12 ms·
Jury rules Google violated copyright law, Google moves for mistrial
- rgoddard 14y agoIf (API Copyrightable) = False THEN Google Not Guilty If (Google Violated Copyright) = False THEN Google Not Guilty If Google has Fair Use THEN Google Not Guilty Google Guilty The judge needs to rule on the first statement, the jury came back on the second statement, but the jury could not decide on the third statement. (Edit: Wording)
- georgemcbay 14y agoGoogleGuilty = APICopyrightable && GoogleViolatedCopyright && !GoogleHasFairUse optimized (and corrected, because in your flow Google is always guilty since everything drops through to that anyway).
- freehunter 14y agoNot if Google Not Guilty is equal to an exit statement :)
- ricree 14y agoStrictly speaking, wouldn't it be GoogleGuilty = GoogleViolatedCopyright && !GoogleHasFairUse && ApiCopyrightable In the sense that false short-circuits anything to the right, and ApiCopyrightable is only a factor if Google is held to have violated copyright under the assumption that Apis can be copyrighted.
- scarmig 14y agoHmm, are those values synchronous, though? Maybe an event-based architecture is a better model, though I don't really understand how the law works.
- libria 14y agoOddly, I find your one-liner more readable than the parent's. Probably because I don't know when to follow the English grammar or the pseudocode grammar.
- pyrotechnick 14y agoPorted to CoffeeScript: GoogleGuilty = APICopyrightable and GoogleViolatedCopyright and not GoogleHasFairUse
- stcredzero 14y agoThat is very nicely readable!
- georgemcbay 14y agoThe CoffeeScript syntax is nicely readable, but IMO the C-like syntax is far more easily 'scannable'. Quickly scanning over the C-like syntax I can more easily notice the ! and the && than I can make out the 'not' and the 'and' while scanning the more natural-language-like CoffeeScript because of the clear separation between ! and && and the alphanumerics commonly used in variable names. IMO the 'and' and 'not' keywords kind of get lost in the noise of all the other characters. YMMV here. I've been programming in C-like languages for quite a long time so maybe that's rewired my brain in a way that doesn't hold for people who don't program in C-like languages.
- Peaker 14y agoTypically syntax highlighting will color the "and" and "not" differently so they stick out too.
- MatthewPhillips 14y agoMissing semicolons.
- georgemcbay 14y agoIt is written in Go. :)
- libria 14y agoThen you're missing a colon GoogleGuilty := ...
- georgemcbay 14y agoYeah, true, but only if GoogleGuilty's type was previously undefined (but this is getting way off topic).
- vibrunazo 14y agoI wish someone would always translate groklaw's cryptic articles to something understandable like that. :-)
- rayiner 14y agoThis is actually a very helpful analogy--I'm stealing it. :) The law tends to be framed in conditions like this. That's why "the jury found X" isn't necessarily news--the real story could be in other parts of the conditional expression.
- endersshadow 14y agoWell, yes and no. The jury ruled that Google violated copyright if and only if APIs are copyrightable. They have not ruled whether or not Google had fair use (which is kind of fuzzy to me--how do you violate the law when you have fair use, or could potentially have fair use?). The judge has to determine if APIs can be copyrightable now. If the jury had ruled that Google wasn't guilty of copyright infringement of the API, then the judge wouldn't have to make that decision.
- rgoddard 14y agoFair use is a defense against copyright violations. If you are deemed not to have a copyright violation to begin with, you do not need to use fair use as a defense.
- morsch 14y agoIf your usage is covered by fair use, it doesn't require the approval of the rights holder and can't constitute a copyright violation. But this is arguing semantics, the problematic word being copyright violation. It goes against my intuition (and I suspect I'm not alone) to say that a violation of copyright has taken place when a usage is legal within the rules instituted by copyright. I suppose people who associate a different set of semantics with copyright violation would have to talk about legal copyright violation versus illegal copyright violation. To me, the former is contradicting and the latter is a tautology.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- nknight 14y agoYou're mostly right, kind of. I'm going to try and explain this, but it's not particularly easy. The confusion comes from both the nature of the "fair use" defense and the collision of legal vocabulary and common language. Fair use is an affirmative defense, which means that even if a violation occurred in a strict sense, that violation is excusable. It's not an "I didn't do it" argument, it's an "I shouldn't be punished because..." argument. Self-defense is a textbook example of an affirmative defense -- strictly speaking, I would violate the law by intentionally injuring or killing someone, but I can argue that I was defending myself. The question of an affirmative defense is not even relevant until there is a prima facie case showing violation, and often the fact-finder (jury or, in a bench trial, the judge) will actually find all the facts necessary for a judgement that infringement occurred before addressing the question of fair use, partly because the answers to many questions of fact for infringement are relevant to whether "fair use" holds. In the end, you do end up with a judgement that no infringement occurred, but along the way, you often end up with findings of fact that do spell out a "violation".
