Oracle won an appeal last March in the long-running legal trial with Google. It followed a jury in 2016 ruling that Android’s use of Java was fair use. Today, Google filed a petition with the Supreme Court to review the case and overturn the appeal.
After closing arguments wrapped up in the Google vs. Oracle case on Monday, the jury has come to a decision over the use of Java code in Android. Announced moments ago, the jury sided unanimously in Google’s favor.
The long-running dispute between Oracle and Google over whether Java application programming interfaces (APIs) used within Android were protected by copyright has taken another strange turn, with the Justice Dept urging the Supreme Court not to hear Google’s appeal.
The legal battle is over whether small sections of code originally written by Oracle’s predecessor, Sun Microsystems, can be used under the ‘fair use’ exemption to copyright laws. Google argues that it used only small code snippits, did so mostly for consistency and offered to pay royalties; Oracle argues that the code is its intellectual property, and the royalties offered were too low …
Expand
Expanding
Close
Google has expanded its catalog of online training courses offered in partnership with educational website Udacity with a new course called “Developing Scalable Apps,” teaching Java developers how to build apps using the Google App Engine. The course costs $150 per month to enroll, providing projects with ongoing feedback, guidance from coaches and verified certificates.
Expand
Expanding
Close
A seemingly drastic turn of events in the appeals court has reversed the ruling on some elements of the Google-Oracle trial.
The ruling enables Oracle to claim copyright ownership over some parts of Java. The crux of the trial was whether API names and constructs could be owned. The initial decision said that it couldn’t, giving Google a landslide victory. However, the appeal court papers now say the exact opposite:
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organiza- tion of the 37 Java API packages are entitled to copyright protection. Because there is an insufficient record as to the relevant fair use factors, we remand for further proceedings on Google’s fair use defense.
A jury decided this last month that Google did not infringe upon Oracle’s patents, but it has recently come to light that Oracle must pay Google’s steep legal fees accrued during the trial.
Oracle, a database software giant based in Redwood City, Calif., sued Google in August 2010, while alleging the Android operating system violated a number of patents and copyrights within Java, which Oracle acquired through Sun Microsystems. Android currently powers more than 150 million mobile devices. Google, based in Mountain View, Calif., adamantly denied Oracle’s contention, and claimed the Android team was unaware of Sun’s patents before the suit.
Google spokesperson Jim Prosser told Business Insider that Oracle did not succeed in landing a $6 billion settlement from Google, but it did win the responsibility of paying Google’s $300,000 in legal expenses.
[tweet https://twitter.com/timbray/status/205359972647829504]
A jury decided this morning that Google did not infringe upon Oracle’s patents.
The verdict came unanimously as jurors in the Google vs. Oracle trial found six claims in U.S. Patent RE38,104, including two claims in U.S. Patent number 6,061,520, did not infringe.
“Today’s jury verdict that Android does not infringe Oracle’s patents was a victory not just for Google but the entire Android ecosystem,” announced Google in a public statement, according to CNET.
Oh, and here is Oracle’s public statement on the decision: “Oracle presented overwhelming evidence at trial that Google knew it would fragment and damage Java. We plan to continue to defend and uphold Java’s core write once run anywhere principle and ensure it is protected for the nine million Java developers and the community that depend on Java compatibility.”
Google’s former CEO Eric Schmidt took the stand at 9 a.m. PST this morning to give his direct testimony during the Oracle v. Google trial, and while the questioning hulked along, the executive’s answers glimmered with cynicism.
Oracle’s counsel immediately showcased a plethora of documents from 2005 and 2006 that seemingly depicted the Internet giant as having prior knowledge about needing Sun software licensing agreements to apply Java in the Android mobile operating system, but the Executive Chairman denied the exhibited emails and presentations and remained steadfast to his defense that he was unaware Google even needed permission to employ the open-source software.
Oracle, a database software giant based in Redwood City, Calif., sued Google in August 2010, and alleged the Android operating system violated a number of patents and copyrights within Java, which Oracle acquired through Sun Microsystems. Android currently runs on more than 150 million mobile devices. Google, based in Mountain View, Calif., denies the contention.
In today’s court appearance, Oracle is essentially alleging that Schmidt and Google had clear knowledge that they did not have explicit rights to use Java in Android. Meanwhile, many Google officials, including Schmidt, profess otherwise.
[Schmidt’s testimony lasted until 12 p.m. PST—see below for details.]
So, everyone is aware that Java platform maker Oracle is amid a courtroom grapple with Google over whether Java patents were infringed in the search engine’s mobile operating system Android, but not everyone is clued in to the defendant’s intriguing side of the story.
According to Google’s money slides (via ZDNet), the heart of Google’s defense is summarized in three clear-cut points: Java code was free and openly available to the public; Google did not violate any patents or copyrights when developing Android; and, Oracle is disgruntled due to its and Sun’s failed attempts to market a Java-based platform for smartphones.
Stemming from a lawsuit in 2010 where Oracle claimed Google was infringing on its Java-related patents with Android, a court document today reveals Oracle rejected Google’s offer to pay a percentage of Android revenue if the alleged patent infringement is proven in court. Reuters reported:
Google proposed to pay Oracle a percentage of Android revenue if Oracle could prove patent infringement of the mobile operating technology at an upcoming trial, but Oracle rebuffed the offer as too low, according to a court filing late on Tuesday.
As for Google’s offer, Reuters said the company would give approximately $2.8 million in damages to cover 2011, and a future 0.5-percent royalty of Android revenue for one patent that will expire in December. A second patent included in the case would provide Oracle with an additional 0.015-percent until it expires in April 2018. According to the court document, Oracle is holding out for a possible injunction:
The United States Patent and Trademark office delivered a final rejection to Google at the expense of Oracle.
According to Groklaw, the USPTO issued the rejection Dec. 20 in the reexamination of Oracle’s U.S. Patent No. 6,192,476. Each claim of the patent was subject to reexamination, including Claim 14, which was the only claim asserted by Oracle in the litigation.
The USPTO rejected 17 of the 21 claims in the patent of discussion, including seven of the patent’s independent claims. Any response by Oracle seeking an appeal or reconsideration of this action is due Feb. 20.
Continue reading past the break for more background information on the Oracle vs. Google patent claims.
Google has just filed a trademark application with the US Patent and Trademark Office detailing a coding language related to computer applications called ‘Spot’. There isn’t much more known about Spot as of yet, but it looks like GOOG has also registered a few Spot related domains including spotlang.com, spotlanguage.net, spot-lang.com, and spot-lang.net.
Perhaps Spot is something being worked on by Google’s recent acquisition of Java guru James Gosling (who has voiced concerns with Android in the past). We’ll keep you posted as more becomes available.
