No Patent Infringement Found In Oracle vs. Google 234
sl4shd0rk writes "Today, the jury in the Oracle vs. Google trial found no infringement of patents by Google. The jury deliberated about 30 minutes to reach the verdict, bringing an end to the second phase of the trial, and a beginning to the damage phase, which may be very little of what Oracle originally asked for. Still no word on API copyright issues. Judge Alsup will be ruling on that in the near future, and it will certainly have an impact on the developer community."
Does this mean Java really is free? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the APIs turn out to be non-copyrightable, does this mean we can really all enjoy/suffer Java for free?
Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (Score:5, Informative)
The Jury was leaning heavily on them not being copyrightable anyway. See: https://twitter.com/FedcourtJunkie/status/205370887078285313 [twitter.com]
Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That was 9 jurors holding that it was far use, which would trump the copyright question, and 3 jurors disagreeing. Had this been held in the affirmative, it would trump any question of whether they're copyrightable altogether - although had it been a finding on them not being copyrightable that would be better, as fair use is a defense - not copyrightable is just "there's no question, you can do that and don't need to defend it".
Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, you missed first post Mr. I'm-new-here. But keep on trolling. Somebody might believe you.
Come on editors. Catch a clue with this nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
I am actually really looking for an answer to the question posed. Not trolling. Though maybe you mean poetmatt? The question is, would this trial settle the issue for good, or are there other legal time-bombs awaiting developers?
Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (Score:4, Informative)
If it gets ruled that API's are copyrightable then this creates a whole new can of worms that will send many industries into absolute chaos.
If it gets ruled that API's are not copyrightable then it is business as usual.
Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (Score:5, Funny)
Shit, juries get bribes? I need to stop trying to skip out on jury duty!
Jury not bribed (Score:3)
Re:Jury not bribed (Score:5, Funny)
One of the Jurors was dismissed for being late because of car problems. The other was dismissed for being sick.
Oh yeah, and Google couldn't have possibly caused someone to have car problems or get sick.
Wake up! Google controls everything...
Re: (Score:2)
Google controls everything...
That's only what they're making you believe!
Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the APIs turn out to be non-copyrightable, does this mean we can really all enjoy/suffer Java for free?
It's a great deal more important than that: If APIs are copyrightable, API-compatible implementations of anything without that thing's blessing would be on legally shaky ground. I'll leave imagining the technology world in an alternate universe where IBM simply sued Compaq for producing an API-compatible BIOS to the reader; but that's the sort of magnitude we are talking here...
Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a great deal more important than even you are suggesting. If APIs are copyrightable, then Linux and *BSD just became illegal for implementing POSIX without a license from The Open Group. Such a decision would absolutely have to be appealed up to SCOTUS, and if necessary, reversed by an emergency act of Congress. It simply cannot be allowed to stand, as it would essentially end Western civilization as we know it. Imagine 90% of the world's servers becoming illegal overnight. Imagine the machines that run 75% of the world's stock markets becoming illegal overnight. Such a decision would essentially bring the computing industry and every industry that depends on it to a grinding halt.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm imagining that world... and I just see a whole lot of licenses being signed in a hurry. Big money creeps get richer, and independents get more shut out. Especially of the internet, and computing.
What? You think anyone is lobbying congress for the rights of the latter group? Nobody in power minds if this goes down at all, and very few people in the suburbs and Walmart do either.
Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (Score:4, Insightful)
That more along the right path. However, I think it will just wind up like the patent industry. APIs will be used as blackmail against each other...effectively crowding out the little guys and startups.
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile China, unburdened by any of this nonsense, only grows bigger and stronger.
Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (Score:5, Funny)
On the plus side, anyone that implemented the TCP/IP protocols, HTTP, DNS, FTP, etc.. would immediately have to purchase licenses from the US Government, MIT, Berkley, UC, etc... We could solve the national debt of the USA in pretty much 1 verdict.
This has been discussed in legal channels already, and would probably harm money grubbers much more than help them.
Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple would be fine; Mac OS X is an actual, licensed UNIX implementation. Windows, however, would probably become illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
This overstates the case. If the copyright on Java extends to include the APIs, the actual use of APIs to acheive interoperability could still be fair use. Judge Alsup's request that Oracle and Google provide further briefing on the applicability of the 9th Circuit's Sony v. Connectix decision (which addressed fair use
Re: (Score:2)
Also, a copyright holder may choose not to enforce, or maybe explicitly putting the API in the public domain, maybe.
OTOH, I *knew* there was something wrong with Mono!
Re: (Score:3)
Such a decision would absolutely have to be appealed up to SCOTUS, and if necessary, reversed by an emergency act of Congress. It simply cannot be allowed to stand, as it would essentially end Western civilization as we know it. Imagine 90% of the world's servers becoming illegal overnight. Imagine the machines that run 75% of the world's stock markets becoming illegal overnight.
No, it wouldn't. Oh, it would if it were enforced uniformly and fairly, but nobody involved is interested in killing the goose. Among other things, that would show how divorced from reality the stupid decision would be, and, as you say would lead to it's revocation. If it does come to pass, the result would be a slow, but continuously growing, increase in the costs of everything technological, as parasites attach and start rent-seeking. It's really not different to the current patent situation in anything b
Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (Score:4, Informative)
See http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120503175821298 [groklaw.net]
Re: (Score:2)
If the APIs turn out to be non-copyrightable, does this mean we can really all enjoy/suffer Java for free?
If they are copyrightable, will we all have to switch to Scala running on the JVM? I have to think about that a minute. As long as you expunged all java including libraries from the ecosystem, then... hmm.
Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the APIs are copyrightable, the bytecode spec will also be copyrightable. So you cannot write a JVM without Oracle's permission. This was the problem for Apache Harmony. If APIs are found to be non-copyrightable but the bytecode spec still is for some reason, Google could write (or allow others to write) a Dalvik VM for other platforms and we could continue writing Java code but compile it for the DVM instead of the JVM.
Re: (Score:3)
If the APIs are copyrightable, the bytecode spec will also be copyrightable.
That's something I noticed in the Groklaw reporting. Oracle's position was that the copyright on the Java spec made any independent implementation of the spec (i.e., a Java-code-based runtime environment) a copyrighted derived work of Java, and therefore only permissible by explicit Oracle license... which Oracle was always planning on denying Google absent successful negotiations of big fees and onerous terms.
This lead some comme
Re: (Score:3)
This lead some commentators on Groklaw to a counter-intuitive conclusion: that Google might have been in less trouble if they had just forked the OpenJDK source code base (using GPL-accorded rights) rather than trying for a code-clean reimplementation of specification and API.
Yes. This is exactly right. The GPL explicitly gives them the right to do what they want. This lawsuit would not have been possible if Google had forked the GPL code -- or possibly, even if they had just used the GPL license. If the API is copyrightable, then implementing the API is a derived work and they *can get a license for that*. If they had licensed under the GPL they could just say, "Hey, we are complying with the license -- here's the source code". The only issue here is that they chose a mor
Re: (Score:2)
Word Mark JAVA Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: computer programs for use in developing and executing other computer programs on computers, computer networks, and global communications networks, and instruction manuals sold therewith; computer programs for use in navigating, browsing, transferring information, and distributing and viewing other
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, it means that you can write a bytecode VM without infringing on Oracle's patents.
Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (Score:4, Interesting)
If the APIs turn out to be non-copyrightable, does this mean we can really all enjoy/suffer Java for free?
No, because Oracle will sue you for $6.1 billion anyway. The objective wasn't just money from Android, it was to assert control over Java. Oracle's actions since buying Sun have been consistent on this: making deals on OpenJDK for IBM to drop Harmony and Apple to drop their Java port, general patent FUD, and finally suing Google. With this ruling Oracle's control is clearly a financial 'might makes right' assertion without legal basis, but does that matter?
Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (Score:5, Informative)
It doesn't matter anyway. There were only nine lines of copied code and the only reason it was there is because the guy that submitted it originally to openJDK is the same guy that put it in Android. The judge learned java for this trial and even he said he could have wrote rangeCheck in a few minutes and had even done so accidentally many times.
Suck it, Oracle. You lose. Good day, sir!
Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't matter anyway. There were only nine lines of copied code and the only reason it was there is because the guy that submitted it originally to openJDK is the same guy that put it in Android.
