Confused Jury Says Google Infringed On Oracle's Copyright, Sorta, But Maybe Not
from the if-it-was-fair-use,-it-wasn't-infringement dept
There was some indication last week that the jury in the Oracle/Google lawsuit was having trouble coming to agreement, and it appears that despite some effort to try to fix that, in the end the jury remained deadlocked on a bunch of issues. However, it did decide that Google infringed on Oracle's copyright in the Java APIs it used -- but what the jury punted on was whether or not those uses were allowed via fair use. This seems a bit odd, since fair use, despite supposedly being a defense, still means that there was no infringement. So, basically the jury said that Google may have infringed... which is pretty useless for a jury. Separately, the jury rejected the idea that Google infringed on the documentation of the APIs. It also found that Google did not infringe on the comments for some of the code, but did infringe on using rangeCheck in two files. That said, the jury again punted on whether or not the use was de minimis (which, again, would mean non-infringement).According to The Verge (who is in the court room), the jury also wasn't buying the claim that Google relied on Sun's statements saying that Google's use was okay. The jury's main problem with Google's claim here wasn't that Sun hadn't made clear that the use was acceptable. It was that there wasn't much evidence that Google actually relied on such claims from Sun. I can understand why the jury might claim this, but I wonder why it would matter. Given that Sun made clear that Google's use was acceptable, in what world could you later turn around and claim that its use was unacceptable?
Either way, the fact that the jury couldn't come to an answer on the fair use/de minimis questions effectively sinks the entire process. Google immediately asked the judge to declare a mistrial, and the judge has supposedly asked both companies to prepare arguments over whether or not a mistrial should be declared, so this is far from over.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: api, de minimis, fair use, java
Companies: google, oracle, sun
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
a jury of our peers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a jury of our peers
Member of a biker gang on trial. Already in jail for a separate crime. Who are his peers?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/peers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Lady who "has dry eyes and she needs to use drops and she needs to close her eyes to rest. She is not sure how often, every two hours." NOT EXCUSED.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You responded to examples posted in support of the claim that "the standard procedure in US jury selection (is) to weed out anybody who knows anything about the subject". Not sure why anyone would dispute that.
There is a fine line between jury selection and jury rigging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The jury decides one fact at a time, the wording was perhaps sloppy.
1) did it happen
2) was an affirmative defence appropriate essentially.
For example, we'll use a slip and fall case
1) was a wet floor the cause of the slip
2) did the owner of the floor take reasonable precautions to prevent the slip
The blurb for this article is terribly I'll informed, the the jury, and it's based on false premise. Additionally, why isn't the verdict form itself embedded here?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/91878800/Jury-Instructions-Verdict-Form-in-Oracle-Google (starts on page 20, the whole document is pretty concise and readable though). And affirmative defense requires the facts to first go against the defence to even be relevant, only on TV is there a single yes or no answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Google admitted to structural similarity, and if you read the pages about the law, it would be impossible to not answer that question yes, the fair use issue is much more ambiguous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Broken system
The issue is that this system was setup back when about the most complex job out there was that of a doctor and the doctors were still using blood letting. It was not hard for someone with no prior experience farming to help settle arguments between two farmers.
The problems we are running into now though you cannot expect someone to come in off the street and understand. We are asking these elected people to be experts in advanced economics, pharmaceuticals, biology, and technology. It is just not possible for anyone to understand all these issues to the level required for them to effectively regulate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Broken system
I don't think we are, nor do they need to be. They could very well be writing quite simple and definitive laws, with clear explanations what those laws are designed to do.
The problem is that in order to get/keep their jobs, they end up having to get money from businesses/interest groups/etc. And those groups influence the laws, either overtly or not, so they have loopholes, special circumstances, or are written so they can be taken advantage of or directly benefit one group instead of another.
So instead of simple laws, you end up with laws that no single person can be expected to understand. Then add those to a court system that interprets and rules on those laws, and frequently the precedents arrived at come from extraordinary cases.
