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
Patent Nukes | 286 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections
Authored by: Kilz on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 11:17 AM EDT
Please list the mistake in the title of your post

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can't see how Oracle can respond to this
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 11:17 AM EDT
Can't see how Oracle can respond to this. I mean a constitutional right
confirmed by a 2005 case in the 9th circuit, and all the other case law? Slam
dunk for Google.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: Kilz on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 11:18 AM EDT
For all posts that are not on topic.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks
Authored by: Kilz on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 11:19 AM EDT
Please mention the news story's name in the title of the top
post.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes thread
Authored by: Kilz on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 11:21 AM EDT
Please post all transcriptions of Comes exhibits here for PJ
to find. Please post the html as plain text for easy copying.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle's suggestion on how to move forward
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 11:27 AM EDT
Oracle's suggestion on how to move forward:
Google should stipulate that fair use should be decided by the judge as a matter of law. They offer that they will not ask for a share of profits on the RangeCheck code (this after the judge told them it borders on the ridiculous).

See here:
1106 RESPONSE to COURTS QUESTIONS by Oracle America, Inc.
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3 :2010cv03561/231846/1106/

[ Reply to This | # ]

All the kings horses and all the kings men
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 11:27 AM EDT
Don't want to put Oracles case together again.

[ Reply to This | # ]

this is the judges fault.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 11:31 AM EDT
If he had ruled that api's are not copyrightable prior to sending the jury
off this wouldn't have come to pass... telling the jury that to assume
that api's are copyrightable and that Google copied them inferred guilt.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Tweets from the Courtroom
Authored by: naka on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 11:34 AM EDT

Since Feldegast's excellent twitter feed seems to be absent for now (and he really has been putting in a great effort), today's live tweeting reporters seem to be James Niccolai and Rachel King.

Rachel has some tweets about Sun's 10-K being entered as evidence; the 10-K that impeaches McNealy's testimony.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google Files Motion for New Trial on Question 1 Re API SSO ~pj
Authored by: DCFusor on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 11:49 AM EDT
Others have pointed out that if Oracle wins this, they lose anyway. How much of
Java came from C++? Nearly all of it, conceptually, except for the fact that
its interpreted instead of compiled. And oh, seems Perl has been interpreted
for quite awhile itself, and is a lot older, though not as old as the
almost-always interpreted Basic.

Make API's copyrightable, and Oracle is dead meat for anyone who wants to attack
them on it. SQL is after all, an API to a database...their main business.

They'd be quite well-advised not to push on that one too hard. There are a lot
of people - some with power and IP, just waiting for a chance to take them down.
Hard to find anyone more hated in this business now that SCO is gone.


---
Why guess, when you can know? Measure it!

[ Reply to This | # ]

What API's are Oracle dependent on?
Authored by: darlmclied on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 11:58 AM EDT
It occurs to me that it is highly improbable that Oracle are
not reliant on some open source API's in their code.

It would be good if we could identify such API's and point
out to them that should they win this case that they might
have a rather large bill for infringing other people's APIs.

Also, did Google lawyers point out in the copyright trial
how much Sun stood to gain through Android and Java using
the same APIs?

The way I look at it, the advantage of using the same APIs
is that any library code (an example would be say a plotting
library that creates bar charts, graphs etc -- it would need
the math, I/O and graphics API's) written for Java would run
on Android and vice versa.

Now initially, it is Android that benefits: android
programmers can use any Java libraries that use the matching
APIs. However, in time android libraries will be created
and guess what, those will "just work" on Java.

This is just one reason why Sun was so happy about android
using Java. But I guess companies like Oracle just can't
see past the short term $-signs.

[ Reply to This | # ]

API's like music
Authored by: cbc on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 12:01 PM EDT
The conventions of staffs, ledger-lines, bars for measures, notes, stems, and
flags are API of the musical language. The selection of values, postions, and
combinations of the notes are the notation of the original art of music.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sun's US 10-K
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 12:07 PM EDT
I just read on Twitter that Sun's US 10-K that talks about CEO
blogs is going into evidence - nice going PJ. I am sure the
jury will appreciate.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What the Urcle of Oracle Believed Once Upon a Time!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 12:20 PM EDT
Quote:
""At Oracle we believe that patents are inappropriate means
for protecting software and are concerned that the patent
system is on the brink of having a devastating impact on the
software industry. In our opinion, copy-right and trade
secret law is satisfactory to protect the developer's rights
in software and to promote innovation in our industry."" End
Quote

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/software/sanjose
/sj_baker.html

Amazing how The Open Source Loving Oracle has now turned into
the Urcle of all oracles in their view of Software Patents,
Copyrights and Trade Secret Laws! ;-P ....when they used to
champion their roots they shared in the Open Source Community!

