AfterDawn: Tech news

Google's Android infringes Oracle copyrights, says Jury

Written by James Delahunty (Google+) @ 07 May 2012 15:17 User comments (7)

Google's Android infringes Oracle copyrights, says Jury Google plans to move for a mistrial after Jury fails to answer fair use question.
The case is being watched closely by Silicon Valley, as Oracle accuses Google of infringing copyrights it holds related to the Java programming tools it provides.

A federal jury on Monday found that elements of the Android operating system infringed on technology from Java, a platform bought by Oracle only two years ago. Google had questioned whether Oracle's copyrights were even valid, and that it should be excused under fair use principles, as it only used parts of Java that have always been freely available.

Oracle is seeking over $1 billion in damages from the search giant, but the Jury's failure to determine whether Google's actions were legally protected fair use comes as a major blow to Oracle's prospects of securing such high damages.

The Jury did not reach an agreement on Google's fair use defence, prompting a Google attorney to inform U.S. District Judge William Alsup that he will move for a mistrial on the issue of the APIs. Judge Alsup ordered both sides to prepare detailed arguments on that motion, which he will consider at a later date.

The Jury now must also examine claims of patent infringement brought against Google by Oracle, claiming that Android violates two Java patents.

Alsup is set to make ruling over the coming days which will determine whether Oracle can proceed to seek substantial copyright damages from Google.

Tags: Oracle Google

More news

Previous Next

Related news

 

7 user comments

17.5.2012 17:00

Proving once again the jury don't know shit... Unless you get a jury of eggheads in there that are at least cognizant of how the technology works & then how the politics of the software is implied, none of this stuff will get solved fairly.

I'm not going to vote for either side on this one, but it seems to me if there's a mistrial Oracle may be in the wrong.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 07 May 2012 @ 17:01

27.5.2012 17:12
SmaryJerry
Unverified new user

So... they basically judged nothing so far.. no judgement ont he fair use and no judgement on the actual amount of damages (google claism they only ever made 500 million so there is no way Oracles share is 1 billion)... Why is a jury deciding this case anyway.. I thought civil cases were tried by judges only..

37.5.2012 17:34

Originally posted by SmaryJerry:
So... they basically judged nothing so far.. no judgement ont he fair use and no judgement on the actual amount of damages (google claism they only ever made 500 million so there is no way Oracles share is 1 billion)... Why is a jury deciding this case anyway.. I thought civil cases were tried by judges only..
One, they don't know how to to 'rule'. The 'judging' comes from the old boy with the attitude wearing the robes behind the foreboding desk. All the jury is supposed to do is make sense of what is basically a coin toss set of arguments & apparently they can't do that.

That's why the 'judge' is already "judging"/"motioning", because only a judge can do that, for a mistrial on a portion of the trial - so far.

Google is basically "to hell with that" because Oracle's whole case is hinged on the 'fair use' contingency. if the jury can't understand fair use & that's grounds for a mistrial, then the whole damned thing is a mistrial. I tend to agree with Google.

And no, this is another patent/copyright case which falls outside the confines of civil court because they're looking to set a new president. Thus the need for a jury, but they've complicated matters so much nobody understands a damned thing. Probably even the judge.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 07 May 2012 @ 17:35

47.5.2012 23:49

Originally posted by SmaryJerry:
So... they basically judged nothing so far.. no judgement ont he fair use and no judgement on the actual amount of damages (google claism they only ever made 500 million so there is no way Oracles share is 1 billion)... Why is a jury deciding this case anyway.. I thought civil cases were tried by judges only..
A judge will rule on a case when no question of fact is present or information during trial comes to light that by statute or precedent requires a specific verdict. When you file a case in civil court the plaintiff files a complaint and the defendant an answer. If both parties in these documents concede that no question of fact exists summary judgment or directed verdict will be granted; otherwise it goes to a jury.

As far as the damage claim goes, just because Google themselves didn't make $1 billion it doesn't necessarily mean Google isn't responsible for it.

Edit: A question of fact does not equate to a question of law.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 07 May 2012 @ 23:55

58.5.2012 15:21

Originally posted by Azuran:
...
As far as the damage claim goes, just because Google themselves didn't make $1 billion it doesn't necessarily mean Google isn't responsible for it.


...I am curious how that math adds up...How did Oracle "lose" 1 billion...
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 08 May 2012 @ 16:02

68.5.2012 16:48

No, Oracle wants as much money as they can get their grubby lil' cancerous paws on. God damn everybody else.

78.5.2012 22:23

Originally posted by cyprusrom:

...I am curious how that math adds up...How did Oracle "lose" 1 billion...
Many a dissertation have been written on the economic consequences of patent infringement and most seem to agree that it comes down to lost opportunities of licensing and/or loss of market share. I read the complaint and the big thing that sticks out is...

Quote:
Trebling of damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 in view of the willful and deliberate
nature of Google’s infringement of the patents at issue in this litigation;


So whatever Oracle estimated it's losses at are tripled. Add on attorney fees etc...


Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive