This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/technology/google-oracle-copyright-code.html
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Google Prevails as Jury Rebuffs Oracle in Code Copyright Case | Google Prevails as Jury Rebuffs Oracle in Code Copyright Case |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| A jury ruled in favor of Google on Thursday in a long-running legal dispute with Oracle over software used to power most of the world’s smartphones. | A jury ruled in favor of Google on Thursday in a long-running legal dispute with Oracle over software used to power most of the world’s smartphones. |
| Oracle contended that Google used copyrighted material in 11,000 of its 13 million lines of software code in Android, its mobile phone operating system, and asked for $9 billion from Google. Google said it made fair use of that code and owed nothing. | Oracle contended that Google used copyrighted material in 11,000 of its 13 million lines of software code in Android, its mobile phone operating system, and asked for $9 billion from Google. Google said it made fair use of that code and owed nothing. |
| The victory for Google will cheer many other software developers, who operate much the way Google did when it comes to so-called open-source software. Unlike the traditional software created by corporations and tightly held, open-source products are released, often with some restrictions, for anyone to use and modify. | The victory for Google will cheer many other software developers, who operate much the way Google did when it comes to so-called open-source software. Unlike the traditional software created by corporations and tightly held, open-source products are released, often with some restrictions, for anyone to use and modify. |
| The decision, delivered in United States District Court in San Francisco, means that for now Oracle cannot collect anything from Google’s use of Android. | The decision, delivered in United States District Court in San Francisco, means that for now Oracle cannot collect anything from Google’s use of Android. |
| Android relies in part on Java software, an open-source language that Oracle acquired when it bought Sun Microsystems for $7.4 billion in 2010. Oracle argued that Google executives violated Oracle’s copyright by using aspects of Java without permission. | Android relies in part on Java software, an open-source language that Oracle acquired when it bought Sun Microsystems for $7.4 billion in 2010. Oracle argued that Google executives violated Oracle’s copyright by using aspects of Java without permission. |
| William Fitzgerald, a Google spokesman, said in a statement that the verdict “represents a win for the Android ecosystem, for the Java programming community, and for software developers who rely on open and free programming languages to build innovative consumer products.” | William Fitzgerald, a Google spokesman, said in a statement that the verdict “represents a win for the Android ecosystem, for the Java programming community, and for software developers who rely on open and free programming languages to build innovative consumer products.” |
| Dorian Daley, Oracle’s general counsel, said the company planned to appeal the verdict. “We strongly believe that Google developed Android by illegally copying core Java technology to rush into the mobile device market,” she said in a statement. “Oracle brought this lawsuit to put a stop to Google’s illegal behavior.” | Dorian Daley, Oracle’s general counsel, said the company planned to appeal the verdict. “We strongly believe that Google developed Android by illegally copying core Java technology to rush into the mobile device market,” she said in a statement. “Oracle brought this lawsuit to put a stop to Google’s illegal behavior.” |
| The courtroom fight is something of a watershed for technology. “It is the first significant look at copyright in software since Lotus v. Borland, in 1996,” said Pamela Samuelson, a professor at the School of Law and School of Information at the University of California, Berkeley. | The courtroom fight is something of a watershed for technology. “It is the first significant look at copyright in software since Lotus v. Borland, in 1996,” said Pamela Samuelson, a professor at the School of Law and School of Information at the University of California, Berkeley. |
| That earlier case was settled long before the widespread use of open-source software, which became the heart of Google v. Oracle. | That earlier case was settled long before the widespread use of open-source software, which became the heart of Google v. Oracle. |
| While there is an expectation in open-source projects that the software tweaks of others will be given back to the community working on the software, open source often requires a license as well. | While there is an expectation in open-source projects that the software tweaks of others will be given back to the community working on the software, open source often requires a license as well. |
