on other JVMs.

Android's use of Java is different: you won't mistake an APK for a JAR or vice-versa, and you won't be able to easily run an Android application on a JVM or vice-versa. Google is also quite careful to state that they support the Java language instead of Java-the-ecosystem.

Was Google permitted to adopt parts of Java that way? No idea (although I have pretty strong opinion when it comes to the copyrightability of interfaces), but it's a different situation from what happened with MS Java.

Case in point: the MS Java lawsuit ended with Microsoft not being allowed to use the "Java compatible" trademark (among other obligations), which isn't even in question here - Google doesn't claim compatibility and doesn't use the mark and Oracle didn't sue for it.

Reply Parent Score: 5