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
Goolge Happy | 697 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Goolge Happy : Also, Rachel King oblivious
Authored by: MDT on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:26 PM EDT
Twitter comment from Rachel King : They found for Oracle on 1A, that was the big
one.

Actually, no, that wasn't the big one, given that Alsup actually has to decide
that one. The Jury never had the right to decide if SSO of APIs were
copyrightable, only if they violated copyright if they were copyrightable. They
locked on the defenses, so the judge will likely have to decide on that as well.

---
MDT

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Yes, this looks very good for Google.
Authored by: Cassandra on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:35 PM EDT
I must say that I am relieved. And couldn't the Judge render the jury's
inability to answer question 1B moot be deciding that APIs can't be copyrighted
anyway?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Goolge Happy
Authored by: shachar on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:40 PM EDT
I'm not so sure. I don't remember what the purpose of question 4 was, but
wouldn't answering "no" on 4b render the 4a answer irrelevant?

Shachar

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Google Happy : Mistrial
Authored by: MDT on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:48 PM EDT
Van Nest is already moving for a mistrial, so I think I stand correct. They're
going to be happy with this verdict. They can basically get a mistrial, and
then hammer Oracle on a retrial on tall the things they finally took a stance
on, rather than trying to defend against smoke and mirrors and Perry Mason
moments.

---
MDT

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Goolge Happy
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:53 PM EDT
Can timsort even be considered a valid infringement? Sorting algorithms are
mathematical processes - they shouldn't be subject to copyright (If they can
prove literal copying, it's one thing, but I gather the original author of the
method then wrote Google's version, so similarity would be expected. I mean,
every time I write mergesort it looks pretty much the same).

There's some old case that's almost certainly been brought up in this trial,
regarding a book on a system of bookeeping not protecting the system itself -
that should be precedent in Google's favor, since one implementation
(effectively a description in code) of a sorting method should analogously not
protect the general algorithm itself.

Also, it would appear the timsort algorithm doesn't even originate at Oracle
(from a quick perusal of wikipedia), so Oracle can't stop Google from
implementing it in general. Further, the algorithm itself is derivative of older
algorithms.

I gather that Google's code was basically identical to Oracle's for the method,
and that's where the copying claim comes from. Of course, I would find it
hilarious if it turns out Oracle only transplanted the code from Python for the
algorithm...

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

An interesting question - how does BSF feel?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 03:36 PM EDT
If the Judge rules 'no' on 1B, the SSO can't be copywrited, and almost all of
this case goes away. That would mean BSF has lost another case. First SCO, now
Google. But then, I guess they'll cry all the way to the bank.

Do track records like this hurt them in any way?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Meanwhile in the land of Florian
Authored by: complex_number on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 02:45 AM EDT
The partial verdict holds Google to have infringed the sequence, structure and organization of 37 Java APIs through the use of those APIs in Android. That is the first part of the first question, and it's by far and away the most important question the jury had to answer at this stage. The Android documentation was not found to infringe the same APIs, and various smaller items, except for the nine-line rangeCheck function, were not deemed infringed. The latter makes no sense to me: there are code files in there that are much larger than the rangeCheck function, and infringement was so clear that it shouldn't even have been put before a jury.

The poor old duffer is spinning a very different line to everyone else.

Rather sad really

---
Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

It isn't even Timsort
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 05:55 AM EDT
Timsort is, in itself, a fairly large and complex piece of
code - much bigger than your typical sorting algorithm.

The rangeCheck method is a really simple utility function
used by it. Any engineer at Google could have rewritten
it in five minutes flat. When notified of the infringement,
they *did* do that.

Even compared to *Timsort* as a whole, rangeCheck is
de minimis. Never mind *Java* as a whole.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • 0 - Authored by: BitOBear on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 11:26 PM EDT
Goolge Happy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 06:10 PM EDT
Isnt the claim of fair use essentially a counter claim against the copyright
claim. You would think it is up to google to prove fair use.

If google are found to of violated copyright and can't prove that it was fair
use, surely they are guilty of violating copyright.

Not saying Apis should be copyright able, just a comment on fair use.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Goolge Happy - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 09:28 PM EDT
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 )