His Royal Urcleness of Oracle, Larry Ellison should be
ashamed!

btw... can you believe they actually stated for record; 'copy-
right and trade secret law is satisfactory to protect the
DEVELOPER's Rights in Software". API's are neither trade
secrets, nor has their SSO ever proved to be Copyrightable as
creative expression as they are meant purely as Functional
Calls to Hardware!

[ Reply to This | # ]

API's, creativity and music
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 12:28 PM EDT
As a developer, I would disagree that creation of an API is unlike creation of
music. However, at the same time I feel that use of an API for interoperability
renders it under the fair use category.

When developing an API, it is the library designers responsibility to craft an
API that is organized and structured in a way that makes it easy for the API
user (another developer) to use and follow.

Selection of function or method names can be crucial, and often they are more
than simple names... they can be in essence short sentences or questions with
the underscore _ character replacing the space or use camelcase. Things like
is_visible(), isVisible(), check_for_range_and_validate(),
checkForRangeAndValidate(), etc.

Sequence of parameters is also important. You want to ensure that throughout the
API you maintain consistency with parameter order and place them in an order
that the typical developer would expect, such as get_mouse_coordinates(int x,
int y) rather than get_mouse_coordinates(int y, int x).

Organization can also be important. Designing a good OO hierarchy doesn't just
happen.

As a developer of numerous GPLd and LGPLd libraries I think Oracle is right,
that a great API can be as beautiful as a piece of music.

But, at the same time, I feel Oracle is wrong and that fair-use comes into play,
because by definition, the entirety of an API is functional, and thus if Sega v.
Accolade holds, any part of an API is fair game despite it's comparative beauty
and creativity to a piece of music.

-- nyarlathotep

[ Reply to This | # ]

A question about costs
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 12:36 PM EDT
If Google are found not guilty on any of Oracle's complaints, copyright or
patent, can they require Oracle to pay the expenses incurred for the trial?

Similarly, since Google are (currently) found to infringe Oracle copyright, does
Google have to pay Oracle expenses for the trial?

It would be nice if Google were found not guilty of any of these points, and
Oracle forced to pay their costs, so that Oracle are financially penalized for
this case.

Which is also a good reason for Google to pursue a not guilty verdict for the
copyright part.

Jane

[ Reply to This | # ]

Assumption of ability to copyright.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 12:58 PM EDT
It is worded in such a way that it presumes the structure stuff (API, etc) can
be subject to copyright, neglecting the fact that the judge needs to rule on
this as a matter of law. So, it looks like a poison apple to me. That is, if
Google accepts it, it is accepting that the structure stuff can be subject to
copyright.

Best wishes,
Bob

[ Reply to This | # ]

consumer and API's - an alagory
Authored by: YurtGuppy on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 02:53 PM EDT
WHAT is your name: Sir Consumer

WHAT is your quest: I seek the grail!

WHAT API does your favorite app use?: I don't know that! Yaaaaaaaaah

---
a small fish in an even smaller pond

[ Reply to This | # ]

Parsing vs. Simulation
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 03:31 PM EDT
Oracle's lawyers must suck at this tech stuff. That, or it's deliberate. I just read this article on Ars and found this:
Jacobs implied that Google's noninfringement defenses boil down to wordplay, saying that faced with a patent describing a way to "simulate execution" of a program, Google insists on using the word "parse" instead. "They say they parse, they don't simulate," said Jacobs.
I don't know where to start. Parsing is splitting up a string to figure out what it means. Simulation is something else entirely. They have nothing in common here. Sure, they both do something with data, but that something is completely different.
parse /pärs/
Verb: Analyze (a sentence) into its component parts and describe their syntactic roles.
Noun: An act of or the result obtained by parsing a string or a text.

sim·u·late /ˈsimyəˌlāt/
Verb: Imitate the appearance or character of.
Pretend to have or feel (an emotion).
And no, it doesn't get any better if you use them as computer-specific words. Simulation is not at all like parsing. If Google does one and the patent describes the other, we're comparing apples and orangutangs here. Which is about what I'd expect from Oracle, frankly: monkey business.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"...the currency of the Participation Age is trust."
Authored by: mcinsand on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 04:22 PM EDT
McNealy: "...the currency of the Participation Age is
trust."

So. Does this mean that McNealy will be filing for bankruptcy, now that he has
thrown away all of his 'currency?'

[ Reply to This | # ]

One man's dream is another man's scheme...
Authored by: BJ on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 04:42 PM EDT
Quote from Schwartz [on open cloud API's]:
"without fear of lock-in or litigation"

We know how the light shines on that idea
in the Ellison / Katz vision.

bjd


[ Reply to This | # ]

    Are Sun's/Oracle's responses to NYS openness study useful?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 04:56 PM EDT
    In 2008, the companies made what appear to be public, official
    pronouncements on definitions of interfaces, implementations, APIs
    et cetera and their relationship to IPR.

