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
Why will it be remanded?! | 392 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Judge Alsup Rules: Oracle's Java APIs are Not Copyrightable ~pj
Authored by: eric76 on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:47 PM EDT
Regarding the case management course, what issues are left to be resolved?

The only thing I can think of is the damages for the small copyright violations
that were found, i.e. 9 lines of code plus some test programs.

Any others?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections
Authored by: Kilz on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:48 PM EDT
please mention the mistake in the title of your post.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: Kilz on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:49 PM EDT
For all posts that are not on topic.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks
Authored by: Kilz on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:50 PM EDT
Please mention the name of the news story in the title of the
top post.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The key point in the ruling
Authored by: Chromatix on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:51 PM EDT
SUMMARY OF RULING

So long as the specific code used to implement a method is different, anyone is free under the Copyright Act to write his or her own code to carry out exactly the same function or specification of any methods used in the Java API. It does not matter that the declaration or method header lines are identical. Under the rules of Java, they must be identical to declare a method specifying the same functionality — even when the implementation is different.

When there is only one way to express an idea or function, then everyone is free to do so and no one can monopolize that expression. And, while the Android method and class names could have been different from the names of their counterparts in Java and still have worked, copyright protection never extends to names or short phrases as a matter of law.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes
Authored by: Kilz on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:52 PM EDT
Please post all transcriptions of Comes exhibits here for PJ.
Please post the HTML as plain text so she can easily copy and
paste it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Alsup Rules: Oracle's Java APIs are Not Copyrightable ~pj
Authored by: clemenstimpler on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:56 PM EDT
Right now I'm on page 7, and I stand in awe:
[...] since there is only one way to declare a given method functionality, everyone using that function must write that specific line of code in the same way. The same is true for the “calls,” the commands that invoke the methods. To see why this is so, this order will now review some of the key rules for Java programming. This explanation will start at the bottom and work its way upward.
I fully expect that his order will stand the test of time (i .e. appeal) and is an exceptional piece of jurisprudence.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Weak ruling
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:57 PM EDT
From the conclusion, Judge Alsop specifically states that his is NOT stating
the Java API is inherently open. He's not ruling SSO in general is
protected. He's ruling that on the facts of Tis specific case Google does not
infringe.

What a letdown.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Smart Judge...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:08 PM EDT
I wonder what points Oracle will appeal

[ Reply to This | # ]

An apology
Authored by: maroberts on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:14 PM EDT
Whilst I didn't think Oracle would walk away with the claimed billions, I think
at one point I believe Oracle would get 60 or 70 million, and stated so here. I
never thought it would end in extreme embarrassment and a big fat zero (or very
negative if you include the legal bills) for Larry.

Congratulations to all those who saw it right.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does this mean Google Won Everything??
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:15 PM EDT
After this ruling, and it looks like this tosses the 9 lines
of code as well as sequence, does Oracle have anything left,
other than appealing??

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's almost like Judge Alsup knows BSF
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:27 PM EDT

Footnote 3 (in part):

In the findings, the phrase “this order finds . . .” is occasionally used to emphasize a point. The absence of this phrase, however, does not mean (and should not be construed to mean) that a statement is not a finding. All declarative fact statements set forth in the order are factual findings.
Heh, BSF love to try and claim things about various rulings... this seems to have been designed to shortcut any argument that "but the Judge didn't say it was a factual finding"!

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nothing from Flo' yet.......
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:28 PM EDT
Expect he's trying hard to put a positive 'Oracle' spin on
it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Alsup Rules: Oracle's Java APIs are Not Copyrightable ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:34 PM EDT
page 5, line 14: This is very close to saying the Java API had 166 “folders” (packages) ... Google replicated the exact names and exact functions of virtually all of these 37 packages
May be, "all of these 166" ? Is this a mistake?

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Judge Alsup thinks about RangeCheck...
Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:36 PM EDT

Oracle has made much of nine lines of code that crept into both Android and Java. This circumstance is so innocuous and overblown by Oracle that the actual facts, as found herein by the judge, will be set forth below for the benefit of the court of appeals.

[ Reply to This | # ]

RangeCheck and the Decompiled Test Files...
Authored by: sproggit on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:37 PM EDT
Page 13, lines 9-11...
"Oracle has made much of nine lines of code that crept into both Android and Java. This circumstance is so innocuous and overblown by Oracle that the actual facts, as found herein by the judge, will be set forth below for the benefit of the court of appeals."


[ Reply to This | # ]

Another one in Oracle's face
Authored by: clemenstimpler on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:44 PM EDT
[..] fragmentation, imperfect interoperability, and Oracle’s angst over it illustrate the character of the command structure as a functional system or method of operation.
The Honorable Judge really has a fine sense of humor.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thank goodness sense prevails, and congratulations Google.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:52 PM EDT
I'm also relieved that good sense has prevailed.

