Goliath v Jury - Google's Use of Java APIs Fair Use, Says Jury

The fight between Google and Oracle over the Java platform, specially the API (Application programming interface) for the program and its copyright protection, has been raging for what feels like aeons. This blog has discussed the Court of Appeals (where Google was found to have infringed the code's copyright protection through verbatim copying into its Android operating system) decision some two years ago, but many have waited for the jury decision in the saga, which was handed down only a month ago.

By way of a short primer for those who have not followed the matter closely, the case dealt with 37 API packages released by Oracle (at the time Sun Microsystems) which pertained to its Java platform. Google sought to implement Java into its budding mobile operating system, Android, but both parties could not agree on a proper licencing arrangement. Nevertheless, Google implemented the APIs into its own platform, Dalvik, which consisted of 160 different APIs (of which 37 were Java APIs). Due their verbatim copying into the Dalvik platform, Oracle took Google to court, asserting copyright infringement.

After the earlier decision in various stages in the US judicial system, Google consistently lost and was deemed to have infringed the copyright in the APIs. The jury in this instance sought to look at whether Google's use amounted to fair use, and thus not infringing the rights in the works. This decision was hugely important, as Google faced damages totalling nearly $10 billion.

Blake couldn't contain himself at the thought of
unlimited, free APIs

Judge Alsup gave extensive instructions to the jury as to their assessment on fair use under US law. The jury decided the matter in three days, reaching a unanimous verdict of a finding of fair use by Google. One could argue against their finding of fair use, with Google's use not being prima facie very transformative (due to the verbatim copying of code); however, building the Android platform using the Java API did change it to something more than just Java. The judge also emphasised the fourth factor, the effect of the copying on the potential market for the work, which, in this writer's mind, could have been the linchpin for the jury's decision. Even though Java is implemented into many systems, it in itself is not an operating system, although its free incorporation into such clearly would impact on its potential market. The jury saw that Google's use was fair, and one can only wonder what persuaded them to reach the conclusion.

Although there is not much to discuss on the substantive side of the case, as is usual in this blog, the decision still is an important development in the world of technology and computer programming. As Google's statement on the win expresses: "Today's verdict that Android makes fair use of Java APIs 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". Arguably, Google does have a point. Java has become night ubiquitous in the computing sphere (although the emergence of HTML5 could, arguably, make it obsolete), and a lack of an ability to use the technology would severely hinder any attempts of building a popular, fleshed-out operating system. On the other side of the coin, this is a blow for reaping from what you've sown, and Oracle has a right to be upset with their loss (and incredibly monetary loss through unacquired licencing fees for the hugely popular Android platform).

Many in the software industry seem to welcome the decision, such as Al Hilwa, who saw that "... most developers would likely prefer not to be burdened by copyrights around APIs". This writer is puzzled with this response, since many programmers might not be so keen to share the fruits of their labor for free. Oracle have indicated that they will appeal the decision, and this writer keenly awaits any new developments in the never-ending story that is Oracle v Google.

Source: BBC News

Newegg Loses Patent Appeal

Patent trolls have been discussed, not only on this blog before, but all over the IP community in the last several years. Although steps are being taken to address this potential abuse of the patent system, until things are resolved these entities will still attempt to reap the benefits of their unused patents to make quick profits through settlement or litigation. One of the companies which has faced a wave of patent litigation of the past few years is the online retailer Newegg, having beaten Soverain, another patent troll company, on appeal after a tumultuous litigation process. It seems Newegg has yet to end its patent litigation chapter.

In the recent case against TQP Development, a company owned by Eric Spangenberg, Newegg faced a patent infringement case dealing with a patent invented by Michael Jones, which was since bought by TQP. The patent itself covers the usage of common encryption methods (SSL and RC4)  together to protect purchases online for example; although Mr. Jones did not invent the methods themselves.

This case is one which won't be fully cracked just yet

The jury in the case found that Newegg had indeed infringed the patent owned by TQP, awarding them with 2,3 million dollars in damages, and deciding that the patent held by the company was indeed valid. Although the decision has already rattled some cages, Newegg will without a doubt appeal the decision, as it has been their stance throughout all of their patent litigation history.

While the verdict itself is important, the motives behind litigation by not just TQP, but other similar companies as well, shows a blatant and open abuse of the current US patent system. The owner of  TQP Development Mr. Spangenberg openly states on his website for his company IPNav that he will "...[turn] idle IP assets into revenue streams", having sued a over 1600 companies in the last five years alone. Although clearly successful in his endeavors, Mr. Spangenberg's motives are highly questionable and only highlight a need for reform.

Newegg's Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng took to Reddit and gave encouraging words over the verdit and previous ones, clearly further affirming their intentions to appeal the decision. Whether things will go better for them further down the line will remain to be seen, but at least this writer is optimistic.

Source: Ars Technica