Fair Use Key to Big Pay Day for Oracle
To get a big pay day from this case,
Oracle has to show that Google outright stole Java. And fair use is key to
that. The fair use doctrine has to be shot down in order for Oracle to show
that Google willfully infringed on its copyrights and patents. And with willful
infringement, Oracle would be eligible for triple damages from Google. Alsup
hinted that he believed evidence of willful infringement by Google was
strong earlier in the trial.
In a post about fair use from May 6, Florian Mueller,
an expert on technology patents who has been watching the case closely but who
also took a position as a consultant to Oracle, said:
Schwartz testified that Sun's Java
APIs were not considered proprietary, and Google attorneys pointed to a
Schwartz blog post lauding Google for developing Android. However, Scott
McNealy, the CEO of Sun prior to Schwartz, testified that Sun did indeed
consider its APIs proprietary.
"One concern within the Java
community is that the 'Java-like' language on Android in essence fragments the
Java market, and requires developers to understand the differences and nuances
between developing a Java application and developing one for Android,"
said Scott Sellers, CEO and founder of Azul Systems, which provides solutions
that optimize Java for the enterprise. "We believe in a single,
unified Java language and runtime and one which runs across all platforms, so
in this regard developers would simply like to see the real Java be supported
on Android."
Meanwhile, both parties issued
statements regarding the verdict. Oracle said: "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 enterpriseexcept Googlehas a license for Java and maintains
compatibility to run across all computing platforms."
For its part, Google said: "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."
As soon as the jury finished
entering its partial verdict on the copyright issue, Alsup moved directly to
the second phase of the trial to focus on patents. Phase three of the trial
will deal with damages.
The case, which was heard in federal
court in California, captivated the technology community for several weeks as
Oracle CEO Larry Ellison clashed with Google CEO Larry Page about what company,
if any, owns the rights to Javaone of the world's most widely used programming
languages. The trial also featured a parade of former Sun Microsystems
executives and detailed account of the creation of APIs used with the popular
Android mobile OS.
"It's important to recognize
that there are really two separate issues at hand herethe first is the issue
of programming APIs and whether they can be copyrighted," Azul's Sellers
said. "The second part of the litigation is Oracle's claim that Android
infringes on patents held by Sun/Oracle. On the second part of the litigation
and Oracle's patent infringement claims, it seems likely given the wealth of
patents Sun/Oracle holds in this area that Android infringes on some, and
ultimately comes down to how many dollars and business concessions need to be
exchanged to resolve the dispute. We are hopeful the outcome of the litigation
will benefit the Java community by maintaining a single, unified Java."
However, despite the greatest of
hopes and desires, it is clear that a jury can be unpredictable as evidenced by
the May 7 verdict.
"There's consensus among observers of the Oracle v. Google Android/Java trial that the jury has most likely identified infringements but hasn't yet reached unanimity on Google's 'fair use' defense. Google's counsel was initially opposed to a partial verdict, though it appears that he would now accept one. But he didn't want the judge to ask the jury foreman whether the vote on the remaining question was 'close.' Google can probably figure that the evidence for willful infringement and against 'fair use' is overwhelming, but [former Sun Microsystems CEO] Jonathan Schwartz' testimony might have had just enough of an effect that a minority of jurors doesn't want to consent to a finding that would be very likely to result in Google being found liable."