IANAL, but if this is so, this would indicate the original submitter would be the copyright author for the code ("rangeCheck"). If s/he was not a Sun employee at the time (e.g. the submission was done as free software), s/he would be free to submit to both code bases. This person would be the only person in the world that has such right. Thus, rangeCheck is not even copied from one code base to another. Ergo, even if the code is identical, there is no copyright infringment.
Re: (Score:3)
That depends on whether they assigned the copyright along with the submission. If they had already assigned the copyright to Sun (as I believe was required to have it accepted), then they would no longer have the right to submit it anywhere else. Such is the stupid world we live in, which is why I can easily believe that a developer would have forgotten they did it, especially on such a trivial function.
Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (Score:5, Informative)
That depends on whether they assigned the copyright along with the submission. If they had already assigned the copyright to Sun (as I believe was required to have it accepted), then they would no longer have the right to submit it anywhere else. Such is the stupid world we live in, which is why I can easily believe that a developer would have forgotten they did it, especially on such a trivial function.
Your point is well taken, so I did some checking. openJDK submissions require that you accept the "Oracle Contributor Agreement" [nee Sun]. From that document:
2. With respect to any worldwide copyrights, or copyright applications and registrations, in your contribution:
- you hereby assign to us joint ownership, and to the extent that such assignment is or becomes invalid, ineffective or unenforceable, you hereby grant to us a perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, worldwide, no-charge, royalty-free, unrestricted license to exercise all rights under those copyrights. This includes, at our option, the right to sublicense these same rights to third parties through multiple levels of sublicensees or other licensing arrangements;
- you agree that each of us can do all things in relation to your contribution as if each of us were the sole owners, and if one of us makes a derivative work of your contribution, the one who makes the derivative work (or has it made) will be the sole owner of that derivative work;
- you agree that you will not assert any moral rights in your contribution against us, our licensees or transferees;
- you agree that we may register a copyright in your contribution and exercise all ownership rights associated with it; and
- you agree that neither of us has any duty to consult with, obtain the consent of, pay or render an accounting to the other for any use or distribution of your contribution.
The first two clauses appear to cover it. The joint ownership clause seems mostly concerned that any submission grants rights to Sun/Oracle to use the code. But, the original submitter retains parallel rights [as long as they don't try to revoke Oracle's right]. The derivative work clause implies that either party may make a derivative work without consulting the other and gets full rights to the new work.
Thus, giving the rangeCheck function to Android is allowed by this agreement under either of these two clauses.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Suck it, Oracle. You lose. Good day, sir!
Couldn't happen to a nicer asshole.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It doesn't matter anyway. There were only nine lines of copied code and the only reason it was there is because the guy that submitted it originally to openJDK is the same guy that put it in Android. The judge learned java for this trial and even he said he could have wrote rangeCheck in a few minutes and had even done so accidentally many times.
Suck it, Oracle. You lose. Good day, sir!
Judge Alsup did not learn Java for this trial. He's a math major and was already familiar with other programming languages.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
And yet someone modded the GP up. Larry, don't you have better things to do with your time?
s/Larry/Florian/
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That's quite a picture to imagine, Balmer, Ellison and Mueller bending over the keyboard to post anti-Google comments, with Cook looking over the shoulder and Jobs' ghost hanging around in the corner... Kinda like this [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
A LAN of corporate FUD.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Haha. You troll idiot. There were only nine lines of copied code and the only reason it was there is because the guy that submitted it originally to openJDK is the same guy that put it in Android. The judge learned java for this trial and even he said he could have wrote rangeCheck in a few minutes and had even done so accidentally many times.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/jury-rules-google-violated-copyright-law-google-moves-for-mistrial/ [arstechnica.com]
"In what could be a major blow to Android, Google's mobile operating system, a San Francisco jury issued a verdict today that the company broke copyright laws when it used Ja
Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (Score:5, Informative)
Sadly, this spin has already been played over and over by the media. Somehow, a loss for Oracle in court is always deemed a "partial victory".. if you read the right articles.
I'd recommend that you spend some time on Groklaw and read reviews by legal people on what these rulings really mean. While Groklaw is pro-opensource, their articles are pretty straight views of our legal system. Enough commentary is covered by people (many of which are Lawyers) to fill in gaps, and of course "can" be more biased.
