Judge Alsup Rules: Oracle's Java APIs are Not Copyrightable (Groklaw)
The overall name tree, of course, has creative elements but it is also a precise command structure — a utilitarian and functional set of symbols, each to carry out a pre-assigned function. This command structure is a system or method of operation under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act and, therefore, cannot be copyrighted. Duplication of the command structure is necessary for interoperability." That pretty much makes the case a total loss for Oracle, but, of course, appeals are possible.
Posted May 31, 2012 22:27 UTC (Thu)
by kragil (guest, #34373)
[Link] (2 responses)
Oracle sucks. Linus on G+:
Sometimes I really wish I wasn't always right. It's a curse, I tell you."
Posted May 31, 2012 22:36 UTC (Thu)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
Posted Jun 1, 2012 0:57 UTC (Fri)
by JoeF (guest, #4486)
[Link]
Posted May 31, 2012 23:05 UTC (Thu)
by Baylink (guest, #755)
[Link] (11 responses)
This is only precedent in that jurisdiction, and since the decision went in "our favor", it won't get appealed up to somewhere where it's precedental *everywhere*.
Or so I understand American Jurisprudence; IANAL, I just play one on the Internet.
Posted May 31, 2012 23:09 UTC (Thu)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (5 responses)
That said, I very much doubt that Oracle will appeal this up the two levels needed to get to the Supreme Court, and that the SC will decide that there is enough of an issue here to rule on.
In any case, the Ruling from Judge Alsup talks about what the precedents are from other jurisdictions, and the result should stand up well everywhere.
Posted May 31, 2012 23:19 UTC (Thu)
by clemenstimpler (guest, #71914)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Jun 1, 2012 11:57 UTC (Fri)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (2 responses)
After Oracle's lawyers have been spouting about how valuable timsort is and how Google have "saved themselves masses of valuable effort" by "copying" rangecheck, what does he go and say ... ?
He's done a fair bit of programming in his time, he's learnt Java especially for the case, and he himself wrote a rangesort several times in several different languages to see how difficult it was. iirc it took him an afternoon.
Cheers,
Posted Jun 11, 2012 20:53 UTC (Mon)
by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164)
[Link] (1 responses)
Or did I read the wrong document... ?
Posted Jun 11, 2012 21:50 UTC (Mon)
by sfeam (subscriber, #2841)
[Link]
Posted Jun 1, 2012 13:53 UTC (Fri)
by sorpigal (guest, #36106)
[Link]
Posted Jun 2, 2012 9:50 UTC (Sat)
by storner (subscriber, #119)
[Link] (2 responses)
Even if they don't, this verdict was handed down in the Ninth Circuit which covers most (all?) of Silicon Valley. So it will probably be "the law" for most of the US IT-tech companies.
Posted Jun 2, 2012 20:49 UTC (Sat)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 4, 2012 1:17 UTC (Mon)
by butlerm (subscriber, #13312)
[Link]
Posted Jun 2, 2012 14:55 UTC (Sat)
by jjs (guest, #10315)
[Link]
However, just because it's not precedent doesn't mean other courts can't use it as a point of reasoning - EU decisions are NOT precedent in the US, but the US courts have looked at their line of reasoning and agreed.
Posted Jun 3, 2012 19:17 UTC (Sun)
by ajk (guest, #6607)
[Link]
IANAL and not even a US resident :-)
Posted Jun 1, 2012 14:54 UTC (Fri)
by robert_s (subscriber, #42402)
[Link] (1 responses)
Yup. We know.
I'm seriously considering getting some Judge Alsup posters printed up.
Posted Jun 2, 2012 19:34 UTC (Sat)
by jzbiciak (guest, #5246)
[Link]
+1
;-)
Seriously, it sounds like he really did his homework on this one, and provided a complete, thoughtful and (one hopes) airtight justification for his ruling. That said, thoughtfulness pervades the ruling. For example, I thought this was a bit of genius:
That means everyone knows what the stakes are up the appeals chain and at least everything is on the table. I would imagine it limits the ability for Oracle to wiggle their argument around differently also, though IANAL. At least it sounds like it bounds what a jury can decide to what this jury decided.
In general, Judge Alsup's ruling is a pleasure to read so far. He's really taken the time to explain everything clearly, and leave little question of how he's arrived at his decision. An Oracle will have quite some work to do to justify a reversal to an appeals court and that court will have to make some serious mental leaps, IMHO.
Judge Alsup Rules: Oracle's Java APIs are Not Copyrightable (Groklaw)
"Prediction: instead of Oracle coming out and admitting they were morons about their idiotic suit against Android, they'll come out posturing and talk about how they'll be vindicated, and pay lawyers to take it to the next level of idiocy.
Judge Alsup Rules: Oracle's Java APIs are Not Copyrightable (Groklaw)
The link to Linus' G+ post:Judge Alsup Rules: Oracle's Java APIs are Not Copyrightable (Groklaw)
https://plus.google.com/u/0/102150693225130002912/posts/TZsT2BP3TDh
Judge Alsup Rules: Oracle's Java APIs are Not Copyrightable (Groklaw)
Judge Alsup Rules: Oracle's Java APIs are Not Copyrightable (Groklaw)
Judge Alsup Rules: Oracle's Java APIs are Not Copyrightable (Groklaw)
Judge Alsup Rules: Oracle's Java APIs are Not Copyrightable (Groklaw)
Wol
Judge Alsup Rules: Oracle's Java APIs are Not Copyrightable (Groklaw)
Groklaw link
Judge Alsup Rules: Oracle's Java APIs are Not Copyrightable (Groklaw)
The mini introduction to java was, IMO, the best part. Maybe someone can convince him to write some man pages...
Judge Alsup Rules: Oracle's Java APIs are Not Copyrightable (Groklaw)
Judge Alsup Rules: Oracle's Java APIs are Not Copyrightable (Groklaw)
Judge Alsup Rules: Oracle's Java APIs are Not Copyrightable (Groklaw)
Judge Alsup Rules: Oracle's Java APIs are Not Copyrightable (Groklaw)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeals
Judge Alsup Rules: Oracle's Java APIs are Not Copyrightable (Groklaw)
Judge Alsup Rules: Oracle's Java APIs are Not Copyrightable (Groklaw)
Judge Alsup Rules: Oracle's Java APIs are Not Copyrightable (Groklaw)
Judge Alsup Rules: Oracle's Java APIs are Not Copyrightable (Groklaw)
For their task of determining infringement and fair use, the jury was told it should take for granted that the structure, sequence and organization of the 37 API packages as a whole was copyrightable. This, however, was not a final definitive legal ruling. One reason for this instruction was so that if the judge ultimately ruled, after hearing the phase one evidence, that the structure, sequence and organization in question was not protectable but was later reversed in this regard, the court of appeals might simply reinstate the jury verdict. In this way, the court of appeals would have a wider range of alternatives without having to worry about an expensive retrial. Counsel were so informed but not the jury.