Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Oracle Starts Appeal Process in Java Case Against Google

By - Source: FOSS Patents | B 6 comments

Java developer had to pay $4 million for Google's legal expenses.

Oracle has started its appeal process on the ruling following its court case loss against Google pertaining to its Java patent case over Android allegedly infringing on its patents and copyrights.

As itpreviously promised, Oracle has filed an appeal of the US District Court ruling in its case against Google, which saw Judge William Alsup rule that that the structure of the former's Java APIs were not copyrightable. Obviously, Oracle weren't best pleased, so imagine how it felt when it was awarded $0 and had to pay $4 million for the search engine giant's legal expenses.

What's more, even if Oracle did win the court case, the judge stressed that it'd only deserve around $35 million at most, which is a considerably distant amount from the firms' initial claim of $6 billion in damages.

"By contrast, Oracle is two steps away from winning by far and away the most important part of the case: the API copyright liability part. In order to prevail on the API copyright liability part, Java API copyrightability is an issue on which Oracle absolutely must prevail at the Federal Circuit or, possibly, at the Supreme Court if the highest court agrees to look at this matter (if Oracle wins at the Federal Circuit, Google will appeal to the Supreme Court, and vice versa, and the issue might be important enough for the Supreme Court to grant certiorari)," explained FOSS Patents.

"There's no single potentially game-changing issue like Java API copyrightability in Apple v. Samsung. And even the 10 most important items on which Samsung needs to prevail are different from the API copyrightability question in terms of raising issues of a more factual than legal nature. The jury will only be overruled if it found on a given item what no reasonable jury could find. A judge doesn't get the same level of deference, especially not if an issue is more legal than factual, or purely legal."

Display 6 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 12 Hide
    jhansonxi , October 5, 2012 5:20 AM
    PennanenEverytimes theres an article that includes lawsuits and such, i just think a bunch of monkeys flinging shit at each other. Thats how the companies are nowdays.
    Please don't insult monkeys that way, they're an important part of an ecosystem - unlike lawyers.
  • 11 Hide
    Pennanen , October 5, 2012 4:48 AM
    Everytimes theres an article that includes lawsuits and such, i just think a bunch of monkeys flinging shit at each other. Thats how the companies are nowdays.
Other Comments
  • 11 Hide
    Pennanen , October 5, 2012 4:48 AM
    Everytimes theres an article that includes lawsuits and such, i just think a bunch of monkeys flinging shit at each other. Thats how the companies are nowdays.
  • 12 Hide
    jhansonxi , October 5, 2012 5:20 AM
    PennanenEverytimes theres an article that includes lawsuits and such, i just think a bunch of monkeys flinging shit at each other. Thats how the companies are nowdays.
    Please don't insult monkeys that way, they're an important part of an ecosystem - unlike lawyers.
  • 3 Hide
    InvalidError , October 5, 2012 5:41 AM
    Pretty sure there is some prior art denying the copyrightability of header files in cases like SCO vs IBM/Novell and since headers effectively describe the user-accessible parts of an API, that seems to me like it should make it pretty difficult to copyright the API definition itself.

    Programming anything proprietary under a GNU/BSD would become effectively impossible if API definitions/headers were copyrighted and licensed as any flavor of GPL-like license. Imagine GNU suing Oracle for not publishing their code if the FSF discovered that Sun/Oracle used libraries with GPL'd headers in their Java implementation.

    Since Sun originally created Java as an open standard to encourage programmers to write client-side software that runs on top of Sun-powered back-end servers rather than make profit directly off of it, I hope Oracle will not have much luck retroactively rewriting the license to make it a closed standard licensed exclusively by Oracle.

    Welcome to the world of everyone suing everyone.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , October 5, 2012 8:31 AM
    I don't see the hoopla about this, even Sun/Microsoft's old J runtime suit has more substance in it, but it would be quite wrong favoring Sun/Oracle any further, it has very little commercial interest to it and that shuns everything into camps.
  • 1 Hide
    gsacks , October 5, 2012 8:29 PM
    So, just to recap, since Oracle purchased sun...
    1) Effectively alienate all of the OpenOffice developers so that they had to fork it and create LibreOffice
    2) Stalled the once promising VirtualBox project. They're still doing releases, but no real improvements.
    3) Doing everything they can to Kill MySQL
    4) Basically stopped development on OpenSolaris
    5) Wasted an incredible amount of time and money in their pissing match with Google over Android, which if they actually win, would probably be the beginning of the end for Java.

    There is a reason why people hate this company.
  • 0 Hide
    hoofhearted , October 7, 2012 5:03 PM
    I don't know, monkeys are pretty nasty. Look up 'monkey and frog' on youtube. Reminds me of what Apple does to consumers.