| I don't see how you dismiss these so easily, especially given the muddled
presentations of witnesses and the lack of programming experience by the members
of the jury.
Q1 instructs the jury to consider only the APIs of the group
of 37 core packages. Obviously Google did intentionally copy the APIs. If
Google had adapted them rather than reimplemented them exactly, the issues would
have been different--Oracle is relieved of the burden of proving which elements
contain creative expression. The jury is instructed to assume that the APIs are
protected by copyright, and under that assumption Google must lose Q1.
Fair use arguments are also questionable. The Dalvik ecosystem was clearly
created to avoid using Java and was meant to appear to programmers as a drop-in
replacement (while being completely different under the hood). The question is
whether under the law a computer language is protected by copyright. If not,
then fair use arguments are hard to make. Under the assumptions the jury is
asked to use, they could answer either way.
The place where Google wins is
Sun's general acceptance of reimplementations, including Harmony and Android. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
