LWN: Comments on "Google wins patent case against Oracle"

Google wins patent case against Oracle

jjs — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 14:53:46 +0000

The SSO was never about patentability - it was about ability to copyright. So that will go to the 9th Circuit.

No, every legal system is like that

SecretEuroPatentAgentMan — Sat, 26 May 2012 12:16:32 +0000

Interesting then that the US based its legal system on common law, inherited from a country based on a fairly strong monarchy, moreso when many left Europe in dissatisfaction with the conditions there.

Laws can be well thought out and well written at the time, yet will fail as the world evolves and can also be incorrectly applied. There is also the law of unintended consequences. Many countries have specialised courts or specialised judges to take care of IPR-related cases, even so an appeal will often show that the law was incorrectly applied. Also the same laws can be applied by the supreme courts in different countries and come to opposite conclusions.

Most of the European countries have acceded to the European Patent Convention (EPC). The European Patent Office (EPO), operating under EPC, runs seminars for Europe's top judges. Even so you still get totally different conclusions. Now the European Union is considering a centralised patent court. Unless something changes dramatically it will only mean you get to throw the dice once in Europe rather than once for each EU member state.

No, every legal system is like that

mpr22 — Fri, 25 May 2012 09:27:54 +0000

The codifiers of the law, be they absolute monarchs, elected representatives, or the entire citizen class of the society governed by the law, are people.

No, every legal system is like that

felixfix — Fri, 25 May 2012 07:43:21 +0000

Everything -- *EVERYTHING* -- comes down to judgement by people. No matter how well you think you have crafted a law, people judge them, words change meaning, society changes, things change.

You cannot get away from judgement by people. The oceans will evaporate before you get rid of judgement by people.

No, every legal system is like that

eduperez — Fri, 25 May 2012 06:46:16 +0000

> If it were a system of rule by king, it would be luck of the draw how the king felt that morning, how his advisers felt, etc.

I would prefer a system of rule by law... well thought and written laws.

No, every legal system is like that

felixfix — Thu, 24 May 2012 18:46:54 +0000

You seem to be arguing several things at once: the evils of IP, the evils of government, and the evils of third party judgements.

I will address third party judgements.

You suggest completely voluntary contractual agreements. What if the parties disagree?

*Someone* has to be an independent judge, even if it is just those who consider doing business with any of the parties to a disagreement, and people will differ, which is fine. But in practice, few individuals would want to investigate and fully inform themselves of all disagreements by all parties with whom they might consider doing business; they will instead rely on third parties, whether that be a coercive central government or a voluntary distributed system of judgement (whether friends or service bureaus), and then you are right back to people making judgement calls.

And this is all pretty off-topic, but I suppose that too is a judgement call.

No, every legal system is like that

krakensden — Thu, 24 May 2012 18:46:25 +0000

> What would be ideal is 'rule by nobody'. Just voluntary contractual agreements. There really is no factual basis for any of this IP law crap.

And when people disagreed on the meaning of those contracts, they would...

Oh right, avail themselves of a neutral third party to arbitrate. Who would have to be able to enforce that arbitration.

It doesn't matter what you do, you're going to wind up with judges.

No, every legal system is like that

drag — Thu, 24 May 2012 18:32:26 +0000

> If it were a system of rule by king, it would be luck of the draw how the king felt that morning, how his advisers felt, etc.

So it would be pretty much the same.

What would be ideal is 'rule by nobody'. Just voluntary contractual agreements. There really is no factual basis for any of this IP law crap.

The only defense that people can bring up for IP is either a argument economic practicality (we need copyright/patents to create markets to foster ideas), which has no factual basis (this is something that should can be demonstrably true if it a correct notion). Or a argument supporting some vague notion of 'rights' and 'fairness' over the ownership of ideas.. which is something impossible since ideas have no physical presence.

How easily people forget the history...

felixfix — Thu, 24 May 2012 14:25:17 +0000

Oh my .... yes, I had forgotten all about Gosling's emacs and all that flap. Well, it was a long time ago, so "easy" is not quite the right word.

Thanks for the reminder. Made me smile. I hope Gosling's ears are burning and his breakfast is feeling a bit nauseous.

No, every legal system is like that

felixfix — Thu, 24 May 2012 14:21:06 +0000

If it were a system of rule by king, it would be luck of the draw how the king felt that morning, how his advisers felt, etc.

It all comes down to people, and anything vague is going to give vague results. The only way to avoid this kind of patent case, or the copyright case, is to avoid patents or copyrights altogether, something which would please me immensely. As clever as copyleft is, I'd rather have neither copyright nor copyleft, and have all the associated resources spent on innovation.

How easily people forget the history...

job — Thu, 24 May 2012 11:20:11 +0000

Gosling has quit Oracle so I don't understand his public views in this matter at all. Is he really that outraged that Google did an independent implementation of Java? It's hardly the first, nor the last.

I would be very surprised of Stroustrup expressed outrage in other implementations of C++, or if van Rossum thinks Pypy somehow abuses Python coders. After all, independent implementations is a maturity sign for computer technology. Most ideas doesn't reach that far which puts him together with just a handful other talented language designers in our age.

