Google infringed Oracle's copyrighted Java APIs when it created its Android operating system, a jury in San Francisco decided on Monday. But Google did not violate Oracle's Java documentation copyrights, the jury found.
Delivering a partial verdict after more than four days of deliberation, the jury could not agree on whether Google's use of Oracle's APIs was defensible as fair use.

Here's how Oracle's legal team graphically depicted the issue to the jury:

The test for whether infringement is allowable as fair use depends on the purpose of the copying, the creativity of the copied work, the quality and quantity of copying, and the effect the copy has on the market for the original.

In response to the incompleteness of the jury's ruling, Google moved for a mistrial. The judge hearing the case, William Alsup, will consider Google's argument in support of its motion later this week.

The trial, pending since last August when Oracle filed its lawsuit against Google, began in mid-April and is expected to continue through May: Oracle's two patent claims have yet to be considered. Oracle initially sought $1 billion in damages. Presently, it appears Oracle is unlikely to win any more than $100 million, even if it prevails in its patent claims.

Google's copyright infringement--nine lines of code in the rangeCheck method in TimSort.java and ComparableTimSort.Java, code since excised from Android--may not by itself be enough for Oracle to win significant damages. After the jury delivered its verdict and left the room temporarily, Judge Alsup rejected Oracle counsel David Boies's claim for "infringer's profits" from the nine copied lines as "bordering on the ridiculous." The amount of any penalty imposed on Google won't be known until the conclusion of the patent phase of the trial, which began on Monday immediately following the partial verdict.
[ What is the possible fallout for developers from this case? Read Oracle And The End Of Programming As We Know It . ]

Judge Alsup has also indicated that he will rule on whether APIs can be copyrighted if infringement has been found. Google insists APIs cannot be copyrighted and a recent EU court decision supports that view. Last week, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd. that neither the functionality of computer program nor the format of its data files are expressive enough to merit copyright protection.

"We appreciate the jury's efforts, and know that fair use and infringement are two sides of the same coin," Google said in an emailed statement. "The core issue is whether the APIs here are copyrightable, and that's for the court to decide. We expect to prevail on this issue and Oracle's other claims."

Oracle also thanked the jury for its service in a statement that cast Google as a license scofflaw. "The overwhelming evidence demonstrated that Google knew it needed a license and that its unauthorized fork of Java in Android shattered Java's central write once run anywhere principle," the company said. "Every major commercial enterprise--except Google--has a license for Java and maintains compatibility to run across all computing platforms."

The infringement ruling comes at a time when Google faces the imminent possibility of formal antitrust investigations of its search business in the U.S, Europe, Asia, and South America.

Google:

We appreciate the jury's efforts, and know that fair use and infringement are two sides of the same coin. The core issue is whether the APIs here are copyrightable, and that's for the court to decide. We expect to prevail on this issue and Oracle's other claims.

Oracle:

Oracle, the nine million Java developers, and the entire Java community thank the jury for their verdict in this phase of the case. The overwhelming evidence demonstrated that Google knew it needed a license and that its unauthorized fork of Java in Android shattered Java's central write once run anywhere principle. Every major commercial enterprise -- except Google -- has a license for Java and maintains compatibility to run across all computing platforms.

From the Courtroom: Oracle v. Google, Day 1 of Patent Phase ~pj - Updated 7Xs- Partial Verdict; Oracle Wins Nothing That Matters

Monday, May 07 2012 @ 12:27 PM EDT

Our reporter is in the courtroom today, you'll be happy to know. And we have his first report. So far, there has been oral argument on the pretrial motions. But keep on stopping by, as we'll be covering the whole day, including a partial or total verdict from the jury on phase one.
Mark has all the motions they are arging about and all other weekend filings as PDFs here, so you can follow along.

If you recall, the trial has been split up into three parts. The copyright phase is ended, with the jury trying to reach a unanimous verdict. So they are beginning the patent phase, and that means more motions in limine, arguing about who can testify and what they are allowed to say in front of the jury.

[ Recap of the day: Google won everything but the one issue that the judge has to decide anyway, the API SSO issue. The jury found, as they had been instructed to assume for the purposes of deliberation, that APIs can be copyrighted, the structure, sequence and arrangement of APIs, but that is by no means established. The same question, in a b) section, asked if fair use excused any infringement if found, and the jury couldn't resolve that issue. But the judge has to decide whether or not that is true, that APIs can be protected by copyright. That comes later this month. Meanwhile, Oracle prevailed only on 9 lines of code that Google admitted prior to trial to have included by mistake and then removed from current Android. Oracle's own expert, the judge pointed out in court, valued those 9 lines of code at zero. This is 9 lines out of millions. So that means, if we are looking at damages, that so far Oracle has won nothing. There is no liability. You can't have infringement without considering fair use, Google asserts, and there will be briefing on that. Somebody has to decide that fair use issue. And then the judge has to decide about the API copyrightability issue. If he rules that APIs can't be copyrighted, as the EU Court of Justice just ruled, then fair use is moot. And Oracle takes nothing at all from the copyright phase of this litigation, and this was heralded far and wide by Oracle people as the big ticket item, if you recall.

Don't let anyone fool you. Today was a major victory for Google. That's why after the jury left, our reporter says that Google's table was laughing, and Oracle's mighty glum. And I see some journalists are surprised or confused, because they have been listening to a steady flow of Oracle FUD from the wrong people. Remember the headlines about this being a $6 billion dollar case? It never was and now it never will be. Oracle attorney Michael Jacobs was reported to have visited the press room at the courthouse during the trial for a talk with the gathered journalists. So did a PR person from his firm. I mean, come on, fellas. And that doesn't even count the huge stream of misinformation from ... well, you know. And look at the outcome. Not what you were told to expect, is it? Live and learn, y'all. Live and learn. If a person is paid by Oracle, why would you take it as necessarily so? And here's why the API decision matters so much.]

A federal jury has found that Google did not infringe on Oracle patents in building its Android mobile operating system.

As part of its lawsuit against Google, Oracle had argued that in creating the Dalvik virtual machine — the software platform that runs Java applications on Android — the search giant knowingly lifted intellectual property involving two Java-related patents that Oracle acquired with its purchase of Sun Microsystems. But on Wednesday morning, the jury dismissed Oracle’s claims.

Oracle purchased Sun, the creator of the Java programming language in August of 2010, and it filed suit against Google the following August, claiming both patent and copyright infringement. Initially, Oracle asserted seven patents, but
after various rulings by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the judge overseeing the case, that number was whittled down to two by the time the jury heard the claims in court.

The two patents — U.S. Patents 6,061,520 and RE38,104, aka ’520 and ’104 — cover ways of accelerating the software compilation, i.e. the process of turning raw code into executable applications.

Oracle made six different claims of infringement involving the ’104 patent and two claims related to the ’520 patent, and the jury unanimously dismissed all the claims. “Today’s jury verdict that Android does not infringe Oracle’s patents was a victory not just for Google but the entire Android ecosystem,” read a statement from Google.

Oracle indicated it will continue to push its case. “Oracle presented overwhelming evidence at trial that Google knew it would fragment and damage Java,” read a statement from the company. “We plan to continue to defend and uphold Java’s core write once run anywhere principle and ensure it is protected for the nine million Java developers and the community that depend on Java compatibility.”


The verdict concluded the “patent phase” of the trial. Previously, the jury returned a partial decision on Oracle’s claims of copyright infringement, deciding that Google had infringe in some cases but failing to reach a verdict on the biggest issue in the case: whether or not Google had infringed in cloning 37 Java APIs, or applications programming interfaces.

Patent ’104 — which describes a “method and apparatus for resolving data references in generated code” — was the more important of the two patents at issue. Oracle’s case revolved around the term “symbolic reference” and how Dalvik uses a piece of software called a dx tool to convert Java programming code into executable software, known as .dex files.

The patent details a means of compiling software code in which data is tagged with “symbolic references” rather than numeric memory locations. Oracle argued that in compiling code, Dalvik uses symbolic references. Google said it does not.

The ’520 patent — which received far less attention during the trial — describes a “method and system for performing static initialization.” In short, it covers a way of consolidating classes of files so that virtual machines can execute less code than they otherwise would. Oracle claimed that Google uses simulated execution with Dalvik, while Google said it doesn’t simulate but merely parses files.

At the conclusion of the verdict, Judge Alsup thanked the jury for its time, saying this was the longest civil trial he’d seen in his 13 years on the bench. The trial started on Apr. 16. Then he dismissed the 10 remaining jurors from the case.

Though the jury has been dismissed, the core issue in the trial is still undecided. Judge William Alsup will rule himself on whether the Java APIs are subject to copyright, and he expects to do so sometime next week.

I have done, and still do, a significant amount of programming in other languages. I've written blocks of code like rangeCheck a hundred times before. I could do it, you could do it. The idea that someone would copy that when they could do it themselves just as fast, it was an accident. There's no way you could say that was speeding them along to the marketplace. You're one of the best lawyers in America, how could you even make that kind of argument?

rangeCheck! All it does is make sure the numbers you're inputting are within a range, and gives them some sort of exceptional treatment. That witness, when he said a high school student could do it--

In a ruling in the Oracle vs. Google case, a district court judge says 37 of Oracle's APIs are not copyrightable.

by Rachel King and Josh Lowensohn May 31, 2012 2:07 PM PDT


The structure, sequence and organization of the 37 Java APIs at question in the Oracle v. Google case are not copyrightable, Judge William Alsup said in a ruling on Thursday afternoon.

Google has already issued the following statement:


The court's decision upholds the principle that open and interoperable computer languages form an essential basis for software development. It's a good day for collaboration and innovation.


According to the ruling, this order does not mean that Java API packages can be used without a license (emphasis ours):


This order does not hold that Java API packages are free for all to use without license. It does not hold that the structure, sequence and organization of all computer programs may be stolen. Rather, it holds on the specific facts of this case, the particular elements replicated by Google were free for all to use under the Copyright Act. Therefore, Oracle's claim based on Google's copying of the 37 API packages, including their structure, sequence and organization is DISMISSED. To the extent stated herein, Google's Rule 50 motions regarding copyrightability are GRANTED (Dkt. Nos. 984, 1007). Google's motion for a new trial on copyright infringement is DENIED AS MOOT (Dkt. No. 1105).


The decision follows a separate ruling made last week that Google was not infringing on two of Oracle's patents, which had also been brought up in the original complaint.

Here's a full copy of the ruling:
Oracle v. Google -- Judge rules APIs not copyrightable