Thank you Google for fighting, and not caving in.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Alsup just lightened his own workload
Authored by: pem on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 06:58 PM EDT
Oh, sure, this case took a long time, and the appeal is practically inevitable
(unless Larry becomes a Hare Krishna or something).

But...

The next time a troll goes forum-shopping, Alsup is guaranteed not to be on the
short list of technologically-challenged plaintiff-friendly jurists.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Very readable
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 07:01 PM EDT
Written in plain ordinary English. Uses common sense. Wonderful.

A pity we have to had to go through the three ring circus, the expensive
marathon of discovery, the legal trickery dickery, and the obfuscation confusion
and grandstanding in front of a jury before common sense is finally allowed to
speak.

Couldn't this order have been written a year ago and saved us all a lot of
anxiety and bother?

[ Reply to This | # ]

How long does Oracle has to appeal?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 07:27 PM EDT
How soon does Oracle have to decide whether or not to appeal this decision?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle will "vigorously appeal"
Authored by: clemenstimpler on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 07:31 PM EDT
as reported by Caleb Garling on Wired.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Alsup Rules: Oracle's Java APIs are Not Copyrightable (Order as text) ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 07:38 PM EDT
Is our popular shill waiting for instructions from his employers on how to
spin it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hoist by their own petard
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 08:01 PM EDT
I like this bit (page 38, lines 26-28): "The immediate point
is this: fragmentation, imperfect interoperability, and
Oracle’s angst over it illustrate the character of the
command structure as a functional system or method of
operation."

[ Reply to This | # ]

So much for Oracle's "fragmentation" theory...
Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 08:07 PM EDT

In this litigation, Oracle has made much of this problem, at times almost leaving the impression that if only Google had replicated all 166 Java API packages, Oracle would not have sued.

While fragmentation is a legitimate business consideration, it begs the question whether or not a license was required in the first place to replicate some or all of the command structure. (This is especially so in as much as Android has not carried the Java trademark, and Google has not held out Android as fully compatible.) The immediate point is this: fragmentation, imperfect interoperability, and Oracle’s angst over it illustrate the character of the command structure as a functional system or method of operation.

He really nailed Oracle (and Ellison) on that!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Java APIs Copyrightability Order as math
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 08:24 PM EDT
with Oracle_v_Google {

import java.API.copyrightability.judgement;

boolean java_API_is_copyrightable FALSE; //Symbolic reference

}

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle can't do math. Google DID replicate all 166
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 09:04 PM EDT
37 (base 53(decimal)) = 166 (base 10(decimal))

[ Reply to This | # ]

So much for the judge not getting it. (n/t)
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 09:33 PM EDT
.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Alsup went far beyond a mere denial of Oracle's claims
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 09:43 PM EDT
Judge Alsup's ruling is so thorough that it goes far beyond a mere factual denial of Oracle's claims on the basis of law. As the many excellent paragraphs that people have quoted here show, his grasp of the subject is so amazingly well grounded that he has explained the technical basis of his decision more clearly than many a CompSci professor could do. I'm very impressed (being an ex-CompSci professor myself).

What's more, he doesn't just deny Oracle's claims, he politely yet very forcefully indicates why they are beyond ludicrous. If it were expressed any more clearly, he would be telling the Oracle lawyers that their case lies somewhere between incompetent on legal grounds and deliberately deceitful on technical grounds.

This is one of the most entertaining and technically well informed rulings that I have ever read. Alsup is a real tour de force and a great credit to his profession, and unfortunately a rarity.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Florian Mueller's mysterious take...
Authored by: jkrise on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 10:50 PM EDT
Just got to read Oracle employee / devotee / slave's mysterious take on Alsup's
verdict:

1. Mystery 1: "Judge says Google only used uncopyrightable elements of 37
Java APIs in Android" This is the title of our friend Mueller's post. To a
normal reader, it implies that theJudge agreed or asserted that there were
indeed Copyrightable elements of Java APIs or indeed any APIs. Can someone
explain this strange reading / interpretation of the verdict, or alternately
send me some stuff which Mueller smokes?

2. "Largely the same people who are jubilant about Judge Alsup's decision
on copyrightability also claimed that a blog post by former Sun CEO Jonathan
Schwartz, and his related testimony at the trial, proved that Google couldn't be
held liable in any way, a theory that Judge Alsup has now held to be
"bizarre"."

From where in the ruling does the Great Mueller get this bit of intelligence?

I will keep adding more mysteries to the list, since our friend says he is still
'working' on his latest missive.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This appears to be a very well-constructed ruling.
Authored by: OmniGeek on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 11:22 PM EDT
I think this ruling is going to be right up there with Gates and Sony as a
foundational guide to copyright treatment of software APIs.

