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.

Thread beginning with comment 588569
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: or with OpenJDK
by WorknMan on Fri 9th May 2014 23:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: or with OpenJDK"
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

They then came up with Dalvik and used Harmony for the base Java support.


For the non-Java programmer, what does that mean specifically?

Whatever the case, it seems that Google knew they were on shaky ground, esp if they didn't get explicit permission from Sun to use the parts that they didn't have a license for.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: or with OpenJDK
by Nelson on Sat 10th May 2014 00:01 in reply to "RE[4]: or with OpenJDK"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Not much, it's just a note. Oracle didn't prevail on any of the patent claims in the original trial.

This is mostly about whether the structure, sequence, and organization of an API is an expression of an idea, and whether or not Google had an exemption to copyright law when they infringed.

The Jury already found Google to infringe, it was just hung on the fair use doctrine. It was all made moot due to the Judge's ruling that APIs weren't copyrightable, but that all changed today.

Now there will be another trial on fair use, and if Google fails there then it's liable for past damages and ongoing infringement. That $6B they originally asked for will look like chump change.

Apple might be able to at best annoy Google/Samsung. This has the potential to completely destroy Android's developer platform.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: or with OpenJDK
by WorknMan on Sat 10th May 2014 00:37 in reply to "RE[5]: or with OpenJDK"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

If I'm understanding the situation correctly, Google couldn't license the APIs under the terms they wanted, so they created their own virtual machine to try and work around it.

I guess this would be like Wine/ReactOS building their own version of the Win32 API from scratch, using the same function names? Which this court just ruled as illegal ....

Reply Parent Score: 4