Re:Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
by icebraining on Tuesday March 27, 2018 @04:23PM
(#16692396)
Did Google infringe on the libraries or the actual API?
Supposedly, both. They made an API with the same structure, names, etc. They also copied a nine-line function called rangeCheck.
Additionally, how would this relate to the Java programming language being "free" and why would Google infringe on anything if it was free?
"Free" is not a legal license. Google would have to start from the OpenJDK implementation, and be subject to its license, which they didn't.
Re:Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
by maemilius on Tuesday March 27, 2018 @03:14PM
(#16691823)
> if Oracle hadn't also accused Oracle initially of patent infringement.
Was this a mistake or did Oracle actually accuse themselves of infringing their own patents?
> The Java API is a collection of βpre-written Java source code programs for common and more advanced computer functions.β
I'm not too familiar with Java, but I believe they are mistaking APIs for libraries there. Did Google infringe on the libraries or the actual API?
Like did Google actually infringe on what Oracle calls the "Java API" (but is actually a library), and are we all talking past each other when discussing "API copyrightability" when Google may have actually been found of infringing a library?
I think the CAFC may be just as confused about which one is which and on which it's ruling.
Additionally, how would this relate to the Java programming language being "free" and why would Google infringe on anything if it was free?
I don't know the actual details of Sun's licensing, though, but even from what Oracle is claiming now, it seems that Oracle's case is quite weak, and I don't see how its license specifically banned Google from doing whatever they think they did.
Finally, the CAFC's pro-patent rulings are almost always overturned by the Supreme Court, and if I believe they wouldn't even have gotten this case if Oracle hadn't also accused Oracle initially of patent infringement. If Oracle had only accused Google of copyright infringement, I think some other court would have gotten the case, maybe a court with less of a bad record in understanding IP law (going by Supreme Court's rulings at least). It's just a shame that Obama's pro-IP laws lawyers got in the way and convinced the Supreme Court to reject the case.