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
I think | 238 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here please
Authored by: N_au on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 09:18 AM EDT
Please indicate the correction in the title.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News picks
Authored by: N_au on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 09:19 AM EDT
please make links clickable

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: N_au on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 09:21 AM EDT
Please make links clickable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I think
Authored by: maroberts on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 09:27 AM EDT
Judge Alsups decision on the patent was a serious "Muhahahaha" moment
for Google :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes transcribing
Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 09:30 AM EDT
Thank you for your support, see http://ww w.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.p hp?page=ComesBooking for documents

---
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 | # ]

Oracle v. Google - Day 8 Filings; Google (Potentially) Blows the Door Off Oracle's Copyright Claims
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 09:31 AM EDT
This is pretty serious for Oracle by the look of it.

Is there any possibility the Judge could / would hold
judgement on this to allow the jury to return a verdict, and
then pull this out if necessary? Or is this an issue that has
to be resolved straight away?

I'd like to see a jury verdict in Google's favour *and* a
legal ruling on the subject to send the correct message to
the industry, but I guess that can't really happen.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle v. Google - Day 8 Filings; Google (Potentially) Blows the Door Off Oracle's Copyright Claims
Authored by: Stumbles on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 09:46 AM EDT
OK, I have to ask; since when is Florin a patent expert? Seems the only
expertise he has is selling himself out then disguising himself as
"objective".


---
You can tuna piano but you can't tune a fish.

[ Reply to This | # ]

an API
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 09:48 AM EDT
Took a stab at describing it as a hobbyist programmer, and couldn't get it out
of my thoughts last night, so here it is:

A single API element is like a single DARPA challenge. There is a goal which
must be met. There are rules of what can be used and rules about what must come
out. The challenge does nothing and in fact that is the point...to entice other
people to come up with their own version of a solution.

Source Code are those solutions, or entries to the challenge. Each one is a
completely different creative take on a way to achieve the required outcome.

"The API" as being discussed here, is just a large list of challenges.
Moreover, it's like DARPA has a rule that in order to simplify their
bookkeeping, every entry must exactly reference the title of the challenge in
order to be accepted as an entry. Any submission which does not, is simply
ignored.

The absurdity of the case is that it is like DARPA suing Burt Rutan and
demanding a share in all the profits of his tourist space program...why?
Because his entry submission had a line that exactly referenced their challenge
title, making Burt guilty (in their alternate reality) of IP theft.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • an API - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:16 AM EDT
  • Seems correct to me - Authored by: marcosdumay on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:22 AM EDT
  • an API is a conceptual contract - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 12:15 PM EDT
  • an API - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 12:59 PM EDT
  • an API - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 08:31 PM EDT
  • an API - Authored by: tinkerghost on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:02 PM EDT
    • an API - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 07:15 PM EDT
checking my understanding
Authored by: mcinsand on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 09:52 AM EDT
Google's motion hinges on testimony that Oracle has presented in court, right?
I just want to make sure I understand correctly. Google could not have filed
this in advance because a base point is from these trial proceedings.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hollywood lawyerin'
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 09:54 AM EDT
PJ has often opined that you never see "Your honour, I'd like to submit
this piece of evidence that completely destroys my opponent's case..."
moments that are the staple of television and Hollywood courtrooms.

But this copyright registration issue sure feels like one of those. :)


-- grnbrg.

[ Reply to This | # ]