    See www.cio.ny.gov/policy/ESRA/erecords/PartIII-
    EerecordsStudy.pdf

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    openjdk and OIN
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 05:02 PM EDT
    As of 2012-05-01 Open Invention Network lists openjdk as a component of its
    linux system:
    <a
    href="http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/pat_linuxdef_table3.php">
    linux def</a>.

    Does openjdk use those patents?
    If yes does it have any value in the current trial?

    I don't really see how the <a
    href="http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/pat_license_agreement.php"&g
    t;agreement</a> should be applied to the current situation.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SSO and past employers
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 05:09 PM EDT
    So suppose we're living in a future world where SSO is copyrightable.

    I suspect like many programmers, there's a few things - including SSO of APIs
    between internal components - that I've implemented multiple times for more than
    one employer.

    So now all the code I've written for subsequent employers infringes on the
    copyright of my first employer?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Uh oh, judge starting to figure out interfaces vs. implementation...
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 06:11 PM EDT
    Rachel King ‏ @ZDNetRachel Judge to Jacobs: You can't say "No one else can come along and do the exact same specification." Looking darker for Oracle each minute...
    Caleb Garling ‏ @CalebGarling "You don't have the right to every single way to do every single method." Alsup to Oracle
    And Jacobs getting pissed...

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Google has an easy way out of infringement
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 06:32 PM EDT
    If they are found to infringe the SSO they can trivially
    rework android to get around it.

    A slightly tweaked Java compiler that doesn't use folders or
    files for package structures and allows C++ style methods
    outside of class bodies will give the exact same
    functionality without the SSO. Alsup has already said the
    class/method names can't be copyrighted.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Google Files Motion for New Trial on Question 1 Re API SSO ~pj - Updated 3Xs - Schwartz Video on Corporate Blogging
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 06:41 PM EDT
    "Rachel King &#8207; @ZDNetRachel
    Alsup denies motion for judgment as a matter of law."

    Which motion? Did he just punt on the copyrighting of APIs?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Symbolic References
    Authored by: ChuckM on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 07:10 PM EDT
    "Next, Jacobs questioned Andy McFadden, a Google engineer who has worked on
    Android since the project's inception in 2005. He asked about whether Android
    code uses 'symbolic references,'... "

    I think a great answer to that would be "You mean like how people call me
    Andy McFadden but they are really referring to the person who has the particular
    DNA sequence associated with this body?"

    Sadly witnesses generally only get affirmative/negative responses.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Google Files Motion for New Trial on Question 1 Re API SSO ~pj - Updated 3Xs - Schwartz Video on Corporate Blogging
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 08:11 PM EDT
    I'm concerned about the poor descriptions people have made about patent '104.
    To me, the patent seems to have very little to do with making symbolic
    references and more to do with JIT (just in time) compiling. The idea is that
    once the symbolic reference is reached when interpreting the code, rather than
    keep making the symbolic reference in the future, the symbolic reference is
    replaced with a numeric (pointer) reference. This is what the supposed
    invention is - the interpreter changing the data reference at runtime. This way
    only the first reference is slow and the rest are fast.

    So the question is.. Is this how the experts are explaining it to the jury? Or
    are they simply saying that *all* symbolic references in vm bytecode are somehow
    infringing? Btw, I would assume that the original Smalltalk-80 vm did this as
    well, but I haven't looked at the source. I was foiled by a stuffit file that
    my Linux pc didn't want to open :(

    ps. What happened to the Groklaw reporter? I keep looking for the reports from
    yesterday and today, but I'm guessing they aren't happening?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    filelists.xml.gz
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 08:30 PM EDT

    Uh, that filelists.xml.gz doesn't really prove that Oracle is distributing Gnu Classpath. Its entry "apache-ant-gnu-classpath.patch" is a downloadable file that has a patch to Ant (an elaborate 'make' utility for Java). The patch substitutes Gnu Classpath for Kaffe in Ant. (I can't tell from looking at the patch, but I presume there's some code in Ant that wants to know if it's running with or on GC/Kaffe as distinct from a standard Java.) It's evidence indicating Oracle distributes Ant. But it doesn't establish that any users of that Ant are using Gnu Classpath, let alone that they got Gnu Classpath from Oracle.