Many of these same magazines claimed that SCO was going to prevail over IBM, and every loss was a "Partial Victory". Groklaw was dead on, though it took a very long time for the courts to finally get things sorted out.
Oh, and if you look back further many of these same magazines claimed that Microsoft had countless "partial victories" in the EU anti-trust case, the Iowa anti-trust case, and the US DOJ anti-trust case. See any trends you may wish to not follow?
Re:Does this mean Java really is free? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, there's a fair bit of discretion [cornell.edu].
$150K is the maximum statutory damages, and that maximum can be reached only with willful infringement. The typical range is $750-$30K, with the ability to reduce to a bare minimum of $200 if the defendant was unaware of the infringement.
Ouch (Score:3, Insightful)
That's kind of damning. Apparently Oracles case was so weak a group of largely non-technical people decided it was much of nothing in 30 minutes. That's basically the time it takes for them to go into the room, all get coffee and donuts and take a vote.
#0 minutes? Read the Groklaw accounts of this ... (Score:5, Informative)
It's interesting to note that the only reason it took them that long was because the jury foreman was the only hold out in favor of Oracle. Apparently he was the one responsible for many of the questions that the jury kept sending to the judge.
Anyway, glad this is (almost) over. The only real thing left is for Judge Alsup to determine if the APIs are copyrightable at all. My personal bet is that he will rule that they are not and that this will drive a stake through the heart of Oracle and (hopefully) Larry Ellison.
But as PJ at GrokLaw keeps telling us: never make a bet on a legal ruling.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the judge kinda lead his opinion by saying that he disagreed with them being copyrighted, based on his comments about RangeCheck ("I could do this myself any day"). There are zero damages on the table now though, which is a far cry from 6 billion dollars - so the rest of this case should finish quickly. However, there is a question of whether the CAFC gets involved at the appeal level and simply rules pro-patent like they seem to do with everything lately, and whether the recent supreme court deci
Re: (Score:3)
I believe the judge kinda lead his opinion by saying that he disagreed with them being copyrighted, based on his comments about RangeCheck ("I could do this myself any day").
Though I believe the judge will hold them to be non-copyrightable, if he does so based on that reason, it's immediately reversible on appeal for multiple reasons. One is that the judge is neither an expert nor a witness (nor can he be), so his independently created facts are inadmissible.
The second, and more important reason, is that ability to re-create something is irrelevant to whether it's copyrightable. You sit me down with a typewriter and a case of Mountain Dew, and I'll write you a story about boy
Re: (Score:3)
it is HIGHLY likely that two people could come up with the exact same code completely independant of one another without having met or seen each other's work.
I think you're missing the fact that your "two people" are, in fact, one person. Josh Bloch wrote both the infringed and the infringing code. It's just an honest mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where you get the impression that they were largely non-technical people. AFAIK, this trial was held in a SF Bay Area court. I doubt fewer than half the jurors worked at tech companies, and even the judge had programming experience.
30 minutes - try 5 days (Score:5, Informative)
Hmmm... Thursday last week till today... that's a about 30 minutes according to Oracle's 'simulations' ... ;-)
Re:30 minutes - try 5 days (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, you are not allowed to publish Oracle's benchmark results!
30 Minutes? Try One Week (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure where the submitter for the 30 minutes from.
Maybe same place English went?
Re: (Score:2)
No damage phase either (Score:4, Informative)
Our reporter provides this:
Clerk: Question 1: has Oracle proved by preponderance of evidence that Google infringed?
Claim 11: not proven 27: no 29: no 39: no 40: no 41: no
Question 2: not proven 1: no 20: no
Question 3: no answer, no response, not applicable.
Unanimous. The jury is dismissed. There will be no damages phase for them to endure.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No damage phase either (Score:5, Funny)
You forgot:
Juror 3: What is this Oracle company doing? Never heard of them.
Juror 4 (while pulling his android phone out): Me neither. Let me Google them.
Summary slightly wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Summary slightly wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Oracle started with 7 or 9 patents that they thought were worth $6 billion in damages/licensing/royalties/whatever.
