Judge hands another win to Google; rules 37 APIs not copyrightable

Judge hands another win to Google; rules 37 APIs not copyrightable

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

TOPICS: Google

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

However, it's a narrow ruling that only covers the APIs at question in the copyright phase of this case.

See also: CNET: Judge William Alsup: Master of the court and Java

Oracle had sued Google over copyright infringement related to the use of 37 Java APIs used on the Android mobile operating system. Google argued they were free to use because the Java programming language is free to use, and the APIs are required to use the language. Oracle tried to make the case that Google had knowingly used the APIs without a license from Sun Microsystems, which was bought by Oracle in 2010.

In what was once touted as a $6 billion case, it now looks like Oracle is going to end up with not much more than a hefty legal bill. Last week, the jury ruled that Google was not guilty of patent infringement on both counts related to U.S. Patent Nos. RE38,104 and 6,061,520. Yesterday, Alsup rejected Oracle's motion to overturn the jury's verdict.

That's after the jury came back with a partial verdict in the copyrights phase of the trial a few weeks ago in which the then-12 jurors said that Google had infringed upon Oracle's copyrights -- but they could not come up with a unanimous answer on the question of fair use.

However, now Alsup has handed another win to Google by ruling that the 37 APIs weren't copyrightable in the first place. Here is the heart of the ruling:

So long as the specific code used to implement a method is different, anyone is free under the Copyright Act to write his or her own code to carry out exactly the same function or  specification of any methods used in the Java API. It does not matter that the declaration or method header lines are identical.

Under the rules of Java, they must be identical to declare a method specifying the same functionality — even when the implementation is different. When there is only one way to express an idea or function, then everyone is free to do so and no one can monopolize that  expression. And, while the Android method and class names could have been different from the names of their counterparts in Java and still have worked, copyright protection never extends to names or short phrases as a matter of law.

The key point to understand here is that Alsup's ruling only refers to the APIs in this lawsuit, and he is not handing down a broad ruling that would extend to all APIs in general.

"This order does not hold that Java API packages are free for all to use without license," Alsup wrote. "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."

Thus, that calls for two major decisions wrapped up: Oracle's copyright infringement claims against Google are dismissed, turning Google's motion for a retrial into a moot point.

Now the big question will be where Oracle heads from here: accept the U.S. District Court's decision or try to go for an appeal.

The latter seems like an incredible long shot given that it barely won on any counts from the jury on copyrights and absolutely nothing on patents.

The jury only gave Oracle the win on the nine lines of code involved in the rangeCheck method, and Alsup had previously said before Oracle could only hope for statutory damages -- a maximum of $150,000 -- at best on those. The court later tacked on the test files, but Oracle's efforts in this case will not result in the payday for which it originally hoped.

Yet Alsup nodded towards the possibility that Oracle will try again anyway, explaining in regards to rangeCheck and the test files that "this circumstance is so innocuous and overblown by Oracle that the actual facts, as found herein by the judge, will be set forth below for the benefit of the court of appeals."

Nevertheless, an appeal would still be extremely difficult considering that Alsup has tightly buttoned up this case as it related to the 37 Java APIs and Android only.

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.

Oracle also issued the following response:

Oracle is committed to the protection of Java as both a valuable development platform and a valuable intellectual property asset.  It will vigorously pursue an appeal of this decision in order to maintain that protection and to continue to support the broader Java community of over 9 million developers and countless law abiding enterprises. Google's implementation of the accused APIs is not a free pass, since a license has always been required for an implementation of the Java Specification. And the court's reliance on "interoperability" ignores the undisputed fact that Google deliberately eliminated interoperability between Android and all other Java platforms. Google's implementation intentionally fragmented Java and broke the "write once, run anywhere" promise. This ruling, if permitted to stand, would undermine the protection for innovation and invention in the United States and make it far more difficult to defend intellectual property rights against companies anywhere in the world that simply takes them as their own.

For a look at the Alsup's ruling in full, read through the document below.

Oracle v. Google: Order Regarding Copyrightability of APIs


Topic: Google

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • FOSSWrongPatents

    Poor Florian, he hs been proven wrong in ALL of his predictions in this case.
    • He won't quit

      So long as Microsoft and Oracle (and perhaps others) are paying him to trash-talk Google and all-things-Android, expect him to keep chirping no matter what the actual facts are.