(In this particular case it is doubly astonishing. I hope nobody could reasonably expect Android to be a success on top of the mess that was J2ME. Even if they built something on top of Sun's code the result would still not run J2ME code.)

How easily people forget the history...

khim — Thu, 24 May 2012 08:12:06 +0000

What I find particularly funny is the Gosling's moans and people's reaction to them.

Gosling says Google "tramped" and "abused" Java developers at Sun, but somehow forgets to add that he himself did the same thing thirty years ago.

And it's not like it was some low-profile unknown sidestory. It was quite a big deal back then. Remember? While Stallman tried to organize community around Emacs with explicitly expressed presumption that all improvements must be given back to him to be incorporated and distributed Gosling went on and created it's own Goslinc Emacs for the new frontiers (Unix was relatively new and tiny back then). Worse: later, when Stallman reused his code to create his own Unix port he went on and demanded to remove his code from Emacs¹ (Google never did that: if Sun or now Oracle wants to reuse pieces of Dalvik in Java it can do that quite legally). And after all that he have the nerve to talk about abuse?

Sorry, but this is hypocrisy, plain and simple.

¹) Strictly speaking it was Unipress, not Gosling, but I don't recall any Gosling's complains WRT that unfairness thus we can safely assume he approved this behavior.

Google wins patent case against Oracle

eduperez — Thu, 24 May 2012 06:53:26 +0000

And we are so unlucky to live under a system where our luck when being assigned a judge determines the outcome of the case...

Google wins patent case against Oracle

aryonoco — Thu, 24 May 2012 04:14:10 +0000

First of all, the appeals process is not very clear at this point. Patent appeals are all heard by the Federal Circuit Court, which is notoriously patent friendly. Copyright is still appealed through the traditional way, which in this case will the 9th Circuit court of appeals.

If Oracle decides to appeal the patent verdict (very difficult as it is a jury verdict), it will go to the Federal Circuit Court. There, Oracle could argue that the case is so intricately linked with its Copyright claim that the court might decide to hear the case all together. If Oracle decides to appeal both Copyright and Patent verdicts, and the Federal Court decides against hearing the Copyright section, then the patent phase will be heard by the Federal Circuit Court and the Copyright section by the 9th Circuit court.

If Oracle decides to appeal just the Copyright verdict, it will definitely then only be heard by the 9th Circuit Court. This is most likely if J. Alsup rules that the SSO of Java API are not patentable. Appealing the patent verdict will be very difficult for Oracle cause it is a Jury decision so unless Oracle has a problem with one of the Judge's directions to the Jury or as a matter of law, then it's very difficult to appeal.

However this case is appealed, and whichever appeal court hears the case (Federal Circuit court or the 9th Circuit court), if Oracle doesn't like the verdict it can still seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, but the likelihood that the Supreme Court will actually hear the case is very remote. The Supreme Court generally only hears a fraction of the cases that apply to it, and those are generally cases in which different lower courts have come to different verdicts on similar issues. I don't see the Supreme Court hearing.

PS: IANAL

Google wins patent case against Oracle

jtc — Thu, 24 May 2012 03:43:31 +0000

"... It's also the part that is likely to be appealed, no matter which way he jumps."

I'm curious, in case anyone knows: Is there much of a chance the appeal process for the API issue could end up in the supreme court?

Google wins patent case against Oracle

kevinm — Thu, 24 May 2012 02:29:30 +0000

It's not behind us yet. Judge Alsup has yet to rule on whether the "Structure, Sequence and Organisation" of the Java API is copyrightable. This is actually the part of the case which is of most interest and importance to the rest of us. It's also the part that is likely to be appealed, no matter which way he jumps. Being found not to infringe the patents is nice for Google, but doesn't mean too much to anyone else, because every patent trial is pretty much a roll of the dice anyway.

Google wins patent case against Oracle

JoeBuck — Thu, 24 May 2012 00:42:08 +0000

It is not behind us until the appeals are over with (or if Oracle decides not to appeal).

Google wins patent case against Oracle

drag — Wed, 23 May 2012 23:46:17 +0000

Yes. Glad this particular wasteful farce is now behind us.

Lets all hope together that Oracle has learned that threatening their partners and customers with IP lawsuits isn't a good business plan.

Google wins patent case against Oracle

martin.langhoff — Wed, 23 May 2012 21:46:29 +0000

We are _so_ lucky to have had this case under Judge Alsup, who's competent in programming matters. It could have set so many wrong precedents.

Google wins patent case against Oracle

jthill — Wed, 23 May 2012 18:39:27 +0000

Uh oh. A whole lotta lawyers fresh out of court with a lot of time on their hands.

:-P

I think it's cause for hope that many Judges do know what they're looking at these days. I think juries see that.

Google wins patent case against Oracle

karim — Wed, 23 May 2012 18:33:14 +0000

Just in time for the hockey season finales: nah, nah, nah ... nah, nah, nah, ... hey, hey, hey ... goodbye.