All but 2 of the patents ('104 and '520) were found to be invalid and rejected by the USPTO. The '104 patent was found to be preliminarily invalid after the trial started.
And now Oracle is leaving with nothing but a huge invoice from the lawyers ... the same lawyers who lost the SCO trial(s). (Go figure.)
Re:Summary slightly wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
Oracle started with 7 or 9 patents that they thought were worth $6 billion in damages/licensing/royalties/whatever.
But ... but ... Sun was only worth that valuation because Java was worth the price of beating Google into a cross-licensing deal on their big-database patents. Oh, dear.
I'm wondering if all the Sun projects get cancelled now, or if the lawyers convince the board to go for an appeal. After this performance, one might expect a beheading or two.
Re:Summary slightly wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The judge will be deciding the damages on the 9 line RangeCheck function which was found to be infringed. So there is a damages phase, of sorts. The 9 lines include some blank lines. RangeCheck is a function to check if an array index is between zero inclusive and some upper bound. I imagine that Oracle has been severely financially damaged by Google having copied this highly sophisticated function.
The judge has already warned Oracle that he think a high-school student could write that function and not to expect much in damages from it, so I'm thinking OP's "a few thousand" might be a little optimistic for Oracle. It may well end up being in the hundreds (and it could be even lower, depending on how much of as example the judge wants to set).
Re:Summary slightly wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
One dollar. That's usually the case when you're right but it doesn't matter.
the core issue in the trial is still undecided (Score:2)
"Though the jury has been dismissed, the core issue in the trial is still undecided. Judge William Alsup will rule himself on whether the Java APIs are subject to copyright, and he expects to do so sometime next week."
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and that's the bigger deal. It doesn't ever end.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the judge does the unthinkable and rules for Oracle, all they'll get from it is the $150,000 statutory limit. To go against their several million dollar lawyers fees.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the judge does the unthinkable and rules for Oracle, all they'll get from it is the $150,000 statutory limit. To go against their several million dollar lawyers fees.
Probably not even that... To get statutory damages, you have to register your work with the Copyright Office. If they didn't do that, then they can only get actual damages, which may be tiny.
Re: (Score:3)
They did register it. However, there's some confusion around just exactly what they registered and what the registration covers. It came up a few times during the trial, with Google filing several motions to have the whole case tossed due to Oracle not having the rights to sue. :)
Reading through the groklaw.net stories about each day in the court room is very interesting. Basically, Oracle's lawyers screwed the pooch from the get-go. :)
Silly Oracle, trix are for kids (Score:4, Informative)
Kudos to the jury. They put a lot of effort into understanding the issue at hand. Based on courtroom reporting, the jury paid attention and they asked clarifying questions while deliberating to make sure they understood. Software patents are a mess. Oracle's arguments were terrible from a CS standpoint (and their expert should be embarrassed).
I believe the only issue still on the table is API copyrightability which Judge Aslup will rule on as a matter of law. The jury found for Oracle in that instance because the jury instructions essentially mandated it. I expect Aslup will rule for Google on that claim as well.
Oracle's current claim for money is literally for 9 lines of code called rangeCheck (which anyone in a high school intro to java class could write), and 8 test files copied by a subcontractor and never distrusted to end users.
A certain Oracle paid blogger will still manage to post how Oracle basically got everything it wanted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not according to the foreman - even the jurors leaning towards Googles side in the deliberations thought that it was bad practice to rely on a blog posting.
Some interesting info here:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/oracle-v-google-jury-foreman-reveals-oracle-wasnt-even-close/ [arstechnica.com]
If I know my history (Score:2)
This will not stop Sun Microsys... (ahem, sorry Oracle). Companies that choose to innovate in the courtroom will not let something like a dismissal of a single court case stop them from trying to leach on and suck innovation from other companies.
Re: (Score:3)
Please don't accuse Sun Microsystems of lacking innovation capability.
They may not have had very good business sense, but they sure built some cool stuff.
Oh my (Score:2)
Shocking! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
30 minutes of deliberation also says a lot about how crystal clear the whole thing was.