    It may well be that Oracle is distributing or has distributed Gnu Classpath, but this isn't evidence of that.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    I know John Mitchell
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 09:59 PM EDT
    and this is the first I've heard that he's testifying on Oracle's behalf. I'm
    really sad to hear that, since I always had plenty of respect for John before.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    GNU ClassPath
    Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 10:12 PM EDT
    By the way, an old blog post by Schwartz on Oracle forking Red Hat reminded me that a number of commenters on Groklaw have pointed out that this means that Oracle began distributing GNUclasspath, APIs and all. And they still are, I'm told, so I asked for something to show me. Here's the screenshot:
    So what does that mean to damages? Did Red Hat Linux implement the patents in some free Java implementation? So it goes beyond API. If Oracle themselves distributed Java under the GPL, what does this mean to damages?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Mistrial question
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 10:30 PM EDT
    The mistrial question seems to be a very smart move (unlike
    what some online commenters, not here, seem to think) :
    - If judge rules that the copyright part is a mistrial, they
    need to re-do this part, which will eat up a couple more
    months, which works in Google's favor; also, I do not think
    the judge wants to go there.
    - Otherwise, if Judge rules that APIs are not copyrightable,
    he removes the basis for questions 1 A and B, and can deny
    this motion as moot.
    - Finally, if the mistrial motion is denied but
    copyrightability granted, this will probably form a good
    basis for appeal.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Document title length record?
    Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 11:00 PM EDT
    GOOGLE INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION, MOTION, AND MEMORANDUM OF
    POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR A NEW
    TRIAL ON ORACLE'S CLAIM THAT GOOGLE IS LIABLE FOR
    INFRINGEMENT OF ORACLE'S COPYRIGHT ON THE STRUCTURE, SEQUENCE
    AND ORGANIZATION OF THE COMPILABLE CODE FOR THE 37 JAVA API
    PACKAGES

    is this a record for a document title on Groklaw?

    ---
    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 | # ]

    The Sun Cloud APIs
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 04:01 AM EDT
    The Sun Cloud APIs can be found here: http://kenai.com/projects/suncloudapis/
    This page is directly linked to from Sun's website.

    It was last modified almost three years ago. I haven't looked in any sort of
    detail, but I can't see any obvious overlap with the Java APIs.

    ...there are several other Sun APIs under a variety of open-source and/or free
    software licenses on kenai.com, though; kenai.com appears to be a Sun-controlled
    site. A good rummage through the whole site might turn up something worthwhile.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Oracle still distributing GNU Classpath
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 05:17 AM EDT
    There you go, sources for a complete alternative implementation of all java APIs as part of GCC's libgcj (GNU Compiler for Java libraries): libgcj-src.rpm.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Sun on Harmony/GNU Classpath - They should exist!
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 05:32 AM EDT
    This might already have been discussed earlier on Groklaw, but I found the
    attitude change of Sun/Oracle remarkable. See the following from their own
    website:
    http://sosc-dr.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#n1

    Q: Have you been engaging with the non-Sun Java SE platform communities such as
    Apache Harmony, GNU Classpath, IcedTea, and Kaffe?

    A: The Java developer ecosystem has a lot of very smart, experienced,
    community-savvy people who are passionate about the platform and eager to help.
    The OpenJDK Community in the past year has been fortunate to see the active and
    enthusiastic participation of these developers, who have offered up not just
    ideas and comment, but code and hard work, to move the project forward and
    address the most important issues, like encumbrances and packaging.

    Q: Are you planning to work with these communities directly?
    A: The Java ecosystem can support multiple implementations. Choice and
    differentiation keeps both commercial and open-source implementations on their
    toes, and we're not expecting any of the existing open-source Java SE or Java ME
    implementation communities to "close up shop" now that the JDK and
    Java ME implementations have been open sourced. It wouldn't be good for Java
    technology if they did!
    [...]
    At any rate, we hope to maintain a friendly, professional, and mutually
    beneficial relationship with all open-source Java SE platform development
    communities, and we look forward to finding ways to collaborate.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Patent Nukes
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 09:55 AM EDT

    Nice (and I mean that in a sarcastic way):

    Jacobs was easily able to make Rubin appear irresponsible, like he wasn't showing the kind of due diligence he should have been.
    So... if I get that right, at least one member of the Legal profession believes:
      To not read patents is to be failing due diligence
    And yet, also according to the Legal profession:
      1) Being a software developer, I'm not qualified to read, interpret and understand software patents
      2) Due to how software patents are authored, they are so generic as to be meaningless anyway - being unable to duplicate the "patented invention"
      3) If I do read a patent and build something that I believe to not infringe, if it is found infringing (by Legal interpretation) I - or the entity I work for - is now liable for trebble damages
    Beautiful, software patent nukes have been triggered, the radiation is all over, and there's absolutely no way to avoid walking through it: in the eyes of at least some members of the Legal profession, we're already guilty, even if it's for failing due diligence.

    As I said: nice!

    RAS

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    If all goes wrong
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 10:23 AM EDT
    If all goes wrong and Judge Alsup rules for SSO copyrightability (or he rules
    against but an appeal is successful) and Google gets its mistrial on 1A+1B and
    the new trial finds no fair use, can the fact of the hung jury be brought as
    evidence in the new trial's damages phase to show that Google at least had some
    plausible basis to have tried to rely on fair use?

    [ 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 )