- mstachowiak 14y agoThe judge still has to decide if the APIs have copyright protection. Bad initial result for Google/Android, but more important rulings to come
- fpgeek 14y agoI'm not so sure it is a bad initial result. It looks more neutral to me. Given the judge's instructions on SSO copyright and APIs and the realities of re-implementing an API, I don't see how a jury could have reasonably concluded there was no potentially infringing copying. If so, the real question in play was the fair use analysis and that's where the jury deadlocked. Not as good as Google would have liked, but not as bad as it could have been, either.
- rcthompson 14y agoI think you're right. If you assume that APIs are subject to copyright, then seems clear that implementing a new system that copies only the API of another existing system would be a violation of the copyright on the API. But it seems the judge still has to decide whether APIs are in fact copyrightable, and if he decides that they are not, then I suppose this verdict would be irrelevant.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- shareme 14y agonot biased as Groklaw does not promote one future outcome over another in court rulings unlike that MS and Oracle paid FRAND clown
- shareme 14y agoNote folks, Judge states infringement one ONE LINE OF CODE out of what millions.. The key question is did Judge goof on reserving SSO issue to resolve at end of phase one. Google's point is that yes that as a major goof up on law and process basis.
- josefonseca 14y agoIf the jury rules that Google violated copyright law, does it imply that there was an accepted copyright on the API? Anyone who understands law know what this ruling indicates as far as the bigger issue of API Copyright is concerned?
- rsbrown 14y ago"does it imply...?" No. The judge has yet to decide this (much more important) issue. More info here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3940322 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3940322
- josefonseca 14y agoThe reason I ask is this(copied from my same question on reddit): I see but does the fact that the judge told them to assume so indicate something about what he thinks about it? I'm not a lawyer and I wonder how it goes in these cases: when a judge tells the jury to assume something, is he implying there is a good chance that that is how he would judge the case? I had a lawsuit many years ago against a bank here in my hometown. The judge initially ruled he "believed the evidence I presented was consistent with my arguments". In the end, years later, that is how he judged it finally. Therefore I wonder if API's are all now on the brink because of this ruling.
- dminor 14y ago> I see but does the fact that the judge told them to assume so indicate something about what he thinks about it? There are a couple reasons he may have done this - one is that the jury could have found for Google on fair use, rendering Alsup's decision on API copyright unnecessary. He gets to avoid making a potentially far reaching decision. The second is if he rules against API copyright, and is overruled on appeal, then there doesn't need to be a second jury trial, since the jury already assumed API was copyrightable.
- gte910h 14y agoThey ask juries to rule on all matters of fact they can think of. They do this to prevent new jury trials, letting appellate courts solve all matters of law.
- rsbrown 14y agoThis headline and the terse article behind it leave it out enormously important aspects of today's events. Mush more nuanced analysis here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3940322 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3940322
- bhousel 14y agoI can't believe cases like this are actually decided by a jury trial. There's no way 12 random people shown a video about the patent system can be expected to rule fairly on matters of nerd esoterica. Or is this opening round just legal theater, and the real decisions will be handed down by experts in the US Federal Circuit court after an inevitable succession of appeals?
- spobo 14y agoI completely agree. If this is true then it's fascinating how incorrect and inefficient the justice system works.
- Retric 14y agoIt's just about meaningless until after the appeals.
- stdgy 14y agoThe Jury isn't actually deciding all that much here, especially considering their non-answer to the Fair Use question. The Judge gave them generous instructions, including the stipulation that APIs are covered by copyright, in order to try and limit the potential for a mistrial. He still has to make the ruling on whether APIs(Or some definition of an APIs SSO...) are indeed covered by copyright, which is the crux of the case. It doesn't sound like he'll be making that ruling until at least midway through this month. Edit: I'm not sure mistrial is precisely what I mean. Maybe just re-trial? Any clarification would be appreciated.
- guan 14y agoI tend to agree with you about jury trials, but having the “real” decisions made by specialist judges in the Federal Circuit has dangers too. Many legal scholars believe that the trend toward allowing more software and business method patents in the 1980s and 1990s occurred because of Federal Circuit judges who were too embedded in the patent bar, and that it was allowed to continue without enough review because with all patent appeals coming out of one circuit, there were no circuit splits (disagreements between circuit courts of appeal), which is the usual way cases reach the US Supreme Court. In any case it would be difficult for the trial judge or the Federal Circuit to ignore jury decisions on factual questions like the ones that were decided here, unless the result was egregiously wrong. Legal questions like whether APIs are copyrightable will almost certainly be reviewed on appeal. [added] The dangers of judges who are too specialized was actually recognized when the Federal Circuit was set up, so the court was also given jurisdiction over a few other areas, such as appeals from the Court of Federal Claims, to prevent it from being overly specialized. I haven’t seen recent figures, but I do believe that the docket is dominated by patent cases.
- Natsu 14y agoThe jury was told to assume SSO is copyrightable. They were all but told they had to find infringement there, with fair use being the important question.
- loverobots 14y agoAs I see it, it's not a win (yet?) for Oracle. Sort of AP suing me for using their paragraph without permission. I am guilty of using it but it may be fair use, thus allowed.
- InclinedPlane 14y agoThings aren't going to get better until the law changes. The reason for software patents is to encourage research and innovation, they do nothing of the sort today and should be ended.
- andybak 14y agoNot that I disagree with you but this part of the trial is just about copyright.
- hughw 14y agoThe topic at hand today is copyright, not patents.
- InclinedPlane 14y agoYes, but... These companies would not have such large IP legal teams were it not for software patents, nor would they be in the regular habit of taking each other to court with the threat of multi-million dollar damages. As it happens, the copyright protections of an API are the issue in this particular case but this is just one battle in a larger war which is predominantly fought on the patent field. Were it not for software patents it's a fairly sure thing that a case of this sort would never see the light of day.
- rayiner 14y agoLol no. Copyright has always been the basis of protecting software--software patents are a relatively new phenomenon. People were having fights over copyrights to software decades ago.
- joejohnson 14y agoRight now, the jury is watching a video about patents and patent lawsuits produced by the Federal Judicial Center, which is commonly shown to patent juries. Is this said video? http://archive.org/details/gov.ntis.ava21157vnb1 http://archive.org/details/gov.ntis.ava21157vnb1
- eternalban 14y ago"If the verdict stands, the end result is that Java may not be as open source as it was thought to be. Oracle may be able to essentially take Java out of the public domain, at least as far as its use in cell phones." I call b.s. on this. If the involvement of Oracle here is causing cognitive dissonance substitute Sun Microsystems and review issue. Java is open source. There is an open source license and you can license it. (Note: You are implicitly agreeing to OSS licensing when e.g. forking on Github.com.) > "as thought" Terms of that license are well known. Nothing ambiguous to "think" about. > "take out" Violate my GNU licensed code and you may find I will "take [you] out" of market x. If copyright violations of APIs are ok, then where the tooth in [GPL], for example. "Free as in freedom not free beer".
- Locke1689 14y agoThis is a matter of law, not your opinion. If the judge rules that APIs are copyrightable and Oracle holds the copyright, Oracle has legal standing to bring cases that infringe its copyright, whether or not the code itself is licensed under the GPL.
- eternalban 14y agoAn article is not a legal opinion.
- alok-g 14y agoExcerpt from [1]: "What is copyrightable is creative expression," said Julie Samuels, an attorney with the Electronic Freedom Foundation "What is not [copyrightable] is functional information. The programming language is not. You can't copyright a language. It's what you make of that language." This seems to assume that creation of a (computer programming) language does not involve creative expression. (I understand that writing a compiler for this language certainly does.) This may have been right in possibly older times when languages were not explicitly designed; does not sound right anymore. Also, would you call sizeof(A) to be a part of the language (it is built into C/C++), or is it more like an API? [1] http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57429147-92/oracle-gets-a-chance-to-rewrite-software-law/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57429147-92/oracle-gets-a-c...
- WildUtah 14y agoNo one is saying that designing a language is uncreative. The distinction is not between creative and non-creative. The question is between purely creative and functional. Functional things are usually not covered by copyright while creative things are. Things which are both need to be considered more carefully. A computer language would never be copyrightable anyway because it is not a fixed expression. It's a set of rules for expressing things and that is never covered. And APIs have never been covered because they're purely functional, regardless of the level of creativity involved.
- alok-g 14y ago>> A computer language would never be copyrightable anyway because it is not a fixed expression This helps! Thanks. As you stated yourself, APIs do seem to fall in the same category. I think the distinction of APIs from language is very complex as there are things which may blur the boundary between the two.
- ramblerman 14y agoIf Oracle wins what does that mean for java and it's developers. I know it will be pretty hard to find a non dramatic, overly sensational, opinion right now but I'm gonna try... Would it have an effect on the jobtrend in java over the next 5 years?
- azakai 14y ago> If Oracle wins what does that mean for java and it's developers. That's an important question, but the issues are even bigger. This isn't just about Java. If the judge finds that APIs are copyrightable, it affects a lot more. For example, Microsoft has a promise not to sue over its patents on .NET. But if APIs are copyrightable, is Mono in infringement of Microsoft's copyright? Safety from patents is suddenly not enough. Another example, Android uses Linux kernel headers, the API needed to access the kernel. The wide assumption has always been they are not copyrightable, so you can implement userspace apps that are not GPL. But if APIs are copyrightable, that might be less clear. The bottom line is that this judge is going to decide, by himself, whether APIs are copyrightable. It's going to have a huge impact on our industry if he says "yes". It's scary to think about the amount of power he currently holds.
- vph 14y agoGoogle should have banked on Python as the language for the Android platform. It would have been a better choice in many ways.
- afsina 14y agoThat would be wrong on so many levels. A better idea would be buying Sun.
- Blunt 14y agoI guess this means every code compiler is in jeopardy now too.
- kyboren 14y agoWhile I definitely agree that Judge Alsup's instruction to the jury, "assume SSO is copyrightable," biased the jury for the next phases, I doubt he will find that SSO is copyrightable. http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise22.html http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise22.html <--- precedent
- jemeshsu 14y agoIs there a machine learning algo that can predict who will win out eventually?
- tubbo 14y agoThis is fucking BULLSHIT.