|
|
|
| Authored by: mcinsand on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 09:08 AM EDT |
"Nothing that we registered takes away from our ownership."
Even if failing to properly register does not affect ownership, how can Oracle
assert anything close to what they are claiming in court after past actions?
Endorsing/encouraging, GPL'ing, and public statements are all about actions that
'~take~ away from our ownership.'[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 09:27 AM EDT |
The Sun Registrations say,
Certificate of Registration
TITLE OF THIS WORK
Java 2 Standard Edition Version 5
PREVIOUS OR ALTERNATIVE TITLES
J2SE 5.0 Java 2 Platform, Standard
Edition, Version 5.0 Java 2 Standard Edition
5.0 Software Development Kit, J2SE
Development Kit, JDK 5.0
... NATURE OF AUTHORSHIP
New and
revised computer code and accompanying documentation and manuals
DERIVATIVE WORK OR COMPILATION
Prior works by claimant and licensed-in
components.
So, some of the Java SE components are not owned by
Oracle.
From the Opening Expert Report of John C.
Mitchell:
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.
So, 14 of the API packages comprising hundreds of
individual documents are not owned by Sun.
The original rangeCheck code
was copied from Sun's java.util.Arrays.
The third party APIs that
Google were considered by Oracle to have 'copied'
include java.util.concurrent,
java.util.concurrent.atomic,
java.util.concurrent.locks. They agreed that they
had no standing to assert
these APIs.
The asserted 37 include
java.util, but do not include java.util.Arrays.
Thus we know as a fact
that some of the java.util API code is not owned by Sun
and that they have not
confirmed, by asserting it in the 37 accused API
packages, that they own all or
any of the code in java.util.Arrays.
The eight decompiled test files
are not in the asserted APIs. They may have been included in the JDK, but we
don't know. There is no evidence that they were written by or owned by Sun. They
could have come from the JCP.
The judge said that,
Because Oracle
properly registered the J2SE 5.0 platform, Google had the burden to overcome the
presumption of ownership. 17 U.S.C. 410(c) (certificate of registration “shall
constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and of the
facts stated in the certificate”). This presumption of ownership is true even
for individual works that are broadly registered as part of a compilation or
derivative work.
That would mean that a registration of an
anthology of poems constitutes a prima facie evidence of the ownership of the
copyright of the individual poems. 17 U.S.C. 410(c) says quite the opposite. It
also draws attention to the ' the facts stated in the certificate'. The facts in
this instance state that not all the components of the work are owned by Sun.
I would think that an admission in expert reports and in the
registration certificate that some of the poem copyrights were not owned does
not constitute prima facie evidence that everything else is owned by the
compilation owner. That is especially true when the lack of ownership is
discovered well after registration and after a review of only a limited part of
the work.
I can see that the poem owner would need to provide evidence
of ownership of a poems copyright, but I find it hard to believe that a
compilation owner would be able to steal someone's poem and sue someone else for
copying it without having to prove ownership.
The judge
said:At trial, Oracle’s Chief Java Engineer, Mark Reinhold,
testified that he had reviewed the J2SE 5.0 source code in 2006, long before the
start of this litigation, to determine whether the Java API packages in J2SE 5.0
were owned by Sun or third parties (Tr. at 2231). This was done to determine if
Sun had the right to open source the code for the API packages. His review found
that “Sun had a copyright notice in every single one of the API class source
files” for the asserted 37 API packages in this action (Tr. 2231–32). He also
testified that nobody has ever asserted that Sun did not own all right, title
and interest to these 37 API packages.
As explained above,
rangeCheck is not included in the 37 asserted API packages. Neither are the
eight decompiled test files. No evidence was produced that Sun owned the
copyright for the rangeCheck code at the time that Josh Block copied it.
Whatever Mark Reinhold did to obtain copyright, or not, for OpenJDK happened
after Josh copied the nine lines in his head.
The judge said
There was sufficient testimony that Exhibit 623 did accurately
represent the J2SE 5.0 work registered with the Copyright Office. Google has
failed to rebut this testimony.
We have not seen Exhibit 623, but
I suspect it is safe to assume that it is something conjured up by Oracle after
they disposed of the original evidence just the way they did for the Java SE
Specification and associated licence.
He also said:Judge: I
have something I want to say first. I made a mistake, and I want to correct
it.
Near the end yesterday we got into a discussion about the
ownership of the individual API packages.
Mr. Jacobs said that
Purcells admitted that they were not going to contest ownership.
And I
said I wasn't going to hold Mr. Purcells to that.
I'm going to retract
that. I put that back as an open question.
I had in mind a different
colloquy.
I'm not saying I *am* going to hold them to it, but I'm
going to hold that open.
Mr. Jacobs: Further to ownership and
registration and other formalities. Let me try to narrow scope of issues in
dispute.
We no longer seek a package-by-package ruling on infringement
as it relates to the code. (Relates to question 2 on verdict form.)
On
the document part, we urge that to be treated similar to the code
packages.
We seek a ruling on documentation copying. If that ruling
comes in the contexgt of 37 packages, that would suffice. We don't need package
by package rulings on the documentation. But we do need a ruling on the
documentation...
Judge: Was there a disk, and what was on it? And
that's not something I can take as self-authenticating from the face of the
letter.
I'm not going to rule on this - but tentatively I'm going to
rule no - you have to bring this in the right way, with a witness. They (Google)
have the right to be mean and nasty - which is what I think they're doing here.
I would need some case law to overrule their objection.
Oracle: MRT
Construction vs. Hard Drives, Inc. Business records case. Exactly like this
case. A file from an outside law firm transferred to Oracle.
Judge:
You're not explaining why you can't get Mr. Gonsalves here. You're avoiding
that.
I'm not going down this path until you tell me he's unavailable,
as in he refused a subpoena.
Oracle: Offer 1076, the CD rom.
Judge: Same ruling (i.e. no, need a witness)
Judge: Those 4 docs are
in limbo. I'm not ruling, but I question the foundation. I'm not ruling it out,
but I'm not ruling it in based on a proffer.
So, I am unconvinced
by the judge's argument especially in the face of the judge's previous
position.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
