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 588579
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: or with OpenJDK
by WorknMan on Sat 10th May 2014 00:37 UTC 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

RE[7]: or with OpenJDK
by Nelson on Sat 10th May 2014 01:36 in reply to "RE[6]: or with OpenJDK"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

They wanted to have the familiarity of Java without the compatibility (Which was Java's selling point). Obviously this was a major no-no in Sun's eyes, so Google circumvented them by rolling the runtime, the class libraries, and co-opting the Java language for their own gain.

Oracle's attack on Google was two pronged. Patents and Copyright. Patents covering the implementation and copyright covering the creative works the APIs are comprised of.

Oracle lost pretty soundly on patents but the copyright issue was seen by many (including me) as a potential winner for Oracle. So at this point the fact that they wrote their own VM, byte code, etc isn't too relevant any longer.

What is relevant is the fact that Google copied the SSO of Java's APIs. This much is set in stone already. A Jury decided that matter.

Also set in stone is that APIs are copyrightable (barring the SCOTUS).

The only thing left is for the Judge (not a Jury. Oracle and Google agreed to not have this decided by a Jury) to decide if Google had a good reason to infringe. That reason being fair use.

The problem is that while the Appeals Court didn't rule on fair use, they did state that they agreed with a lot of what Oracle said.

Reply Parent Score: 4