From google's motion - OMG
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 09:55 AM EDT
In its first example, Oracle focused on the descriptions in the J2SE and Android specifications for the CipherInputStream class in the javax.crypto package. Counsel for Oracle asked Bob Lee to compare the following portions of the descriptions of CipherInputStream in the J2SE 5.0 and Android specifications:
java:
A CipherInputStream is composed of an InputStream and a Cipher so that read() methods return data that are read in from the underlying InputStream but have been additionally processed by the Cipher. The Cipher must be fully initialized before being used by a CipherInputStream.
Android:
This class wraps an InputStream and a cipher so that read() methods return data that are read from the underlying InputStream and processed by the cipher. The cipher must be initialized for the requested operation before being used by a CipherInputStream.
Did they seriously actually ask if those two were the same? Is that the best argument they gave? No better examples? Admittedly a few of the words are the same :/
In the alternative, and only in the event that the Court concludes that the jury should decide the issue of whether Google’s specifications infringe Oracle’s specifications on a class-by-class basis, Google is entitled to judgment as a matter of law that none of its specifications for classes other than CipherInputStream in the javax.crypto package, the Cipher class in the javax.crypto package, and the Pipe class in the java.nio.channels package infringe the Oracle specifications for the corresponding classes.
Waitaminute, so Oracle only put those into evidence? (!)
The only evidence in the record relates to these classes; Oracle did not present evidence on any other classes. Oracle could have, but didn’t, present evidence of an automated comparison between the Android and Java documentation as a whole, as it did with the implementing source code. This absence is telling.
Um... yes. face meet palm.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Summary judgment will be granted.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:06 AM EDT

I said a few days ago I expected a summary judgment in favor of Google. Now we have 984. I have no doubt the judge will grant it for several of the reasons Google has listed. Oracle has over reached and is simply trying to claim things that no court has ever allowed before.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Gem I found
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:14 AM EDT

"... the judge was able to come to this easy conclusion despite the insistence of self-described patent expert, Florian Mueller, that the court would certainly allow Oracle to break its word."

This is such a gem. I literally laughed out loud; all my co-workers came over to take a look at what the joke was.

He may be a patent expert (if you can hold off on challenging his credentials on that for one instant, and I admit that's hard), but he certainly is very naive about how ground zero in a courtroom is. Specifically, the whole thing about not presuming to know how the judge is going to rule.

So, at least for the instant that we are not challenging his credentials, we have a patent expert who is naive in the court system and/or how it works. That idea is the making of an oxymoron.

Maybe "naive expert", or "expert idiot" is the term that comes to mind.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nice catch 22 Oracle finds themselves in :)
Authored by: Kilz on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:14 AM EDT
But Google's point is Oracle can't have it both ways. Oracle can't argue that the 37 APIs "taken individually as as a unit" are covered by a copyright registration (a requirement for Oracle to bring a copyright infringement suit on them, not a requirement for copyright protection), but by insisting that the Java copyright registration is a collective work, Oracle seems to have stepped on themselves. Nowhere are those 37 APIs, either individually or as a unit, subject to a unique copyright registration; the only thing Oracle registered was the copyright in Java as a whole.
Not only cant they have it both ways, either way is bad.
Oracle took deadly aim with that footgun, its a double barrel one. They thought they put in two blanks, but one is a live round.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Which outcome would be better for the long-term, A or B?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:24 AM EDT
<p>Given the two options - and there might be others - which outcome would
serve free innovation / java in long-term better?</p>

<p><blockquote>The determination of this issue in favor Google will
either (a) result in the dismissal of the copyright claims or (b) provide the
support for Google's de minimis and fair use copying defenses.
</blockquote></p>

<p>mrh.</p>

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle v. Google - Day 8 Filings;
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:39 AM EDT
Oracle registered was the copyright in Java as a whole.

How does this compare to broad patent claim?
Is this a example of greediness or is just plain stupid ?
/Arthur

[ Reply to This | # ]

Harmony - quick - go register java.lang
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:44 AM EDT
go on - just for a laugh ....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ooops!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 11:16 AM EDT
and Ooops II

Tufty

[ Reply to This | # ]

Speculation on the Judges Ruling
Authored by: Guil Rarey on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 11:19 AM EDT
I'm expecting him to allow Oracle to go forward, but only on the basis of the
copyright they actually registered, as that is a requirement for bringing suit.

That allows the trial to go forward to develop the factual record and jury
finding as to the exact nature of the copying involved.

The appellate court might disagree with him in either direction at that point,
either dismissing Oracle outright or ruling the court should have given them
leeway to prove ownership of individual packages. Either way, the finding of
fact is fixed and done.