The ruling is a gem! It is quite impressive in its careful construction, obvious
understanding of what software is about, and evident attention to detail (and to
nailing shut every possible crack that BSF might try to to slither through to a
retrial on appeal). This judge (and his clerks, to give credit to the whole
team) can really write!

It will be purely fascinating to see what the appeals court makes of this mess
(and no less interesting to see what BSF dredges up to try to use as a pretext
for appeal). This ruling looks pretty appeal-resistant.



---
My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on
espresso.

[ Reply to This | # ]

one concern I had
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 11:43 PM EDT
was that the ruling would apply to vanilla header files containing nothing but
declarations, but leave open the possibility that more complex languages such as
the c++ templates, or classes implemented in header files.

while i've only skimmed the ruling, at least page 10 and its example seem
squelched my concern for now, pleasantly suprised.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • one concern I had - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 01:13 AM EDT
    • yep - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 01:29 AM EDT
      • yep - Authored by: Chromatix on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 02:04 AM EDT
  • one concern I had - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 01:58 AM EDT
*The* best summary of API copyright law I've seen
Authored by: jbb on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 11:52 PM EDT
We have seen a lot of explanations of and comments on API copyright law, many created by members here. Judge Alsup's ruling contains the best summary of API copyright law I have ever seen. He hits all the bases and discusses all of the relevant previous cases. He shows how Whelan Associates, Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory, Inc (from 1986) was:
[the] high-water mark of copyright protection for the structure, sequence and organization of computer programs. It was also the only appellate decision found by the undersigned judge that affirmed (or directed) a final judgment of copyrightability on a structure, sequence and organization theory.
Oracle based their case on the unsubstantiated notion that copyright protection of APIs has gotten stronger and stronger since the 1996 Lotus v. Borland decision. Alsup tore this notion to shreds. In fact, I don't think I can top Alsup's own summary of his summary:
[...] the above summary of the development of the law reveals a trajectory in which enthusiasm for protection of “structure, sequence and organization” peaked in the 1980s, most notably in the Third Circuit’s Whelan decision. That phrase has not been re-used by the Ninth Circuit since Johnson Controls in 1989, a decision affirming preliminary injunction. Since then, the trend of the copyright decisions has been more cautious. This trend has been driven by fidelity to Section 102(b) and recognition of the danger of conferring a monopoly by copyright over what Congress expressly warned should be conferred only by patent.

---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay

[ Reply to This | # ]

What does the ruling mean for Android?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 04:36 AM EDT
First of all many thanks to Judge Alsup, for me this ruling
has restored some faith in the U.S. legal system, it shows
that the system can work, which is something I have come to
doubt.

What does it mean for Android though? Will there be more
Software Developers moving to Android? Now that Android is
safe to use for Java developement without the cost.

Seems to me that some large Java Shops should be considering
Android for future developement as it has now, at last,
become what Java should have been... FREE!

[ Reply to This | # ]

One for the USPTO
Authored by: Oliver on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 04:55 AM EDT
The Supreme Court rejected the notion that copyright law was meant to reward authors for the “sweat of the brow.” This meant that we should not yield to the temptation to award copyright protection merely because a lot of sweat went into the work. The Supreme Court concluded that protection only extended to the original components of an author’s work.
If only the Patent Office would take this idea to heart. Just because it is hard doesn't mean it is original or protectable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

District briefs, Appelate Briefs, and Supreme Briefs.
Authored by: rfrazier on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 05:28 AM EDT
After reading the ruling late last night on the train, I had a pretty strong
impression about what the Alsup was doing in this ruling. (Of course, I've had
strong impressions which turned out to be completely wrong-headed. So, with
regard to my impressions, I "trust, but verify".) The ruling was so
interesting that I read it reasonably carefully (also, I had some down time,
since I was on a very late train, on the way home).

Throughout the proceedings, Alsup asked Google and Oracle to provide him briefs
on various matters, both legal and technical. I think that he wrote this as much
as a brief for the Appeals Court as a final ruling. Perhaps that is standard
practice, but other final rulings haven't looked like that to me. They have
looked like defences of the ruling.

No doubt he *expects* his ruling to be appealed. I suspect that he *welcomes*
being appealed and would welcome the Appellate Court providing a substantive
ruling giving guidance on these matters. (Okay, folks, let's get some settled
case law on this.)

The very first statement of the ruling,

"This action was the first of the so-called “smartphone war” cases tried to
a jury",

suggests that there is a new concern arising, there will be lots of cases in the
area of concern, and District Courts are going to need guidance, both as a help
in being fair, and to cut down the work of the (District and Appeals) Courts. To
use one of his phrases, that first
sentence certainly seems to be doing some "heavy lifting".

I think that it is there precisely to let the Appeals Court see that the guy in
the trenches, the District Court judge, sees "there is trouble ahead",
and that he wants them to lend a hand.

