decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
The statement | 152 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 09:15 AM EDT
So they can be fixed

---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News picks
Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 09:16 AM EDT
Please make links clickable

---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Java API as a whole?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 09:17 AM EDT
What is meant by that? Method signatures plus all comments in the
specification/javadoc as published? Or also including the implementation source
code?

What is then the unprotected part of the Java API not as a whole?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic
Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 09:17 AM EDT
Please make links clickable

---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes transcribing
Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 09:18 AM EDT
Thank you for your support

---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sun’s Technology Compatibility Kit (“TCK”) - is the hook Oracle could use to kill GPL version.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 09:29 AM EDT
Sun’s Technology Compatibility Kit (“TCK”) - is the hook
Oracle could use to kill GPL version.

As, then they make changes to the "tree trunk" code, re-issue
the TCK to match those changes, (and at the same time, make
changes to the license).

Of course, keeping the other TCK and GPL stuff alive (dual
license is born). Then, let the GPL branch, die.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Admission 3 seems wrong
Authored by: ChrisP on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 09:47 AM EDT
Admission 3 ends "such as preventing the TCK from being executed on mobile
devices."

This looks wrong to me. Surely it is an implementation of JavaSE that is
licensed with and has passed the TCK test that is prevented from running on a
mobile device, not the TCK itself. Who got this wrong, Judge, Google or Oracle?

---
Gravity sucks, supernovae blow!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Alsup ruled on Oracle's motion to deem certain issues as undisputed
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 09:52 AM EDT
that "[t]he Java APIs as a whole meet the low threshold for
originality required by the Constitution.”

That is a very ambiguous ruling. It suggests the API's are
copyrightable as a blanket statement, however there is no way
this can be so. That ruling certainly needs some
clarification.

Can Google file dissent on those rulings?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why do the TCK filings hurt Google?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 10:08 AM EDT
How does the TCK admission hurt Google?

AFAIK they don't want, and have never requested the TCK, and
their implementation is neither compatible with Java nor
called Java.

The TCK would resoundingly fail on Android for countless
reasons, so it would make no sense to apply for it.

Is there a suggestion that cleanroom implementations
*require* to apply for the TCK, as that doesn't seem to be
implied by the statement [and seems like it would require
some new kind of IP law to enforce, as it's not a copyright
(no real code was copied), patent (they aren't claiming
patents on the APIs as a whole), or trade secret issue (it's
published.)))]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Unclear on the concept of "ruled undisputed"
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 12:24 PM EDT
IANAL and am having trouble with the concept of the Good Judge ruling that
certain statements are to be read to the jury as "undisputed facts",
over the objection of one of the parties to the trial.

In particular, Google specifically objected to Oracle's paste-up of various
statements concerning the TCK, yet the paste-up is to be read to the jury as an
"undisputed fact".

How does that square with the right of each side to present their own case as
they see fit?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle v. Google - Day 3 Filings
Authored by: jvillain on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 12:41 PM EDT
This is interesting

A couple of tweets from Dan Levin. Not often you get to see what is on the Jury's mind during a trial. Damn good question from the jury.

Judge Alsup has fascinating practice- allows jurors to submit written questions during trial, lawyers can tailor ? to witnesses to answer

One juror question: seems sun aware that Apache had fragmented java. What communications did Sun have to revoke license?

Link

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle victory upside?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 02:55 PM EDT
No, of course I don't want them to win. But . . .

Lots of talk that if the Supreme Court invalidates Obamacare, something better,
like simply extending Medicare to everyone, would be the result. In short, it
would open the way to a better solution.

Would an Oracle victory do the same thing? Maybe it would finally get us off
Java to an alternative, which, if it doesn't exist now, soon would.

So, time to open a discussion of how to get rid of Java? Would an Oracle victory
speed things up?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Infringement Question
Authored by: sproggit on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 04:50 PM EDT
There are a couple of points that interest me with respect to the charge against
the 9 lines of code that Oracle have accused Google of literally copying into
Android from JAVA.

I'd be interested in the prevailing views:-

1. Whilst I can see that the law would hold Google responsible for code released
under the corporate name, and whilst I can see that Google has a responsibility
to ensure that all their developers abide by the rules and don't other people's
source code, there remains the chance that it's going to happen.