The one time I served on a jury (albeit criminal, not civil), after 2 weeks of the defendant trying to drag things out, we went into the jury room and promptly determined that the guy was so obviously guilty that we could discount everything the victim had to say and still be comfortable convicting him. That took us about 45-60 minutes, a lot of which was us lounging around so that the other jurors could finish their free
Re:Didn't take long, did it? (Score:5, Informative)
He said she said. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, Oracle's expert had even said that Google did not infringe, because to find for infringement required the use of symbolic references. Google uses numeric references, and Oracle's expert noted that in his report. When cornered, he "changed his mind" and said that numeric references (i.e. references to specific memory locations) are just a form of symbolic references (i.e. references to memory by name that is later cross-referenced to a memory location).
It seems that the jury must have believed Or
Re:Didn't take long, did it? (Score:5, Insightful)
History/Karma's a bitch, huh. one troll example [slashdot.org].
How is that a troll? It looks like a perfectly reasonable, logical, opinion. (note: we are allowed to have differing opinions, and "troll" does not mean "does not share my opinion")
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It was the standard "I hate microsoft , but....(opposite argument)" troll. It's done all the time, and the phrase is repeated almost the exact same way every single time. Any time people fail to remember that a convicted monopolist is a convicted monopolist is to deny facts that have been proven in court. Or as the phrase goes "leopards don't change their spots", and this has proven true, especially for large companies.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not a troll, and seriously the desperation you're exerting to prove that it is by posting AC and agreeing with yourself is damn shameful. If anyone is trolling here, it's you.
Nothing about the linked post sounded like a troll. Suggesting that Microsoft isn't the absolute spawn of Satan and may have done a thing or two right in its lifetime is in no way a trollish statement. It does not take a fan of Microsoft to accept this as the truth. Being a convicted monopolist doesn't suddenly mean everything t
Re:Didn't take long, did it? (Score:5, Insightful)
It was the standard "I hate microsoft , but....(opposite argument)" troll
I believe what you call a troll, most rational people call "an argument". If you want to debunk his points, then actually debunk them, don't just try and smear the poster with ad hominem. Just to help you out, his arguments were:
1) MS-DOS wasn't that bad
2) Windows XP is viable
3) SCO is more evil that Microsoft
Incidentally, the argument he was countering was that everything Microsoft has ever done is evil, and it is the most evil software company ever. If you've got time once you've demolished the above points, you can prove that argument for extra credit.
Go to it!
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you. Not everyone fails to comprehend how this works. There is more to the fudtrain than just "google is evil" stuff, and false flag trolls are extremely common.
Re: (Score:2)
also, having different opinions is great and important - but don't do it using the old arguments. We know when it's a rehashing of the same argument all the time with the intent to mislead. I would never expect that people should ever have to agree with me, but I would expect people to rely on facts to make their arguments, not make an argument entirely devoid of facts using either emotional arguments or moral ones.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Didn't take long, did it? (Score:4, Interesting)
I love shill bashing as much as the next guy, but that is a bad example.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
why is there even a damages phase if Google has been found to not be in violation?
Yes I was mystified that the /. summary claimed it was about to begin but the linked groklaw article explains how there isn't going to be one and the jury has been dismissed (dismissed as in bye bye go home thanks for playing and have a nice life).
Re: (Score:2)
No damages phase (Score:4, Informative)
That's actually not certain until we have the ruling on the SSO copyright. Per the May 16 Stipulation and Order, one of two things will happen:
1. Alsup will rule the SSO's aren't protected by copyright, in which case rangeCheck and the copied test files are the only infringements to consider. In that event, both parties have waived trial by jury and Oracle has waived any claim to actual damages or infringers profits, and Alsup will set an award for statutory damages only, and the trial will be done. (And the appeals will start.)
2. Alsup will rule that the SSO are copyrightable, in which case neither party has waived jury trial on any portion of the copyright damages, and the parties have agreed to a two-part trial on the SSO Claim damages (and, it seems, a separate part covering rangeCheck and the test files), so it looks like in that case there would be a three-phase trial on damages with a whole new jury.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite.
The judge will determine damages since Oracle and Google agreed to "statutory damages" on the copyright infringement.
Assuming that the judge doesn't decide that 9 lines of 15 million isn't de minimus (worth zero damages), then the damages will range from $200 to $150K, which are the legal limits....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)