7 ms·

Oracle loses on fair use; Only rangeCheck left (w/o new trial)

117 points by fpgeek 15y ago

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
gvb 15y ago
Very important note that tends to be overlooked: "[Judge Alsup] has yet to decide on the overall copyrightability of the structure, sequence, and organization of the 37 Java APIs themselves. Ruling that the APIs are not covered would render today's decision entirely meaningless, essentially throwing away the jury's earlier finding of infringement on the SSO issue." The judge instructed the jury to assume the API is copyrightable when they determined whether Google violated that (assumed) copyright. The actual ruling whether the API is copyrightable will be decided by the judge as a matter of law.
- Tobu 15y ago
  I disagree with that analysis. The Judge asked the jury to decide fair use assuming API copyrightability because he had them at hand, and it was an opportunity to make his eventual ruling more appeal-proof. Finding APIs copyrightable rather than purely functional would create new barriers to interoperability, which would be a little more important than having part of a jury's verdict moot.
- debacle 14y ago
  The judge was probably hoping he wouldn't have to decide, and still might not have to decide.
lbrandy 15y ago
These infamous lines are certain to get copied quite a bit more. In case you haven't seen them: private static void rangeCheck(int arrayLen, int fromIndex, int toIndex) { if (fromIndex > toIndex) throw new IllegalArgumentException("fromIndex(" + fromIndex + ") > toIndex(" + toIndex+")"); if (fromIndex < 0) throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(fromIndex); if (toIndex > arrayLen) throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(toIndex); }
- dpark 15y ago
  It's kind of crazy that these are the only lines Oracle could find. While it does appear that these were copied, they're so trivial that it hardly seems to matter.
  - greyfade 15y ago
    Hence Google's argument for de minimis, which the Jury seemed to reject, I guess? I'm still having trouble wading through the filings, rulings, and jury verdict.
    - Natsu 15y ago
      I think that de minimus was only part of question 1 B, which they hung on. But I don't have the jury instructions or form in front of me, so I could be mistaken about that. Personally, I agree that it ought to be considered de minimus by any sensible definition. It's not so large as to be identifiable as part of the Java language. It's a tiny part of the entire work. It offers no identifiable contribution to the work's value. It is one of only a few sensible ways to express that concept. It has no literary or artistic merit and offers minimal creativity. And it was copied by the very person who wrote it in the first place. In short, this is a trivial piece of code that was mistakenly included and which caused no identifiable harm to Oracle, as further evidenced by the fact that they're not sending DMCA notices to HN to take it down. But that might just be a bad idea. I mean, what if they got that judge who ruled against a copyright troll saying that even quoting an entire news article could be fair use? EDIT: Found the SV form. I was wrong about the questions. Question 3 is the only one to mention de minimus, but it's pretty confusingly worded, though it sounds like they did not believe it was de minimus, something I strongly disagree with.
- malkia 15y ago
  assuming 0..arrayLen-1 shouldn't that code fromIndex >= toIndex, and toIndex >= arrayLen
  - malkia 15y ago
tzs 15y ago
It's not accurate to say Oracle lost on fair use. What they lost on was their motion to have the judge rule on fair use as a matter of law.
- guelo 15y ago
  Oh, that makes more sense I couldn't parse the article. So without a ruling then it has to be retried by a jury.
  - Natsu 15y ago
    Alternatively, the judge can rule that APIs are not copyrightable, making the issue of fair use moot. I personally believe that this is what will happen, but it remains to be seen.
- fpgeek 15y ago
  Oracle didn't lose on fair use for all time, but they've effectively lost for now. They didn't defeat Google's fair use defense as a matter of fact (because the jury hung) and the judge refused to rule as a matter of law. Beyond a new trial or an appeal, what else could Oracle do?
SlipperySlope 15y ago
I hope that Judge Alsup rules that APIs are not subject to copyright, as the EU has already ruled. It certainly would be in the public interest to do so!! But supposing that the Judge rules that APIs are subject to copyright, I expect that a developer boycott of Oracle would soon follow, together with a push to get the US Congress to change copyright law.
- guelo 15y ago
  Only Hollywood gets to change copyright law,
  - toyg 15y ago
    Larry Ellison was in "Iron Man", so he's Hollywood.
  - fpgeek 15y ago
    This may have already been decided (in the direction of APIs not being copyrighted) by Lotus v Borland: http://madisonian.net/2012/05/09/oracle-v-google-digging-deeper/ http://madisonian.net/2012/05/09/oracle-v-google-digging-dee... Note that this a blog post by a very respected IP law expert (cited by the Supreme Court in recent decisions). One detail I find particularly interesting is that, unlike most common summaries which focus on the UI issues, he points out that there was also an API issue at stake in Lotus v Borland: the menu structure was effectively part of the macro programming API.
elithrar 15y ago
Also, for some context (via http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012050909451990 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012050909451990) > Google has filed a motion [PDF] for a new trial on both question 1a and 1b, arguing that they are indivisible and that Google has rights under the Seventh Amendment for a new trial on both sides of that same coin: >> "Under settled Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit law, the jury's failure to reach a verdict concerning both halves of this indivisible question requires a new trial concerning both questions. To accept the infringement verdict as binding on the parties and retry only fair use would violate both the unanimity requirement and the Reexamination Clause of the Seventh Amendment."
- fpgeek 15y ago
  Good point. We know that a retrial is necessary to find any infringement beyond rangeCheck. We don't know what the parameters of that possible retrial would be.

117 points by fpgeek 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

gvb 15y ago

Very important note that tends to be overlooked: "[Judge Alsup] has yet to decide on the overall copyrightability of the structure, sequence, and organization of the 37 Java APIs themselves. Ruling that the APIs are not covered would render today's decision entirely meaningless, essentially throwing away the jury's earlier finding of infringement on the SSO issue." The judge instructed the jury to assume the API is copyrightable when they determined whether Google violated that (assumed) copyright. The actual ruling whether the API is copyrightable will be decided by the judge as a matter of law.

Tobu 15y ago
I disagree with that analysis. The Judge asked the jury to decide fair use assuming API copyrightability because he had them at hand, and it was an opportunity to make his eventual ruling more appeal-proof. Finding APIs copyrightable rather than purely functional would create new barriers to interoperability, which would be a little more important than having part of a jury's verdict moot.
debacle 14y ago
The judge was probably hoping he wouldn't have to decide, and still might not have to decide.

lbrandy 15y ago

These infamous lines are certain to get copied quite a bit more. In case you haven't seen them: private static void rangeCheck(int arrayLen, int fromIndex, int toIndex) { if (fromIndex > toIndex) throw new IllegalArgumentException("fromIndex(" + fromIndex + ") > toIndex(" + toIndex+")"); if (fromIndex < 0) throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(fromIndex); if (toIndex > arrayLen) throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(toIndex); }

dpark 15y ago
It's kind of crazy that these are the only lines Oracle could find. While it does appear that these were copied, they're so trivial that it hardly seems to matter.
- greyfade 15y ago
  Hence Google's argument for de minimis, which the Jury seemed to reject, I guess? I'm still having trouble wading through the filings, rulings, and jury verdict.
  - Natsu 15y ago
    I think that de minimus was only part of question 1 B, which they hung on. But I don't have the jury instructions or form in front of me, so I could be mistaken about that. Personally, I agree that it ought to be considered de minimus by any sensible definition. It's not so large as to be identifiable as part of the Java language. It's a tiny part of the entire work. It offers no identifiable contribution to the work's value. It is one of only a few sensible ways to express that concept. It has no literary or artistic merit and offers minimal creativity. And it was copied by the very person who wrote it in the first place. In short, this is a trivial piece of code that was mistakenly included and which caused no identifiable harm to Oracle, as further evidenced by the fact that they're not sending DMCA notices to HN to take it down. But that might just be a bad idea. I mean, what if they got that judge who ruled against a copyright troll saying that even quoting an entire news article could be fair use? EDIT: Found the SV form. I was wrong about the questions. Question 3 is the only one to mention de minimus, but it's pretty confusingly worded, though it sounds like they did not believe it was de minimus, something I strongly disagree with.
malkia 15y ago
assuming 0..arrayLen-1 shouldn't that code fromIndex >= toIndex, and toIndex >= arrayLen
- malkia 15y ago

tzs 15y ago

It's not accurate to say Oracle lost on fair use. What they lost on was their motion to have the judge rule on fair use as a matter of law.

guelo 15y ago
Oh, that makes more sense I couldn't parse the article. So without a ruling then it has to be retried by a jury.
- Natsu 15y ago
  Alternatively, the judge can rule that APIs are not copyrightable, making the issue of fair use moot. I personally believe that this is what will happen, but it remains to be seen.
fpgeek 15y ago
Oracle didn't lose on fair use for all time, but they've effectively lost for now. They didn't defeat Google's fair use defense as a matter of fact (because the jury hung) and the judge refused to rule as a matter of law. Beyond a new trial or an appeal, what else could Oracle do?

SlipperySlope 15y ago

I hope that Judge Alsup rules that APIs are not subject to copyright, as the EU has already ruled. It certainly would be in the public interest to do so!! But supposing that the Judge rules that APIs are subject to copyright, I expect that a developer boycott of Oracle would soon follow, together with a push to get the US Congress to change copyright law.

guelo 15y ago
Only Hollywood gets to change copyright law,
- toyg 15y ago
  Larry Ellison was in "Iron Man", so he's Hollywood.
- fpgeek 15y ago
  This may have already been decided (in the direction of APIs not being copyrighted) by Lotus v Borland: http://madisonian.net/2012/05/09/oracle-v-google-digging-deeper/ http://madisonian.net/2012/05/09/oracle-v-google-digging-dee... Note that this a blog post by a very respected IP law expert (cited by the Supreme Court in recent decisions). One detail I find particularly interesting is that, unlike most common summaries which focus on the UI issues, he points out that there was also an API issue at stake in Lotus v Borland: the menu structure was effectively part of the macro programming API.

elithrar 15y ago

Also, for some context (via http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012050909451990 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012050909451990) > Google has filed a motion [PDF] for a new trial on both question 1a and 1b, arguing that they are indivisible and that Google has rights under the Seventh Amendment for a new trial on both sides of that same coin: >> "Under settled Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit law, the jury's failure to reach a verdict concerning both halves of this indivisible question requires a new trial concerning both questions. To accept the infringement verdict as binding on the parties and retry only fair use would violate both the unanimity requirement and the Reexamination Clause of the Seventh Amendment."

fpgeek 15y ago
Good point. We know that a retrial is necessary to find any infringement beyond rangeCheck. We don't know what the parameters of that possible retrial would be.