Google have conceded this point. However, if they have taken reasonable steps to
remove the code from Android (and I believe it's purged from the latest version)
and if they have undertaken to discipline the errant programmer, how does the
law view Google's culpability? If Google could show that they took reasonable
precautions to prevent such an act, then acted promptly to correct once
notified, can Oracle press this point? I might be willing to concede that Google
the corporation is guilty of not having a clearer set of company policies, but
is that a crime?

If Google's response to Oracle had been, "OK, we take your point. We have
removed the offending code. We will publicly apologise for this error and we
agree it was wrong. We have disciplined the programmer concerned." then
what else could they reasonably be expected to do?

2. Although I haven't seen or heard terms discussed, I cannot believe that Sun
do not have a "NDA clause" [non-disclosure-agreement], or gagging
clause, in their contracts of employment, such that even after terminating
employment with Sun, a former employee is legally prohibited from sharing any
intellectual property or other insights with a future employer.

Apart from the obvious answer of "because they have billions of dollars to
grab for", why are Oracle taking issue with Google and not with their
former employee? On that basis I am particularly interested to see if Oracle can
show Google management had knowledge of the 9 lines of code. I think BSF/Oracle
are just conflating a couple of points, like the Lindholm email and the code, to
try and suggest that this means that there is widespread disregard for IP at
Google. Is anyone reading this any differently?

3. When it comes to the jury instructions, how should the judge direct them? How
much lattitude does the Court have in terms of requiring that the jury find
evidence of willful infringement as opposed to inadvertent or isolated copying
that took place with no knowledge of management?

[ I have raised this example numerous times here on Groklaw, but a few years ago
there was a scare for users of the Konqueror web browser, when it became
apparent that it did not properly check to ensure that SSL certificates were
properly signed. Funny old thing, Microsoft's Internet Explorer had the exact
same problem at the exact same time. No-one was ever able to prove that
Microsoft had lifted the SSL code direct from Konqueror, but it was quite the
coincidence. There was never an opportunity to examine the IE source code for
signs of infringement, but it's easy to see how much harder this is to prove
when the suspect company only provides closed source software...

[ Reply to This | # ]

The statement
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 05:34 PM EDT
“Although Sun eventually offered to open source the TCK for Java SE, Sun included field of use restrictions that limited the circumstances under which Apache Harmony users could use the software that the Apache Software Foundation created, such as preventing the TCK from being executed on mobile devices.” This instruction reflects Google’s admission in its Answer and its April 13 brief.

That is so misleading. One would have to use the TCK in order for its field of use restrictions to apply. Surely Google must object to this!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle v. Google: a biased assessment
Authored by: jbb on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 05:37 PM EDT
From what I can gather Google has been holding their own while Oracle has been up to bat. As in SCO v. Novell the jury is presented with two mutually exclusive stories. I would say it is at least a tie right now. One problem Oracle faces is the facts and testimony which show Sun was happy with Android. I think it will be difficult for Oracle to prevail if they can't impeach that testimony. AFAIK, Google has not yet had a chance to present their side. After their opening statement they've only been able to cross examine Oracle's witnesses. It would be great news for Google if they were tied at this stage, but, who knows, maybe Oracle is saving their best for last.

I have no doubt that Google will tell a very compelling story when they get up to bat. The big question will be how much traction Oracle gets in their cross examinations. If they have a series of Perry Mason moments they might be able to trip up a few witnesses but I don't think they will be able to derail Google's story that APIs are not copyrightable and even if they were, Sun/Oracle gave them permission to use the APIs years ago via the statements of their CEO. That two prong attack is going to be hard for Oracle to deflect.

Oracle's story requires that the jury believe Google was stupid and careless; colossally stupid and careless. Google's story only requires that the jury believe Oracle got greedy after buying Sun and after seeing the Android phone take off. From a purely monetary perspective, it could make sense for Oracle to launch this suit because the potential payoff (if all goes well) could be enormous.

It's clear that Oracle now very much regrets Sun's policy (and their public statements of that policy) regarding the use of the Java APIs by others but that doesn't mean they are allowed to go back in time and change history. If companies were allowed to change what they said in order to match their current desires then we would no longer be able to do business with one another.

Those who know the Tao do not speak.
Those who speak do not know.

---

Our job is to remind us that there are more contexts than the one that we’re in — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )