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
COMES contributions | 194 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections
Authored by: PolR on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 10:09 AM EDT
If any is required.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT Here
Authored by: PolR on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 10:11 AM EDT
On-topic comments will be penalized by having you explaining chapter and verses
what exactly is the SSO in an API and why it is not functional.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News picks here
Authored by: PolR on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 10:12 AM EDT
Please place the title of the news pick in the comment tile.

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Infringers Profits calculation
Authored by: DannyB on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 10:13 AM EDT
In previous Groklaw article I read it is EITHER infringers profits OR statutory damages. But not both as Oracle / Boise seems to want. (Maybe they want infringers profits multiplied by statutory damages?)

Let me suggest an infringer's profits calculation.

9 lines of 15 million lines. Just to get nice easy round math, let's be generous to Oracle and nearly double the 9 infringing lines to 15 infringing lines.

15 lines of 15 million lines should get 1 part in 1,000,000 of profits. Oracle cannot show that those infringing lines are responsible for a larger share of profits. A lot of other functionality in Android is why users want it -- they don't want it for its trivial range check function, which any high school student could write.

Now being generous to Oracle, let's suppose that all past infringing versions of Android have earned Google, let's say, $50 Billion. Divide by one million (for Oracle's share of 15 infringing lines) and get $50,000. Yes, that's Fifty Thousand.

Which do you want Oracle, Infringer's Profits OR Statutory Damages?

(BTW, did Boise take your case on contingency and gets a percentage of your winnings. Just wondering.)

---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES contributions
Authored by: PolR on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 10:14 AM EDT
This good work should not stop. Thanks to the volunteers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle's Denied Motion For JMOL on Fair Use, as text ~ pj
Authored by: jpvlsmv on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 10:28 AM EDT
Oracle says in it introduction "To establish copyright infringement, Oracle
must show that: (1) Oracle is the owner of an original copyrighted work; and (2)
Google copied elements from the copyrighted work"

If this were the case, then it would be clear that Google has infringed. But
there's a rather important word that was left out of this quote (and maybe the
law, IANAL)

That is the word "protectible" before "elements".

Right?

Feist v Rural established that you do not infringe when you copy unprotectible
elements, no matter where they came from. The facts are the facts (or the ideas
are the ideas) whether you go from door to door to collect them, or if they are
already in someone else's book.

--Joe

[ Reply to This | # ]

Deminimis backward
Authored by: jpvlsmv on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 10:35 AM EDT
"is measured by considering the qualitative and quantitative significance
of the copied portion in relation to the plaintiff's work as a whole."
Newton v. Diamond, 388 F.3d 1189, 1195 (9th Cir. 2003)

Is Oracle measuring the importance of rangeCheck backwards?

Why would it matter how many times the function is called by Android, when it's
the relation to the *plaintiff's* work that is relevant?

--Joe

[ Reply to This | # ]

Tweets from the courtroom
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 10:39 AM EDT
https://twitter.com/ #!/Feldegast R aw feed: https://twitter. com/#!/Feldegast/oracal-vs-google- trial

Many thanks to Feldegast & others.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Joint Ownership?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 10:53 AM EDT
I don't really do html mode posting, but this was an important point last
article which *really* shouldn't get missed:

***********************************************************

"He finished TimSort at some point in early 2009, at which point he
contributed that file both to Sun’s OpenJDK project and to Android. RT 822:4-9
(Bloch). "

I have not seen any documentation of copyright ownership except that saying it
was donated. So how did this get into OpenJDK if he was employed by Google at
the time?
If he signed the required Oracle Contributor Agreement (OCA), then the OpenJDK
contribution page says (emphasis added):

"The OCA gives Oracle and the Contributor joint copyright interests in
the code. The Contributor retains copyrights while also granting those rights to
Oracle as the Community's sponsor."

Alternative if he signed the older Sun Contributor Agreement (emphasis added):

"You hereby assign to Sun joint ownership in all worldwide common law
and statutory rights associated with the copyrights, copyright applications and
copyright registrations in Your Contribution."

Alluding to what others have commented before, under either of these agreements
Block (Google?) still owns the code so the only way Oracle can have exclusive
rights is that the copyrights were officially transferred to Oracle.

But if he signed neither then what???

***********************************************************

So, Google can't contest Oracle's ownership, but could they assert that they
have joint ownership of the code in question?

Do we have any evidence one way or another here?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle is entitled to judgment?
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 11:09 AM EDT
Accordingly, Oracle is entitled to judgment that it is the owner of valid copyrights to J2SE 1.4 and J2SE 5.0, covering all components of those works, including the individual code files and the SSO of the API packages.
No, I just don't get it. Oracle originally asserted 51 API packages as copied. Mitchell soon said,
I understand that in this case, Oracle has chosen not to assert copyright infringement of several other Java SE packages, in some cases because Oracle uses these packages under license from third parties or allows third parties to utilize these packages under permissive terms. These packages include: java math, java.util.concurrent, java.util.concurrent.atomic, java.util.concurrent.locks, javax.xml, javax.xml.datatype, javax.xml.namespace, javax.xml.parsers, javax.xml.transform, javax.xml.transform.dom, javax.xml.transform.sax, javax.xml.transform.stream, javax.xml.validation, and javax.xml.xpath. These packages are not included in my analysis.
If the lawyers tell the court that they don't own the copyright on 14 packages of APIs out of the 51 that they claim were copied, why would they be entitled to judgement that that Oracle is the owner of valid copyrights to J2SE covering all components of those works, including the individual code files and the SSO of the API packages?

