Oracle vs. Google (or, yet another reason not to use Java)

[Arariel]

Apologies, this has gotten a little off-topic

For copyright, its arguably an important test of the GPL's "viral" clause. If you're a strong copyleft activist, you might be taking Oracle's side on the issue (maybe??) because its important for Java to remain a viral license.

Part of the reason that Google created DalvikVM was to avoid GPL. They recreated parts of Java and then licensed it with a non-copyleft license (the Apache license to be precise). For example, if Google licensed everything as GPL (which would force all App writers to release their code as GPL as well), then they would have been compliant with the Java GPL license.

Huh. Are you sure that app-writers would have to release their code as GPL? It's the virtual machine that's under GPL, so that doesn't quite make sense to me.

I also highly doubt any of the copyleft people will be going on Oracle's side for the reason that Rysto pointed out, not to mention WINE, and because, well, it's a clean room implementation. I.e., Google didn't actually copy any code.

[KnightExemplar]

For copyright, its arguably an important test of the GPL's "viral" clause. If you're a strong copyleft activist, you might be taking Oracle's side on the issue (maybe??) because its important for Java to remain a viral license.

Part of the reason that Google created DalvikVM was to avoid GPL. They recreated parts of Java and then licensed it with a non-copyleft license (the Apache license to be precise). For example, if Google licensed everything as GPL (which would force all App writers to release their code as GPL as well), then they would have been compliant with the Java GPL license.

Huh. Are you sure that app-writers would have to release their code as GPL? It's the virtual machine that's under GPL, so that doesn't quite make sense to me.

Actually... OpenJDK is under the GPL+Linking Exception license.

Otherwise... GPLed code is "viral", so anything that links to GPLed code needs to be GPLed as well. The idea is that you need to do your duty to "spread open source", by forcing other people to open source their stuff too. Now the Linking Exception means that you don't want to have this behavior...

So you're right in that Java doesn't force people to GPL their code. However, if Java were under the vanilla GPL license, then we'd all have to open source all Java code or be in violation of the GPL.

Nonetheless, it is still in violation of copyright law to change the terms of the license. There are other reasons to go Apache License instead of GPL+Linking Exception... so Oracle does have somewhat of a leg to stand on. On the other hand, it is utter bullshit that they're invoking the claim over the API of necessary system components of Java.

I also highly doubt any of the copyleft people will be going on Oracle's side for the reason that Rysto pointed out, not to mention WINE, and because, well, it's a clean room implementation. I.e., Google didn't actually copy any code.

I dunno... perhaps I've had too many internet arguments against copyleft people. The one thing that surprises me is the way they take a stance on these sorts of things.

Proponents of Copyleft understand that only through Copyright law will they get their goals accomplished. So they often want stronger copyright protections.

[Arariel]

You sure about that? Seems to me the strongest copyleft proponent of them all, Richard Stallman, clearly dislikes copyright law very much.

[KnightExemplar]

You sure about that? Seems to me the strongest copyleft proponent of them all, Richard Stallman, clearly dislikes copyright law very much.

Which makes the viewpoint somewhat ironic, doesn't it?

In fact, Stallman wants go to go one step further. If you are contributing to the FSF, you are supposed to assign your copyright to FSF (aka: Stallman owns your copyright)
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html
(Not written by Stallman... but still part of the overall philosophy of the FSF)

Under US copyright law, which is the law under which most free software programs have historically been first published, there are very substantial procedural advantages to registration of copyright. And despite the broad right of distribution conveyed by the GPL, enforcement of copyright is generally not possible for distributors: only the copyright holder or someone having assignment of the copyright can enforce the license. If there are multiple authors of a copyrighted work, successful enforcement depends on having the cooperation of all authors.

In order to make sure that all of our copyrights can meet the recordkeeping and other requirements of registration, and in order to be able to enforce the GPL most effectively, FSF requires that each author of code incorporated in FSF projects provide a copyright assignment, and, where appropriate, a disclaimer of any work-for-hire ownership claims by the programmer's employer. That way we can be sure that all the code in FSF projects is free code, whose freedom we can most effectively protect, and therefore on which other developers can completely rely.

The only way to enforce this, is through copyright law. So the FSF foundation requests that they own the copyright so that they can take the GPL to court if they need be.

[Arariel]

Well, yeah, the GPL would be pretty useless for GNU's software if they couldn't enforce it. Although I don't see why they can't just give the FSF the right to sue or something?

Besides, I don't think FSF == Richard Stallman. I doubt that even though he's the president, he could do anything with the copyrights on the software.

But Richard Stallman is definitely very opposed to copyright law - he and the FSF just use it as a means to an ends.

[Arariel]

Former Sun CEO says Google's Android didn't need license for Java APIs

But Schwartz insisted under questioning by Jacobs that as long as Google or the Apache Foundation didn't call their products "Java" it was his view they could ship their implementations of Java without any license from Sun.

[KnightExemplar]

Former Sun CEO says Google's Android didn't need license for Java APIs

But Schwartz insisted under questioning by Jacobs that as long as Google or the Apache Foundation didn't call their products "Java" it was his view they could ship their implementations of Java without any license from Sun.

Thats sorta... game-set-match in favor of Google... isn't it?

[Arariel]

Maybe. But anyone sane ought to realise Oracle never had a case anyway.

[KnightExemplar]

Interesting...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-574237 ... limed-sun/

James Gosling doesn't like what Google did when it made Android.