| Eric E. Schmidt, executive chairman of Alphabet, Google’s parent company, testified in court that Sun knew Google was using Java and approved of that use even though Google did not obtain a license. Jonathan Schwartz, who was chief executive of Sun before Oracle bought it, backed up that view, and a blog post he wrote praising Android was a major piece of evidence in the trial. | Eric E. Schmidt, executive chairman of Alphabet, Google’s parent company, testified in court that Sun knew Google was using Java and approved of that use even though Google did not obtain a license. Jonathan Schwartz, who was chief executive of Sun before Oracle bought it, backed up that view, and a blog post he wrote praising Android was a major piece of evidence in the trial. |
| Oracle provided a convoluted series of emails and meeting documents that went against that view, suggesting that Larry Page, co-founder of Google and chief executive of Alphabet, had pressed the Android team to develop the product quickly. Mr. Page denied this on the stand. | Oracle provided a convoluted series of emails and meeting documents that went against that view, suggesting that Larry Page, co-founder of Google and chief executive of Alphabet, had pressed the Android team to develop the product quickly. Mr. Page denied this on the stand. |
| From the start, this was the trial neither side intended. Oracle first sued Google, accusing it of patent and copyright violations in Android, in 2010. The outcome of that case, which was decided in 2012, was largely favorable to Google. | From the start, this was the trial neither side intended. Oracle first sued Google, accusing it of patent and copyright violations in Android, in 2010. The outcome of that case, which was decided in 2012, was largely favorable to Google. |
| But in 2014, a federal appeals court found that certain parts of Java were protected by copyright, providing Oracle with fresh ammunition. When the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of that decision last year, the case was sent back to the lower courts to hear the copyright aspect of the case again. | But in 2014, a federal appeals court found that certain parts of Java were protected by copyright, providing Oracle with fresh ammunition. When the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of that decision last year, the case was sent back to the lower courts to hear the copyright aspect of the case again. |
| The particular areas of copyright protection in Java involved the so-called declaring code in Application Programming Interfaces, or A.P.I.s., which have become the common way that networked programs on the Internet share data. | The particular areas of copyright protection in Java involved the so-called declaring code in Application Programming Interfaces, or A.P.I.s., which have become the common way that networked programs on the Internet share data. |
| Declaring code establishes standards and meanings by which future lines of software, the actual effects the software seeks to create, will operate. This distinction compelled the 10 jurors — eight women and two men — to understand extensive testimony by engineers and economists about the nature of code, and the copyrightable implications of this type of creativity. | Declaring code establishes standards and meanings by which future lines of software, the actual effects the software seeks to create, will operate. This distinction compelled the 10 jurors — eight women and two men — to understand extensive testimony by engineers and economists about the nature of code, and the copyrightable implications of this type of creativity. |
| In addition to weighing an extended dispute over software copyright, the trial offered spectators a rare look at Silicon Valley history. Not only did Mr. Schmidt work at Sun and Google, he sat on the board of Apple when Apple was developing the iPhone, leading him to testify that he had recused himself from board discussions about the iPhone when it was clear Android would be a competing product. | In addition to weighing an extended dispute over software copyright, the trial offered spectators a rare look at Silicon Valley history. Not only did Mr. Schmidt work at Sun and Google, he sat on the board of Apple when Apple was developing the iPhone, leading him to testify that he had recused himself from board discussions about the iPhone when it was clear Android would be a competing product. |
| Andy Rubin, who led the Android project at Google, worked at Apple early in his career and later developed a type of multifunction phone, which had a Java license. Oracle’s executive chairman, Lawrence J. Ellison, who appeared in video testimony, was friends with Steve Jobs, who led development of the iPhone, and Scott McNealy, a co-founder and the chief executive of Sun before Mr. Schwartz. | Andy Rubin, who led the Android project at Google, worked at Apple early in his career and later developed a type of multifunction phone, which had a Java license. Oracle’s executive chairman, Lawrence J. Ellison, who appeared in video testimony, was friends with Steve Jobs, who led development of the iPhone, and Scott McNealy, a co-founder and the chief executive of Sun before Mr. Schwartz. |
| While the jury may now rest, the court fight probably will continue. Ms. Samuelson said the case could go to the Supreme Court, though it was unclear whether the court would rule definitively on copyright. “They don’t usually like to go against what the appeals court established,” she said. |