---
If the only way you can value something is with money, you have no idea what
it's worth. If you try to make money by making money, you won't. You might con
so

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle v. Google - Day 8 Filings; Google (Potentially) Blows the Door Off Oracle's Copyright Claims
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 11:54 AM EDT
I don't think it's as big a deal as Google would like.

It's no wonder the judge did not expect this.

The issue for a summary judgement is whether Oracle
introduced evidence for each element of each claim. In
particular, Oracle has the burden of proving authorship.
One easy way to show authorship (just a prima facie showing,
it can be disproven) is with a copyright registration.
Oracle introduced some registrations showing they wrote
various parts of the Java APIs, but they didn't show
registrations for each of the copyright claims they're
making. In particular, they didn't show a *registration*
for the APIs as a "collective work".
But that's no big deal, registrations are not required.
Registrations only are necessary if you're trying to collect
attorney's fees or statutory damages. Lack of registration
does not automatically mean that Oracle's "collective work"
claims get tossed out. If Oracle introduced any evidence at
all that they're the ones who assembled the collective work,
the claim proceeds (the weight of that evidence is a
question for the jury, not the judge).

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is the reason I still enjoy Groklaw after all these years
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 12:01 PM EDT
1. The BSF number one defense= Conflate if all .
2. The Scriveners error.= How can you patent a book if you do not comprehend
what you are reading.
3 . The foot gun. = A BSF device.
4. Only BSF supplies the standard From BIllions in settlements, to you do not
own it at all .= LOL.

Go Groklaw!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is Schwartz a friendly witness?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 12:09 PM EDT
Obviously he's on Google's witness list, at least in part due
to the statements he made in the past.

Just wondering if there's any info about whether he's likely
to be generally friendly toward Google's case or Oracle's?

[ Reply to This | # ]

What is an API
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 12:41 PM EDT
Well various folks have tried to find something synonymous. Here's my attempt.

An "API" could be considered like forms at the bank.

If you want to get money out, put money in, apply for a loan etc you have to
fill in a form. Different banks may have to go through different procedures to
execute what you want it to do, but in all cases if you want money you have
provide some information about who you are, what your bank account number is and
how much $ you have.

Each bank will have procedures and these will be copyrighted. Even the forms
themselves might be copyrighted.

But if I open a bank and need instruments so people can deal with the bank there
can be no getting around the fact that I need a piece of paper with fields for
"name", "account number" and "amount" and no
getting around the fact that I have to in return give $ or a refusal.

And there is also no getting round the fact that I would need to publish back
office procedure manuals so the clerks know how to properly process the form and
give the response.

Multiply that by everything you can do at a bank these days. Mortgages,
insurance, pensions, investments etc.

What Oracle is alleging isn't that Google copied their back office procedures,
or even their forms. It's that they created some forms of their own with the
same fields, use cases and return values.

It is preposterous (indeed dangerous) for a company to assert such ownership. It
would essentially deny new ventures entry into the same market.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I think what this is saying...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 12:55 PM EDT
... is that Oracle can't claim copyright to the APIs because they (Sun) never
acted like APIs were copyrightable. Specifically, they never registered
"the API" with the copyright office.

This doesn't actually address whether APIs are copyrightable. It just says that
Sun *didn't* register the copyrights, and therefore *Java's* APIs are not
copyrighted (and neither is any API so far produced).

The net effect will be that if anyone registers an API with the copyright
office, that API is *dead*, because after this case nobody will touch it.

MSS2

[ Reply to This | # ]

Registration
Authored by: StormReaver on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 01:08 PM EDT
After Oracle loses the case on the basis of improper registration, what's to
stop Oracle from re-registering and suing again?

Is Google's motion just delaying the final decision, or is Oracle SOL?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Making New Law
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 12:05 AM EDT
Notice that Oracle's citations in Docket 986 are for newspapers,
broadcasters, or blogs. Hint, hint, yer Honor.

>> After searching further, Oracle has still found no case law that
squarely addresses whether determination of what constitutes a
“work as whole” for purposes of the defenses of de minimis copying <<

They couldn't find any software related citations. I wonder if there are any...

[ 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 )