Jury Finds Google Innocent of Java Patent Infringement
May 23, 2012 3:53 PM
comment(s) - last by
(Source: LucasFilm, Ltd.)
Oracle gambit is dashed by failure
A note to Google Inc.'s (
) legal enemies (and there are many) -- Google may seem soft-hearted and overly idealistic in its public persona, but in the court room it has more in common with Jason Statham than frosted pastries and cutesy robots.
I. Patent Infringement? "Not Guilty"
Oracle Corp. (
) learned that the hard way in
U.S. Federal District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco) today when a jury rejected its arguments and found Google innocent [
] in every case of alleged patent infringement.
It took the jury a bit over a week to deliberate and reach a verdict in the patent phase of the case. That same jury already
handed a Google a major early win
, finding it only violated one of the many copyrights Oracle accused it of, and further was deadlocked on whether Oracle conclusively established the inapplicability of fair use rules. Hence the jury only ruled Google guilty of minor copyright infringement, and could not decide whether that infringement was acceptable under Fair Use law, hence they essentially found no guilt by Google in the copyright infringement portion.
Google's peachy position was only slightly marred by presiding
Judge William Alsup
's decision that Google also violated copyrights on eight Java test files. Still, all and all Google escaped relatively scott-free from the copyright portion.
Now it has a resounding victory in the patent portion to accompany it. Of the two patents --
U.S. Patent RE38,104
-- jurors found that Google did not infringe on a single on of the 8 asserted claims.
As with the copyright phase, the case now goes before Judge Alsup for an official review. There may be minor modifications, but Judge Alsup's ruling in the copyright phase was fairly close to the jury's so it would be somewhat surprising to seem him diverge substantially in the patent phase.
II. Copyright Infringement Damages Shaping up to be Minimal, as Well
As to the copyright infringements (the RangeCheck and eight test files), the validity of those copyright is in question as there's a debate over whether Oracle should have been allowed to copyright the structure, sequence, and organization (SSO) of the Java code.
Given that the rest of the copyright phase has wrapped up, Google and Oracle have reached an agreement. If the SSO is found to be valid, all three copyright infringement counts will be bundled together in a new trial. In the new trial, the jury would be informed that SSO copyrights were not covered by copyright law. This would make the jury even less likely, in theory, to find Google guilty of any infringement than the minimal infringement findings by the current jury, who operated under the assumption that copyright laws protected SSO-style works.
If the judge finds that copyright laws
protect such works -- the best case for Oracle -- Oracle will receive at most $150,000 USD per infringement, along with Google being banned from using that code. Neither punishment would be very damaging to Google (9 infringements x $150K USD = $1.35M USD) given the ease by which Google could implement workarounds in its
Java virtual machine
Judge Alsup is taking the next couple days off for personal reasons, but a decision on the patent phase (based on the jury's findings of Google's complete innocence) and the final ruling on the SSO issue are expected from him within a couple weeks.
Whatever that decision is, it's already fairly clear that Google will at most have minor workaround work ahead of it, and be obliged to pay at most a couple million dollars. That's wildly different from the billions of dollars in punitive damages Oracle had sought originally. It's even far 0.65 percent of Android revenue and $2.8M USD in a lump cash sum that Google was
willing to offer Oracle in the settlement phase
Google has been a mean machine, trashing foes in court. [Image Source: ZuperDZigh]
Therein lies the bitter irony for Oracle. It called Google's proposed settlement a "low ball" figure that undervalued its intellectual property. But in the end, it may wind up receiving far less because it
took the case to a trial by jury
. Of course, that's the risk one takes when they opt not to settle. And that's the risk anyone takes when they take on Google's legal team.
After all, Oracle is hardly the first "victim" of Google's sophisticated legal unit. Viacom, Inc. (
) can attest to that, after its lawyers
after Google revealed that Viacom employees had uploaded infringed content to Google's YouTube in
an apparent attempt to frame the internet firm
. Moral of the story -- don't mess with Google -- or if you do, come ready for a fight.
This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
RE: 9 Infringements?
5/26/2012 11:17:40 PM
I don't think it is considered 9 infringements, but I guess Jason meant that was the maximum it could be considered. Of course, I guess you could count by ascii char...
Frankly, I think it is clear the function was copied, but it is a tiny function, and the question is, who copied it from whom? Was it original when Sun wrote it? Probably not.
That code is so trivial, it could have been duplicated in a matter of minutes. But even such a simple function would be written 10 different ways by 10 different people. I guess the argument would be, if it's so simple, why did they copy it? The answer, I believe, was it was the same programmer.
"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation
Deadlocked Jury Shifts Momentum from Oracle to Google in Android Java Trial
May 7, 2012, 9:52 PM
Android OS in the Hot Seat as Oracle v. Google Legal Battle Kicks Off Today
April 16, 2012, 4:00 PM
Oracle Rejects Google's Settlement Offer, Aims for Android Ban in Trial
April 3, 2012, 6:39 PM
Google, YouTube Win in Viacom Suit
June 24, 2010, 10:08 AM
Report: Android 2.2 to Bring Faster Apps, Flash 10.1, and Better 3D
April 22, 2010, 12:28 PM
New Qi Version 1.2 Allows Wireless Charging From 2 Inches Away
July 31, 2014, 3:53 PM
HTC J Butterfly Announced by Japan's KDDI, Packs LTE-A Carrier Aggregation
July 31, 2014, 2:34 PM
T-Mobile Subscriber Numbers Surpass 50 Million, Sees Q2 Profit of $391M
July 31, 2014, 12:24 PM
Verizon Wireless Launches 5.7", 960x540 LG G Vista Smartphone for $400 Off Contract
July 31, 2014, 11:02 AM
Mini-Me: Xperia Z3's Petite Companion, Xperia Z3 Mini Leaks
July 31, 2014, 9:40 AM
Samsung Reports Lower Smartphone Sales, Operating Profit Falls 25% YoY
July 31, 2014, 8:55 AM
Most Popular Articles
Facebook Will Force Android, iOS Users to Use Messenger App This Week
July 29, 2014, 11:26 AM
Sony's Xperia Z3 Gets Detailed in Leaked Photos
July 25, 2014, 2:30 PM
Ford's Extensive Use of Aluminum in '15 F-150 Results in $395 Increase for Base Models
July 28, 2014, 3:02 PM
Pentagon's Priciest Project, F-35, Misses International Debut
July 25, 2014, 10:18 AM
T-Mobile CEO John Legere is on the Warpath Again; Introduces $100, 10GB Family Plan
July 28, 2014, 10:12 AM
Latest Blog Posts
Space Terrorism is a Looming Threat For the United States
Apr 23, 2014, 7:47 PM
Facebook Aims to Provide Internet to "Every Person in the World" with Drones, Satellites
Apr 1, 2014, 10:20 AM
Retail Mobile Sites Experience Outages in Light of Simplexity's Bankruptcy
Mar 14, 2014, 8:48 AM
Tesla vs. BMW: Who Has the Safer EV?
Feb 1, 2014, 2:56 PM
Justice Leaks Details of Next HTC One Two Flagship Phone
Dec 5, 2013, 4:04 PM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information