Oracle v. Google
|Oracle v. Google|
|Court||United States District Court for the Northern District of California|
|Full case name||Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc.|
|Judge(s) sitting||William Alsup|
Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc. is a United States District Court for the Northern District of California case on copyright and patent law. In May 2012 the jury in this case found that Google did not infringe on Oracle's patents, and the trial judge ruled that the structure of the Java APIs used by Google was not copyrightable. The parties agreed to zero dollars in statutory damages for a small amount of copied code.
Android, Inc. was founded in 2003 by Andy Rubin, Rich Miner, Nick Sears, and Chris White to develop a mobile phone platform. Google purchased Android in 2005 and continued developing the Android platform. Google released a beta of the Android platform on November 5, 2007, noting that it would use some Java technologies. Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz responded the same day, congratulating Google and saying they had "strapped another set of rockets to the community's momentum - and to the vision defining opportunity across our (and other) planets." Google released the Android software development kit (SDK) on November 12, 2007. Android included some of the APIs from Java SE. Google negotiated with Sun about possible partnership and licensing deals for Java, but no agreement was reached.
Oracle purchased Sun in January 2010, and continued developing Java. Oracle continued discussing a possible licensing deal, but an agreement again was not reached. Oracle sued Google for copyright and patent infringement in August 2010.
The case was assigned to Judge William Alsup, who split the case into three phases: copyright, patent, and damages.
The copyright phase consisted of several distinct claims of infringement: a nine-line rangeCheck function, several test files, the structure, sequence and organization of the Java Application Programming Interface (API), and the API documentation. Oracle alleged infringement of 37 Java packages. After extensive pre-trial briefing, this phase began on April 16, 2012. At the end of this phase, the jury ruled that the API was infringed, but deadlocked on Google's fair use defense for this claim. They also found that rangeCheck was infringed, but that neither the documentation nor the other literal code was.
The patent phase began on May 7 with the same jury. By the time of trial, Oracle's patent case comprised claims from two patents, 6061520 (Method and system for performing static initialization), and RE38104 (Method and apparatus for resolving data references in generated code). Google pursued a non-infringement defense. For the '520 patent, they argued that they were using parsing for optimizing static initialization, rather than "simulating execution" as the claim required. For the '104 patent, they argued that the instruction did not include a symbolic reference. The jury found non-infringement on all patent counts. As a result of these rulings and a stipulation, there was no jury damages phase. The parties agreed to zero dollars in statutory damages for a small amount of copied code.
The court upheld the jury verdict on rangeCheck, though it was described as "overblown". In response to a motion for a judgement as a matter of law, the court ruled that the other literally copied files also infringed, setting aside that portion of the jury verdict.
However, on the primary copyright issue of the APIs, the court ruled that "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." The ruling found that the structure Oracle was claiming was not copyrightable under section 102(b) of the Copyright Act because it was a "system or method of operation."
The court also drew on Baker v. Selden, Whelan v. Jaslow, Computer Associates v. Altai, Gates Rubber v. Bando Chemical Industries, Lotus v. Borland, Hutchins v. Zoll, Feist v. Rural, Johnson Controls v. Phoenix Control Systems, Brown Bag Software v. Symantec, Atari v. Nintendo, Sega v. Accolade, and Sony v. Connectix.
Based on reviewing this case history, the court noted that:
...the above summary of the development of the law reveals a trajectory in which enthusiasm for protection of "structure, sequence and organization" peaked in the 1980s, most notably in the Third Circuit’s Whelan decision. That phrase has not been re-used by the Ninth Circuit since Johnson Controls in 1989, a decision affirming preliminary injunction. Since then, the trend of the copyright decisions has been more cautious. This trend has been driven by fidelity to Section 102(b) and recognition of the danger of conferring a monopoly by copyright over what Congress expressly warned should be conferred only by patent. This is not to say that infringement of the structure, sequence and organization is a dead letter. To the contrary, it is not a dead letter. It is to say that the Whelan approach has given way to the Computer Associates approach, including in our own circuit. See Sega Enters., Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1525 (9th Cir. 1992); Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, 1445 (9th Cir. 1994).
- "Jury's Special Verdict Form Finding No Patent Infringement".
- Josh Lowensohn (May 23, 2012). "Jury clears Google of infringing on Oracle's patents". ZDNet. Retrieved 2012-05-25.
- Joe Mullin (May 31, 2012). "Google wins crucial API ruling, Oracle’s case decimated". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2012-06-01.
- Niccolai, James (June 20, 2012). "Oracle agrees to 'zero' damages in Google lawsuit, eyes appeal". Retrieved 2012-06-23.
- Jon Byous (April 2003). "Java Technology: The Early Years". Sun Microsystems. Archived from the original on May 30, 2008. Retrieved 2009-08-02.
- Vogelstein, Fred (April 2011). "How the Android Ecosystem Threatens the iPhone". Wired. Retrieved June 02, 2012.
- Elgin, Ben (August 17, 2005). "Google Buys Android for Its Mobile Arsenal". Bloomberg Businessweek. Bloomberg. Archived from the original on February 24, 2011. Retrieved 2012-02-20. "In what could be a key move in its nascent wireless strategy, Google (GOOG) has quietly acquired startup Android Inc. ..."
- "Google Launches Android, an Open Mobile Platform". Google Operating System. November 5, 2007.
- Helft, Miguel and John Markoff (November 6, 2007). "Google Is Pursuing Plans to Put a PC Into Every Pocket". The New York Times. Retrieved June 02, 2012.
- Schwartz, Jonathan (November 5, 2007). "Congratulations Google, Red Hat and the Java Community!". Sun Microsystems. Archived from the original on October 23, 2010. Retrieved June 01, 2012.
- "Google releases Android SDK". Macworld. November 12, 2007.
- "Order Re Copyrightability of Certain Replicated Elements of the Java Application Programming Interface". United States District Court for the Northern District of California/Groklaw. May 31, 2012. Retrieved June 02, 2012.
- "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Equitable Defenses". United States District Court for the Northern District of California/Groklaw. May 31, 2012. Retrieved June 02, 2012.
- Commission clears Oracle's proposed acquisition of Sun Microsystems
- "Oracle sues Google over Android". Reuters. August 13, 2010. Retrieved June 01, 2012.
- "Day 1 of Patent Phase in Oracle v. Google & Google Opp. Re Schwartz, as text". Groklaw. May 7, 2012. Retrieved June 01, 2012.
- US patent 6061520, Yellin, Frank & Tuck, Richard D, "Method and system for performing static initialization", issued 2000-05-09, assigned to Sun Microsystems and Oracle
- US Patent No. RE38104 , Gosling, James, "Method and apparatus for resolving data references in generated code", issued 2003-04-29, assigned to Sun Microsystems and Oracle
- "SECOND STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER REGARDING COPYRIGHT DAMAGES". United States District Court for the Northern District of California/Groklaw. Retrieved 2012-06-23.
- Jones, Pamela (October 5, 2012). "Oracle and Google File Appeals". Groklaw. Retrieved November 17, 2012.