Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Android Google Oracle Patents Technology Your Rights Online

Google To Pay $0 To Oracle In Copyright Case 250

An anonymous reader writes "In a hearing in the US District Court today, it was determined that Google will pay a net total of nothing for Oracle's patent claims against them. In fact, Google is given 14 days to file an application for Oracle to pay legal fees to Google (in a similar manner to how things are done for frivolous lawsuits). However, it is not quite peaches and roses for Google, as Oracle is planning on appealing the decision in the case.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google To Pay $0 To Oracle In Copyright Case

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Weird ruling (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20, 2012 @10:30PM (#40393763)

    I think PsyStar would disagree that Apple hasn't won any copyright cases.

  • Re:Oracle (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20, 2012 @10:44PM (#40393867)

    Previous rulings are viewed as the starting point for appeals, and it's up to Oracle to try and prove why that ruling was flawed. Especially in a case like this, where a higher judge is much less likely to understand the matter, they'll treat Alsup's judgment very highly and are unlikely to overrule it.

  • Re:Bad Article (Score:5, Informative)

    by mug funky ( 910186 ) on Wednesday June 20, 2012 @11:06PM (#40394005)

    it started on patents. when bullshit was called, it moved to copyright infringement of the headers.

    that's the big problem - to not use a car analogy, think of a program as like a giant recipe. the code is the method, the headers are the ingredients list. Oracle wanted to assert imaginary copyright on the lists of ingredients for Java.

    i use the food analogy because food recipes are not copyrightable. you can steal all the recipes from all the cookbooks and publish them yourself and be perfectly fine, so long as you don't copy the photos or pontificating between recipes.

    also note that cookbooks sell very very well in spite of this.

  • Re:Bad Article (Score:5, Informative)

    by oxdas ( 2447598 ) on Thursday June 21, 2012 @12:24AM (#40394487)

    It was a two part trial. One part was on copyright infringement and the other part was on patent infringement. The outcome was that Google violated Oracle copyrights on 9 lines of code (out of 15 million) and some test cases. Google was not found to have infringed on any Oracle patents. The judge decided that the damages amounted to $0 for the copyright violations. Oracle can appeal.

  • Re:Weird ruling (Score:5, Informative)

    by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Thursday June 21, 2012 @12:25AM (#40394495)
    Not according to the judge. Psystar lost both on copyright and DMCA counts [groklaw.net].

    After full briefing and oral argument, Psystar was found liable for infringement of Apple's copyrights in Mac OS X by violating Apple's exclusive reproduction right, distribution right, and right to create derivative works (Dkt. No. 214 at 10). Psystar was also found liable for contributory copyright infringement by intentionally inducing and encouraging its customers to directly infringe Apple's copyrights through its sale of unauthorized copies of Mac OS X to the public (Id. at 10). 1 Finally, Psystar was found liable for violating Sections 1201(a)(1), 1201(a)(2), and 1201(b)(1) of the DMCA for circumvention and trafficking in circumvention devices (Id. at 13-14). Each of Psystar's asserted defenses were rejected as either waived or without merit.

  • Re:Weird ruling (Score:4, Informative)

    by oxdas ( 2447598 ) on Thursday June 21, 2012 @12:51AM (#40394629)

    And yet many judges have decided that Samsung did not violate Apple's designs, starting with Apple's opening salvo in the Netherlands. Apple's design is of a rounded cornered rectangle with a display in the center (that's it). Any media device could be seen to violate it.

    Apple is suing Samsung because they are their biggest competitor. Samsung outsold Apple in smartphones for 2011 by 5.5 million units and widened their lead in the first quarter of 2012 to 10 million more units (45 million to 35 million). Samsung has also made tablet inroads and are now the number two tablet company. Smartphones are the cash cow of both Apple and Samsung. Apple's marketshare in smartphones has fallen to 23% while Android has increased to 56%. This has to concern Apple.

  • Re:Oracle (Score:4, Informative)

    by sconeu ( 64226 ) on Thursday June 21, 2012 @01:13AM (#40394731) Homepage Journal

    Yes, it was BSF, but they also had hired the MoFos [mofo.com] (and, no, that's not a joke domain, it's legit).

    The MoFos trashed BSF in the SCO/Novell suit.

  • Re:Oracle (Score:4, Informative)

    by Tough Love ( 215404 ) on Thursday June 21, 2012 @03:48AM (#40395507)

    and yet only a small step from "6 billion dollars", huh.

    Oracle has screwed up so badly even their lawyers are looking horrible.

    Oracle's lawyers already looked horrible before the suit even started. Remember, these guys represented SCO. I guess shame is not a word in David Boies' vocabulary.

  • Ztimulated? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 21, 2012 @06:07AM (#40396091)

    "Laser" is a fucking acronym for "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation"

    Until "Ztimulated" is a word, stop throwing a "z" in there, you fucking kumquat!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 21, 2012 @06:30AM (#40396183)

    So what are you buying on the software if not to use the software? If nothing, then P2P sharing is legal since nothing of value is shared. If "the code, but not the right to use it", then it's a post-sale restriction with no consideration made.

    EULAs are not legally enforcable. It's why so many games are going online-only (even if they have a Single Player mode) because a ToS *is* legally enforcable.

    Blizzard LOST their case against BnetD using their EULA. They won their case using the ToS.

    Because the EULA is not a legal agreement.

  • by thue ( 121682 ) on Thursday June 21, 2012 @06:33AM (#40396195) Homepage

    The article says the suit was about whether the APIs could be patented. That is not so - the suit was about whether the APIs could be copyrighted. The article author probably has no idea what he is talking about.

  • Re:Weird ruling (Score:5, Informative)

    by silentcoder ( 1241496 ) on Thursday June 21, 2012 @06:43AM (#40396231)

    There is a huge difference between "can be described mathematically" and "actually IS a mathematical formula".
    Every computer program ever written IS a mathematical formula. It's not something that can be DESCRIBED by a mathematical formula (which is what you're talking about) - it is the formula ITSELF.

    That's what programs are. You have fallen for the smoke and mirrors.

  • Wasn't the Judge. (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 21, 2012 @07:53AM (#40396527)

    Nope. The judge did no such thing.

    Oracle was entitled to statutory damages, which give damages within a specified range with some discretion by the judge. The PARTIES, and NOT THE JUDGE stipulated to setting the award at $0. Basically, they told the judge not to bother - they agreed $0 was fine.

    If you're wondering why Oracle agreed to $0 damages, when they could have had "more than $0," it was probably for two reasons. First, the amount they were likely to be awarded was chump change - in the hundreds to low thousands of dollars. Not worth the time it would take a lawyer to brief on it. Second, setting the damages now without waiting for the judge allows the final judgement to be entered, which is a necessary step for Oracle to fine an appeal, which they inevitably will.

  • Re:Oracle (Score:5, Informative)

    by w_dragon ( 1802458 ) on Thursday June 21, 2012 @08:47AM (#40396897)
    You can pull it up on Google Maps and take a look at the island. The 2% not owned is probably most of Lanai City and the airport. The rest of the island looks to be pretty much undeveloped, just a few roads. Even in Hawaii, land is cheap if you need to build your own roads, wells, sewage treatment plants, and are in a hurricane zone.

The intelligence of any discussion diminishes with the square of the number of participants. -- Adam Walinsky