[Arariel]

That's interesting.

Meanwhile, the European Union's top court has found that APIs cannot be copyrighted.

[Ghostbear]

First trial results are in -- the jury found that Google violated copyright with 9 lines of code, but the limit for their fee is $200-$150,000. The jury agreed with Google on other parts of the trial.

Spoiler:

Google breached Oracle's Java copyright, US jury finds

A US jury has found that internet giant Google breached copyright in a case brought by Oracle over its Java programming language. But the jurors were unable to agree on whether Google's actions constituted "fair use" under copyright law. Oracle was asking for $1bn (£630m) in compensation in one of the biggest such technology lawsuits to date. The language is used by many business applications as well as other software, such as the video game Minecraft.

'Zero finding of liability'
The jury in San Francisco were asked to consider four questions on Oracle's claim that Google violated several of its patents and copyrights, but could only agree on three. It found in Google's favour on two of them. Google was found to have infringed Oracle's copyright on nine lines of Java code that is in Android, its mobile operating system. But Oracle can only seek statutory damages, ranging from $200 to $150,000. Google is asking for a mistrial to be declared.

"There has been zero finding of liability on any copyright so far," US District Court Judge William Alsup told lawyers for both firms after the jury left. "The affirmative defence of fair use is still in play." The same jury will now hear evidence in the next phase of the trial, covering Oracle's allegations that Android violates two Java patents. Oracle claimed Google's Android system infringes intellectual property rights relating to the programming language.

Java history
The case did not centre on Google's use of Java itself - which is free for anyone to use without licence - but rather the Android-maker's use of 37 application programming interfaces (APIs) that allow developers to write Java-compatible code. Java was first released in 1995 and allows software to be run across computer platforms, rather than just being limited to one type of operating system. Oracle - a business hardware and software provider - inherited the intellectual properties when it took over Java's original developer, Sun Microsystems, in 2009. Oracle argued that by using its intellectual property, and then giving Android away for free, Google undermined the possibility of it licensing Java to mobile phone makers.

[Arariel]

Hm, I think this is looking pretty good, if it's only nine lines of code. Although somehow those lines of code have an upper bound of $150,000?

I think $200 for nine lines of code seems much more reasonable. That's about the same as the rate for the Linux kernel (its value if it were developed as proprietary software).

[KnightExemplar]

BTW: the jury was asked to assume that APIs could be copyrighted. The judge himself will declare whether or not that fact is true or not. This way, if the "API could be copyrighted" fact is disputed in an appeals court, the jury's decision will still stand.

Basically, things can only get better for Google from here... should the judge make the sane choice and declare that APIs can't be copyrighted, then Google more or less wins this case.

[Arariel]

Judge Alsup says the copied code is trivial.

But Judge Alsup wasn’t convinced. He told the court he had learned to code in Java for the trial — implying that he knew other languages as well — and he said that he had written some of the infringing code at least a hundred times since Oracle filed its suit in August 2010. “I can do it. You can do it. It’s so simple,” he said, adding that it takes less than five minutes. Then looked directly at Boies. “You’re one of the best lawyers in America — how can you make that argument?” he demanded.

Learned to code in Java for the trial? He knew other languages as well?
Finally someone with a legal career I can have any semblance of respect for.

[Jplus]

To be honest, to me that just seems to indicate that the judge might have been somewhat biased...

[Arariel]

Which part? Knowing how to program, or thinking the infringed portion is trivial?

The first one, I can really see as a bad thing. In a jury, it would probably something that would make some companies in situations like this try not to have that juror picked, but I can't see how knowing skills relevant to the case is bad if you want the law to be upheld. In fact, it would probably be better. Unless you'd rather it be like one of those Supreme Court cases where none of the justices knew anything about the technology involved.

The second one, well, judges are supposed to use their own judgement in a case, as long as there are no preconceptions. If Alsup learned to code in Java for the trial, and found it was trivial to rewrite the infringing code without an opinion one way or the other before he did so, that should be perfectly fine.

If he started believing the code was trivial, that might be bias, but if he learned it without any preconceptions, I for one can't see why that would be bad.
Also, note how Oracle's lawyer did not refute how the infringed code was trivial.

[Thesh]

However, had it been part of a novel that they were suing over for copyright infringement, would it be problematic because the judge knew English?

[maybeagnostic]

To be honest, to me that just seems to indicate that the judge might have been somewhat biased...

So the proper way to approach this is to have lawyers, who don't really understand a thing but are perfectly willing to misrepresent it, present it to a judge and jury, who don't understand the thing and shouldn't be allowed to learn anything concrete about it?

[Jplus]

I just meant to say that programmers (both beginners and experienced ones) tend to have very pronounced opinions about certain programming languages (including ones that they've never actually used). Java is one of those languages. So far I've been under the impression that programmers who feel neither strongly positive nor strongly negative about Java make up a minority.

[Dark567]

So far I've been under the impression that programmers who feel neither strongly positive nor strongly negative about Java make up a minority.

Heh. I don't feel strongly about it. Its decent for what it does, not the best. But there are a lot worse.

[Arariel]

Jury finds Google not guilty of infringing on Oracle patents.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

And the judge finds that Oracle's Java APIs are not copyrightable

Bonus fact: Judge's middle name is Haskell.

[Arariel]

The law sided with what was right, for once.