OSNews:

OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/25987/Jury_Google_did_not_infringe_on_Java_patents_with_Android Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2013, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Sun, 19 May 2013 00:46:44 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif OSNews.com http://www.osnews.com Thank God!! http://www.osnews.com/thread?519155 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519155 And i hope this sets a precedence for all patent infringement trials to come! Wed, 23 May 2012 18:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Brunis) Comments RE: Thank God!! http://www.osnews.com/thread?519156 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519156

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... Wed, 23 May 2012 18:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (umccullough) Comments ... http://www.osnews.com/thread?519159 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519159 So, Oracle acquired Sun for nothing? Wed, 23 May 2012 19:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Hiev) Comments Corporatism http://www.osnews.com/thread?519160 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519160 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. Wed, 23 May 2012 19:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Modafinil) Comments RE: ... http://www.osnews.com/thread?519161 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519161

So, Oracle acquired Sun for nothing?

It seems that way!

Wed, 23 May 2012 19:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Modafinil) Comments RE: ... http://www.osnews.com/thread?519164 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519164 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. Wed, 23 May 2012 19:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Bill Shooter of Bul) Comments I'd love an official announcement from Google http://www.osnews.com/thread?519165 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519165 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. Wed, 23 May 2012 19:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (FunkyELF) Comments Comment by Radio http://www.osnews.com/thread?519168 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519168 "In your face, Ellison"?

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

Wed, 23 May 2012 19:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Radio) Comments RE[2]: ... http://www.osnews.com/thread?519173 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519173

"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. Wed, 23 May 2012 20:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (umccullough) Comments RE: ... http://www.osnews.com/thread?519174 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519174

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. Wed, 23 May 2012 20:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Fergy) Comments RE[3]: ... http://www.osnews.com/thread?519175 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519175

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 Wed, 23 May 2012 20:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (AnXa) Comments RE[2]: ... http://www.osnews.com/thread?519176 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519176

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. Wed, 23 May 2012 20:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Modafinil) Comments Actually... http://www.osnews.com/thread?519180 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519180 ... 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... Wed, 23 May 2012 21:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (cyrilleberger) Comments RE[3]: ... http://www.osnews.com/thread?519181 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519181

"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...) Wed, 23 May 2012 21:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (cyrilleberger) Comments Copyrightable Patents http://www.osnews.com/thread?519182 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519182 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. Wed, 23 May 2012 21:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ruinevil) Comments YEAH ! suck it Ellison http://www.osnews.com/thread?519184 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519184

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" â" Daniel Purcell â" "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 Wed, 23 May 2012 21:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (bowkota) Comments Comment by shmerl http://www.osnews.com/thread?519186 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519186 Decision on copyrightability of APIs is more critical for everyone in general, but the current outcome is already great. Wed, 23 May 2012 21:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (shmerl) Comments RE[4]: ... http://www.osnews.com/thread?519188 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519188 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. Wed, 23 May 2012 22:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Bill Shooter of Bul) Comments RE: Actually... http://www.osnews.com/thread?519204 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519204

... 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 Wed, 23 May 2012 23:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lemur2) Comments RE: Thank God!! http://www.osnews.com/thread?519205 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519205

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). Wed, 23 May 2012 23:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lemur2) Comments RE: YEAH ! suck it Ellison http://www.osnews.com/thread?519209 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519209 I find it funny, that the whole legal process can be described as a lawyer popularity battle, rather than logical evidence analysis. Thu, 24 May 2012 00:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (JAlexoid) Comments RE[4]: ... http://www.osnews.com/thread?519216 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519216

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:CleanupEdited 2012-05-24 01:16 UTC Thu, 24 May 2012 01:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Modafinil) Comments RE[5]: ... http://www.osnews.com/thread?519220 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519220 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". Thu, 24 May 2012 02:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Bill Shooter of Bul) Comments RE[5]: ... http://www.osnews.com/thread?519238 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519238

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. Thu, 24 May 2012 06:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (cyrilleberger) Comments RE: Actually... http://www.osnews.com/thread?519240 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519240 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. Thu, 24 May 2012 07:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Radio) Comments RE: Actually... http://www.osnews.com/thread?519291 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519291 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... Thu, 24 May 2012 16:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (foregam) Comments RE[2]: ... http://www.osnews.com/thread?519327 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519327 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. Thu, 24 May 2012 22:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Rugxulo) Comments