Oracle v. Google Not Over Yet: Oracle Seeks Another New Trial While Google Seeks Sanctions On Oracle's Lawyers
from the keep-trying-and-trying dept
As you probably remember, a jury decided in Google's favor after a somewhat wacky trial that its use of some of the Java APIs was considered fair use. Oracle, of course, isn't going down quietly. It immediately asked the judge, William Alsup, to reject the jury's verdict, which he refused to do. Everyone expects that Oracle will appeal this as high as it can go, though its chances aren't great.In the meantime, though, Oracle isn't done trying every possible door at the district court level. Last week it simply asked for a new trial in what I can only describe as Oracle's sour grapes motion. It starts out by claiming that "the verdict was against the weight of the evidence" and thus a new trial is necessary. And then it whines about a whole bunch of other issues, including Google's plans to use Android on computers, meaning that the "harm" portion of the trial was unfairly limited to just tablets and phones. It also whines about certain limitations and exclusions of information it was not allowed to present. These are purely "waaaaah, we lost, fix it, waaaaaah" kinds of arguments. The court also excluded lots of Google evidence as well, and Oracle may not really want to revisit some of that either. You can read the full document below or at the link above, but analyzing all of it is pretty silly. It's strictly a sour grapes argument that is unlikely to go anywhere.
At the same time, Oracle filed yet another motion for judgment as a matter of law... that also seems unlikely to go anywhere. Here, though, the argument is basically that the jury got fair use wrong. The argument here is pretty laughable. It goes through each of the four factors and argues why the jury got it wrong. Now, it's true, as some have argued, that a court can take the four fair use factors and basically come to any conclusion it wants, but it's hard to see Judge Alsup doing that here. It would be shocking to see him do so actually. And, rather than go through each argument, I'll just present the table of contents of Oracle's filing here so you can see how desperate the company is:
Meanwhile, on the flip side, Google is looking to punish Oracle's lawyers and asking for sanctions against them for revealing in open court sensitive information that had been sealed by the court.
On January 14, 2016, Oracle’s counsel Annette Hurst disclosed in open court representations of sensitive confidential financial information of both Google and third-party Apple Inc., as well as extremely confidential internal Google financial information.... After Ms. Hurst’s improper disclosures, Oracle and its counsel neither sought to remedy the effects of the disclosures nor acknowledged their wrongdoing. They instead refused to take responsibility for the disclosures, claimed they were inconsequential because Oracle hoped to use the information at trial (which it never did), and even argued that Google’s motion to seal the third party Apple information—which Judge Ryu subsequently granted,... —was “merely a delaying tactic.” ... Within days of the disclosures, and following Oracle’s failure to take remedial action, this information became headline news for major news outlets, at least one of which noted that, thanks to Ms. Hurst, the press could finally report on confidential information that had theretofore been only a subject of speculation.Disclosing confidential/sealed information in court is a pretty big deal, though I have no idea how the court will rule on this matter.
Oracle’s disclosures and its subsequent actions reveal a profound disregard for this Court’s Protective Order and for other parties’ confidential information. Google and third party Apple were harmed by Oracle’s counsel’s disclosure regarding the terms of a significant and confidential commercial agreement. Google believes it is important, both for this case and for other cases in this District, for the Court to make clear that Oracle’s counsel’s actions were improper, that Oracle’s excuses for the disclosures are invalid, and that Oracle’s failure, after the fact, to cooperate in remedying the disclosures was inconsistent with the Protective Order.
Either way, it's safe to say that there's little love lost between Google and Oracle (and their lawyers).
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: apis, copyright, fair use
Companies: google, oracle
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Oracle's legal team could use some help...
so let me be the first to suggest that they contact Turkish President Erdogan's crack legal staff -- because, as of a few hours ago, they're apparently no longer employed by the head of the Turkish state.Also, having Erdogan for a client is a probably a good warm-up for dealing with Ellison.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
*I* take comfort in the fact that the arguments for fair use would be similar in almost any case, as far as I see. They wouldn't apply only to too closely compatible software.
Now that you're asking though. A new trial on this and it alone should mean it goes to a circuit appeals court, not a federal circuit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Copyright was never meant to cover Ideas, or minimal formatting needed to ensure clear communications, which is all that Oracle was caliming as being copyrighted. Further Oracle tried to built a case on a use that the writers of Java, Sun, were happy to allow to proceed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oracle's filing is highly creative. Fantastic! As in, based on fantasy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Google used a complete re-implementation of Java from scratch. So none of Oracle's (actually Sun's) implementation code was copied. To the extent that API public function and other public member names were copied is strictly for compatibility purposes. The names could trivially be changed -- but must be kept the same for compatibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A layman might confuse the broader educational use exceptions (which do have the requirement of being non-commercial) with common fair use. But not a legal professional. Especially not a lawyer with an IP specialty. And most especially not a legal team that just spent years on a high profile, high dollar case.
This point is a bit of a hot button for me. Many years ago I was on a conference call with Sun (pre-Oracle) lawyers. They had used my code without permission / in violation of the license. One Sun lawyer tried to claim that their use fell under educational fair use, since they distributed my source code (modified for SolarisOS) and therefore it was used to educate people. They quickly backtracked when I pointedly asked if they wanted to stand on that claim with a commercial product. They were counting on a technical person not knowing the law and being able to bluff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, he rescued Sun. Butt hat's so that he could try and steal money from other major tech companies, and he thought Google was the loe-hanging fruit. Bear in mind that Oracle made a Java-based phone just before Android officially launched. And it was shit. I should know, I had one.
This is litigating out of pettiness and malice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pngtotext
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if wishes were fishes...
Course while I am wishing for more government efficiency and responsibility I might as well wish for an original photograph of Washington punching the British king as mentioned in the comments last week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oracle's legal team could use some help...
Also, having Erdogan for a client is a probably a good warm-up for dealing with Ellison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oracle's legal team could use some help...
Larry or Harlan?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe the rumours are true?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rich
Ass
Called
Larry
Ellison
[ link to this | view in chronology ]