Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 31st May 2012 21:41 UTC
Legal And thus, it ends. Despite a never-ending stream of doom and gloom from Oracle/Microsoft-funded 'pundits' regarding Google and Android (six hundred billion trillion gazillion eurodollars in damages!!1!), judge Alsup has just squashed all of Oracle's chances with a ruling that is good news for those of us who truly care about this wonderful industry: APIs are not copyrightable. Alsup: "To accept Oracle's claim would be to allow anyone to copyright one version of code to carry out a system of commands and thereby bar all others from writing their own different versions to carry out all or part of the same commands. No holding has ever endorsed such a sweeping proposition." Supreme Court, Ellison?
Thread beginning with comment 520229
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by shmerl
by satan666 on Thu 31st May 2012 21:58 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
satan666
Member since:
2008-04-18

And here is Linus' prediction on Google+:
"Prediction: instead of Oracle coming out and admitting they were morons about their idiotic suit against Android, they'll come out posturing and talk about how they'll be vindicated, and pay lawyers to take it to the next level of idiocy.

Sometimes I really wish I wasn't always right. It's a curse, I tell you."

Reply Parent Score: 13

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by kwan_e on Thu 31st May 2012 23:49 in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

And here is Linus' prediction on Google+:
"Prediction: instead of Oracle coming out and admitting they were morons about their idiotic suit against Android, they'll come out posturing and talk about how they'll be vindicated, and pay lawyers to take it to the next level of idiocy.

Sometimes I really wish I wasn't always right. It's a curse, I tell you."


From the updated article:

Update: Oracle has forwarded us a statement with its response as well:

Oracle is committed to the protection of Java as both a valuable development platform and a valuable intellectual property asset. It will vigorously pursue an appeal of this decision in order to maintain that protection and to continue to support the broader Java community of over 9 million developers and countless law abiding enterprises. Google's implementation of the accused APIs is not a free pass, since a license has always been required for an implementation of the Java Specification. And the court's reliance on "interoperability" ignores the undisputed fact that Google deliberately eliminated interoperability between Android and all other Java platforms. Google's implementation intentionally fragmented Java and broke the "write once, run anywhere" promise. This ruling, if permitted to stand, would undermine the protection for innovation and invention in the United States and make it far more difficult to defend intellectual property rights against companies anywhere in the world that simply takes them as their own.

------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Ellison. Stop being a cunt.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Fri 1st Jun 2012 00:24 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

The fragmentation of Java and issue of incompatible implementation are valid critiques of Android. But what does it have to do with the idea that APIs shouldn't be copyrightable? Both are right.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by reduz on Fri 1st Jun 2012 00:38 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
reduz Member since:
2006-02-25

A license to call your implementation Java, which is not the case here.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by lfeagan on Fri 1st Jun 2012 03:24 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
lfeagan Member since:
2006-04-01

One of the critical sleight of hands Oracle tries to put into people minds in their statement is: "a license has always been required for an implementation of the Java Specification". To be a certified implementation of the Java Specification this is true. Dalvik, however, neither purports nor seeks certification. Dalvik simply provides an API that is similar or the same (in some areas) as that of a popular system.

So Google borrowed from Java's API, big deal. So long as Google doesn't claim that they are a certified Java (R) implementation with the cutesy little logo they should be in the clear.

Reply Parent Score: 5