The time he took in discussing the settled and unsettled law is briefing them
on
the relevant law. The Appeals judges will have their clerks test the claims he
made about the law, but, no doubt, will "trust but verify"

Similarly, the effort he made with the technical descriptions is for the benefit
of those on the Appeals Court who don't have his technical background.

It looks to me like he thinks it will be doing everyone a favour if there is
some clear guidance in this area, and he is briefing what he thinks it should
be, but, in any case, making absolutely clear what sort of things are at stake.


In any case, that's the impression I came away with. (I don't do law.)

I started wondering whether the Appeals Court will consider their ruling as a
brief to the Supremes.

Best wishes,
Bob

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Alsup Rules: Oracle's Java APIs are Not Copyrightable (Order as text) ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 08:24 AM EDT
Well, it looks like Ellison and Ballmer will be meeting to
discuss their next steps in their desire to destroy "free and
open". Now I see that it will cost you about $100 USD to
run any other OS instead of Winblows on your new computer.
I'll be keeping my old ones, thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yaaaaaay!!
Authored by: digger53 on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 09:00 AM EDT
Great!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Alsup Rules: Oracle's Java APIs are Not Copyrightable (Order as text) ~pj
Authored by: xtifr on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 09:07 AM EDT
To top everything else off, I think this ruling confirms that His Honor is now
qualified for at least an entry-level position as a Java programmer, should he
so desire. :)

---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to
light.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Deadline for Oracle appeal?
Authored by: DannyB on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 09:11 AM EDT
How long can Oracle take to decide if they will appeal?

How long can Florian Microsoft keep the appeal FUD cloud spewing?

Since this is BSF, can they ask for not less than a week?

---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why will it be remanded?!
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 09:43 AM EDT
Why will it be remanded?!

Maybe everyone else can see it, but I can't where Judge Alsup says that or
something to that effect.

Please, give me a pointer.




---
______
IMANAL


.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I can tell you what Oracle's Appeal grounds will be
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 11:34 PM EDT
Obviously the judge was biased because he has written
programs. If he rules that the API's are copyright-able,
then he has to go back and look at all of the code he's ever
written....

If Oracle is stupid enough to use that, I hope they choke on
it all the way to bankruptcy court. And hopefully whoever
picks up the leftovers of their company actually IMPROVES
their products (or at least their practices in
creating/managing their products).

Have a great weekend.:)
Patrick.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Alsup Rules: Oracle's Java APIs are Not Copyrightable (Order as text) ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 11:56 PM EDT
I appreciate this thorough analysis of the ruling, but I take objection to one statement made in passing: "If Oracle wanted that, it should have gone for a patent."

Nobody should have the kind of power that software patents impose, and nobody "should" try to get such power. What should happen is the abolition of software patents.

See http://endsoftpatents.org

RMStallman

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Alsup Rules: Just finished a leisurely read thro., very happy, Bois's strategy interesting
Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, June 02 2012 @ 07:08 AM EDT
I felt this ruling deserved a thorough read through and I am glad I have, as it
makes very interesting reading.

1st off, Oracle will have problems refuting the logic of the ruling.

They will be better off trying to get it thrown out on some procedural
technicality, if at all.

2nd thing to strike me was Bois's strategy:

Ambush is Key. He comes up with an esoteric, but potentially valid, new reading
of the law and bases his case on this.

As we saw initially, you can't see how he can be serious as he is doing all he
can not to tell you the heart of his argument.

Hence the famous lack of specificity.

This is deliberate, if he is to be successful with his ambush and spring his new
theory on the defence and the court, later is better.

So in this case the defence is building arguments to counter the upfront copying
allegations, not seeing the API copying thrust until late in the day.

Also looking at the previous cases explained by the Judge as being on point,
there _was_ potentially some wiggle room between the case law. Bois strategy is
not illogical, high stakes yes, but interesting nevertheless.

---
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 | # ]

I don't think Oracle would be foolish to appeal - on the contrary!
Authored by: SLi on Saturday, June 02 2012 @ 04:47 PM EDT

It seems clear to me that even PJ wasn't at all times confident that the judge would rule this way. Neither can one be entirely sure that the courts of appeal will view it the same way as this judge, although the ruling certainly is remarkably well thought and solid.

Still, judge Alsup himself went to great lengths to minimize the need for a trial on remand in case an appeals court comes to a different conclusion. It's hard to imagine that he would have done that if he thought there's virtually no chance for a remand. Should we really question his judgment about that?

I'm not sure about this, but I'd imagine that the vast majority of the costs in a lawsuit such as this are spent in the district court. Appealing is relatively cheap, and the potential payoff is quite big. Quite simply, I think that the expected payoff of an appeal is positive for Oracle. The reward is unlikely, but if they get it, it's quite likely to be a big reward.

[ 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 ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.04 seconds