So I do understand where you're coming from. Unfortunately, a saying comes to mind:
Democracy is the worst form of government created, except for all the others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Broken system
If you do not understand how the internet works then it makes perfect sense that we should just cut out the bad parts. It seems like it is a simple matter if you only have a basic knowledge of the internet. As a result when Hollywood says do it the idiots go "oh that sounds like great idea"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Broken system
Capitalism is the closest thing to democracy we have, yet the government keeps trying to mess with it. The solution is to have a free-for-all in the ring and have just enough government to prevent corporations from climbing out of the ring. The more power you give the refs, the more the players try and corrupt them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Broken system
Capitalism is the closest thing to democracy we have, yet the government keeps trying to mess with it. The solution is to have a free-for-all in the ring and have just enough government to prevent corporations from climbing out of the ring. The more power you give the refs, the more the players try and corrupt them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, that's for presidents and congrecritters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correction: congresscritters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Since there are only 9 lines of codes in Andriod that match the Java APIs, out of millions of lines of codes - clearly that is not a significant portion of the work and is therefore not an issue of copyright.
This whole trial is bunk - lets move onto the patent portion that might actually have some merit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The quantity does not make it "clear" whether any copied portion is qualitatively significant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All I know is...
Now I'm afraid to start a side project in anything but C. Chilling effects? Check.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All I know is...
We'll open-source it and call it good.
Example code:
HAI
CAN HAS STDIO?
VISIBLE "HAI WORLD!"
KTHXBYE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All I know is...
C compilers infringe on the target's opcode set.
Besides, AT&T will one day soon reclaim C and demand several millinillion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_large_numbers gold-pressed latinum bars in unpaid licensing.
Copyright is The Antiprogress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't Google asking for a Mistrial?
Google won everything important except for infringement on SSO. (Structure, Sequence, Organization) It is up to the judge to rule on whether SSO is even protectable. It seems he is going to rule that it is not. Judge Alsup is also to rule on whether API's are even protectable by copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't Google asking for a Mistrial?
"The judge has stated, pending judgment as a matter of law, that there is "zero finding of copyright liability" other than the 9 lines of code to which Oracle's damages report attributes no value. A good day for Google overall."
-PJ on groklaw.net
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Jury Is Irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Jury Is Irrelevant.
If they are truly "arbitrary" then there is no question that they are not sufficiently "original" to warrant copyright protection. However, it is a factual question as to whether they are really arbitrary or the result of some modicum of intelligence/creativity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jury of Peers
Peers - person of the same age, status, or ability as another specified person
Focusing on the last part... same ability... how would Joe Average have ANY idea about programming, programming languages like Java, APIs, etc?
How can they legitimately be considered peers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jury of Peers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copying vs Infringement
It's the wrong decision, but only because the judge's order was itself drawing the wrong conclusion. At worst, Google's use of the Java APIs should be considered fair use. At best, the Java API's are merely labels used to describe particular operations which, as functional elements, should not be subject to copyright protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm as big a proponent as anyone for treating infringement/fair use as the yin/yang of copyright: if there's one, there's not the other.
However, it is clear here that the jury was being asked whether there is infringement apart from the issue of the fair use defense. Saying there is infringement without deciding fair use in that context is not at all inconsistent.
It is ironic that people start criticizing others for being confused when they have only a tenuous grasp on the process/terminology at issue themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Haven't you been paying attention?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No. It's that this jury came back with self-contradicting responses. That seems like a big issue and also shows confusion and befuddlement.
Did you not read the post?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The jury was asked to decide whether Oracle had proven that Google had infringed on Oracle's copyright in the Java API, assuming Structure, Sequence and Organization of an API can be copyrighted (the last part was an explicit instruction from the judge and a matter of law that the judge will decide, but did not want to do until after the trial). Pretty reasonably, given the judge's directions, the jury found that Google had infringed. As a secondary part of the same question, they were asked whether the infringement was excused by fair use. This was the issue the jury could not decide. Given the state of copyright law in the US and the judge's directions to the jury, there was nothing unreasonable or confused about the jury's finding. With all due respect, Mike, while perhaps your view is how a reasonable law OUGHT to be, you are the one who is confused (about how the law IS).
This is all explained fairly clearly within this Groklaw article: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120507122749740. You do have to hunt a bit for the explanation, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]