They cannot be saying that the registrations give them ownership of all the components, including the individual code files because the registration certificate includes the following:
DERIVATIVE WORK OR COMPILATION
Preexisting Material Identify any preexisting work or works that this work is based on or incorporates.
Prior works by claimant and licensed-in components
So, if the registration doesn't even say they own every part of Java, how are they entitled to judgement?

This law stuff is so confusing!

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lol - "Google's Use Harms The Potential Market For And Value Of The Copyrighted Work"
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 11:10 AM EDT
"Google's Use Harms The Potential Market For And Value Of
The Copyrighted Work"

Google brought people to Java. Certainly I'd never done any
Java work before doing some Android programming. This is bad
how?

Android fragments Java how? Oracle argue that Google's use
of APIs is a breach. But more people knowing Java API's is
good for Java, and if Android did use another API set - then
Java would be poorer for it, and Oracle could justifiably
claim that Android fragmented the market more!

No good deed goes unpunished.

In related news, apparently Google search results are
protectable opinion. What's interesting about this is that
opens the way for Google to legitimately express their
opinion by promoting search results not mentioning Oracle
above those that do. Imo, Google has always played a
straight fair game, but Oracle is inviting a punitive
approach, and it would be in the public interest; it's not
in the public interest to have companies that have a
justifiably poor reputation at the top of searches, except
where the search is a direct search on the name, or 'xxx
sucks'.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Orcale's blood
Authored by: BJ on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 11:31 AM EDT
I am awestruck by OraGoogle-1114.pdf!!!

Are Van Nest et al. running rings around BSF? Is this a clear example of a
lawfirm-resting-on-its-laurels (id est: lazy and arrogant), against one that's
ambitious and inventive and showing skill-in-action??

Even Van Nest's (et al.) wording sometimes is playfully and self- consciously
smug: 'Fair enough' -- well I'll have you...!!

bjd


[ Reply to This | # ]

Is Oracle/BSR nuts?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 12:10 PM EDT
Mr. Lee expressed regret that such paraphrasing had occurred:
I actually wasn't even a big fan of including these. I would have preferred that we just point people to Sun's site for this specific documentation because you shouldn't really be rewriting a contract. And in doing so they are going to be substantially similar.
(RT 1175:25-1176:3.) Mr. Lee's admission that the English-language descriptions in the Android specifications were paraphrased from the Java specifications is evidence of direct copying, which entitles Oracle to judgment on this point.
How can they be so stupid to base their argument on this quote? Can there be any stronger argument that the text is functional rather than creative prose?

How can they specifically bring the judge's attention to this quote?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle's Denied Motion For JMOL on Fair Use, as text ~ pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 12:31 PM EDT
I was sure that the copyright portion was over. Looks like
another SCO-like tactic ala BSF:

1) Re-present your case the way it really should be.
2) Claim the jury didn't get all the "facts" so here they
all are including the ones that we forgot or were missed,
or were overlooked.
3) Infer that the judge is an idiot for not judging for you
in the first place.

Too bad the courts don't have an idiot button. The Judge just has to push it
and the whole idiot-lawyer side of the
courtroom falls through the floor. "Next! ..."

[ Reply to This | # ]

hmm - something up. Phps an offer?
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 02:33 PM EDT
https://twitter.com/#!/Feldegast/oracal-vs-google-trial

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

This might be significant
Authored by: gdeinsta on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 05:13 PM EDT

Anon posted this comment on the previous article:

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 10:10 AM EDT

Has Oracle established that it has exclusive copyright over that rangeCheck method? Some quick Googling finds that exact method in two different open source packages built circa 1999:

CERN Colt Project - http://ac s.lbl.gov/software/ colt/index.html in file Sorting.java (http://www.do cjar.com/html/api/cern/colt/Sorting.java. html) Copyright CERN

JORAM JMS Messaging Project - http://joram.ow2.org/ in file Arrays.java (ht tp://joram.ow2.org/current/joramdox/html/_arr ays_8java- source.html) Copyri ght BULL/INRIA

Note these are not merely similar; they are identical character-for-character, including whitespace. The cern file was published 3 July 1999, the joram file is copyright 1996 - 2001 but the file was generated in 2009.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle's [Mostly] Denied Motion For JMOL on Fair Use, as text ~ pj Updated 2Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 04:54 PM EDT
I cannot quote the source, but I read that in one European country (perhaps
Germany), the courts ruled that the API calling parameters are not
copyrightable. That another software could use the same names, possibly in the
same sequence.

APIs calling conventions are not copyrightable, the code within the API may be.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reports of Groklaw's Demise
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 06:29 PM EDT
I swear I remember this blog announced it's retirement a while back. But I am
glad to see it still running.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does Oracle even -own- rangecheck?
Authored by: BitOBear on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 12:28 AM EDT
the rangecheck function was donated to Java. But was there a "writing
sufficient to transfer copyright" for this code?

I have "donated" code to things before, but I have never yet quit my
own clam to any code I wrote and donated. Unlike donating a car to a charity,
when I donate code I get to keep it as well.

So I get to have and eat my cake and so does the receiving party (which is part
of why ideas are not like real property).

So Oracle has not registered reangecheck as an entity, and I have seen nothing
that says that Oracle's right to use is proprietary or even exclusive.

Now I know that Google agreed not to challenge any copyright ownership presented
by Oracle, but doesn't Oracle have to actually present evidence of that
ownership?

Since the code is known to have been donated, doesn't that mean that Oracle is,
absent any evidence to the contrary, -known- not to own that code until they
show the writing of transfer of copyright ownership?

Oh my, is BS&F up to lying by omission again?

[ 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 )