      Knowing Boies/Schiller/Flexner, I fully expect them to appeal when you take a look at how long they tried to keep "The SCO Group" lawsuit going. SEVEN YEARS WITH NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE. Believe it.
      • Microsoft and Oracle (and perhaps others) are paying him

        to talk trash.
        Yes, that has to be it. It's not like anyone has their own opinion.

        But then, if that's the case and everyone is bought and paid for by MS and Google, then your response would prove what?

        Exactly, you are paid by Google to support them.

        How much is your Google check each week?
        William Farrel
      • There are far, far more lies than there are truths.

        There are far, [b]far[/b] more lies than there are truths - consider that a lie is [i]anything[/i] that is not true. So when a bunch of people start telling the same lie, then [b]yes[/b] you should ask whether they're connected.

        Although in FM's case, he has already [u]admitted[/u] to being on Oracle's payroll.
    • Yes, but how much was he paid to be so wrong?

      You could still argue this as a "win", if you value money more than truth.
  • Judge hands another win to Google; rules 37 APIs not copyrightable

    Congrats Google! One down! Let's move the fight to Seattle now!
    beau parisi
  • It's a Narrow Ruling, But If Appealed?

    All it will take is Oracle to spend Bazillions more in an appeal to the 9th Circuit and then a higher court could extend this ruling to all API's. That would by inclusion make all API SSO's Non-Copyrightable as well.

    But if Oracle was that stupid, they'd deserve spending even more Bazillions on legal fees, that were never won from Google in the first place.

    They would also most likely end up losing Bazillions more from another ensuing Share Holder lawsuit for buying Sun for the Bajillion Bazillion Monopoly Dollars it wasn't worth! ;-p

    btw... hey Larry? Just because you toss around Oracle Cash, as if it was Monopoly Money on Boies (attorneys) and your contradictory (Lying) Expert Witness, what makes you think you could win on appeal? If his Expert Lying couldn't help you win this case, that was destined to fly South from the get go!!! ^_*
    • I think thats why Alsup ruled only on specific API's

      If he ruled on ALL API's, then on appeal another judge could have ruled that he overstepped his bounds and thrown out his ruling.
      • Just one thing I don't like

        He used the word "steal" about code. Code can't be stolen (unless you count stealing the media it's stored on).
    • My wish for a million:

      Hey Larry, if you send me a few million $, I will put in a few good words for your cause.

  • Game, Set and Match to Google.

    Remember folks, hating Google and wanting Android to fail are not legal arguments.
    • True, and the same applies to MS

      Or M$.
      • Yes, that is true, but...

        it doesn't make M$ bashing any less fun!
  • I was always right

    oracle had no chance against FOSS! just like $co.
    The Linux Geek
    • Caldera and Sun

      SCO (renamed from Caldera) said it owned the one true Unix. This was wrong, thus Novell won its counter-suit after SCO sued Novell for disparaging its claim.

      Oracle does own java because it bought Sun.

      Maybe Oracle had no chance (which seems to be patently untrue because there was a trial and a specific opinion regarding the copyright claims Oracle had made, plus, Google was found to have infringed, albeit a few minor lines written by the same person first for Sun and then for Google, hardly the stuff of billions), but, if so, it was not just like SCO. SCO had no chance (though, again, a summary judgment that was remanded on appeals to have a jury decide facts) for different reasons.
      • Buying a company, with poor motives and unreal expectations!

        Company S makes cookies and gives both the cookies and the recipe away for free. (It is a good model for a charity, but how do you make money doing this?)

        Company O buys company S for bajillions of $, even though they already gave away the cookies and the recipe.

        Company O then tries to sue a third party for eating the cookies and using the recipe, even though they knew it was given away long before company O bought company S.

        Company O, in return for its unwise efforts, lost the case and spent even more bajillions of $ in legal fees.

        Good business strategy company O got there...
  • Hmmm

    "In what was once touted as a $6 billion case, it now looks like Oracle is going to end up with not much more than a hefty legal bill."

    //so it goes
    • I still predict...

      ...that Oracle will be awarded one dollar.

      I do expect them to appeal. I'm surprised that Larry Ellison hasn't badmouthed the judge; he must be biting his tongue hard.
      John L. Ries
      • Alsup

        Alsup would not take lightly Larry bad mouthing the court, in fact that be concept of court, and If I was judge I would order him to be take to jail to cool of for a few hours, with the 1 dollar gets from Google
      • Re; that Oracle will be awarded one dollar.

        How about 2 cents.
        Not [b] my [/b] cents though !