Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc.
|Oracle v. Google|
|Court||United States District Court for the Northern District of California|
|Full case name||Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc.|
|Argued||April 16, 2012|
|Judge(s) sitting||William Haskell Alsup|
Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc. is a dispute related to Oracle's copyright and patent claims on Google's Android operating system. 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. On May 9, 2014, the Federal Circuit partially reversed the district court ruling, ruling in Oracle's favor on the copyrightability issue, and remanding the issue of fair use to the district court. A petition for certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court on June 29, 2015. A second trial began May 9, 2016, in which Oracle sought US$8.8 billion in damages. On May 26, 2016, the trial jury sided in favor of Google, ruling the action to be fair use.
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 operating system. 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. Amongst other APIs, Android included Apache Harmony implementations of some of the APIs from the Java SE specification. 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 separate Java APIs. 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, 2012 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 6061520 patent, they argued that they were using parsing for optimizing static initialization, rather than "simulating execution" as the claim required. For the RE38104 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's decision was published on May 31, 2012. It upheld the jury verdict on rangeCheck, though it was described as "overblown". In response to a motion for a judgment 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 Corp., 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).
Oracle appealed to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, and Google filed a cross-appeal on the literal copying claim. The hearing was held on December 4, 2013, and the judgment was released on May 9, 2014.
The court noted that Copyright Act provides protection to "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression" (p. 17). The legislative history explains that literary works include "computer programs to the extent that they incorporate authorship in the programmer's expression of original ideas, as distinguished from the ideas themselves" (p. 18). To qualify for copyright protection a work must be original. 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). The court was therefore "first to assess whether the expression is original to the programmer" (p. 24), something that Google had already conceded (p. 21). This led the court to conclude "that the overall structure of Oracle's API packages is creative, original, and resembles a taxonomy" (p. 14). It therefore reversed the district court on the central issue, holding that the "structure, sequence and organization" of an API is copyrightable. It also ruled for Oracle regarding the small amount of literal copying, holding that it was not de minimis. The case was remanded to the district court for reconsideration only on the basis of the fair use doctrine.
Supreme Court petition
In October 2014, Google petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. Oracle responded to the petition in December. Following a discussion of the petition at the Court's January 9 conference, the Court issued a Call for the Views of the Solicitor General, asking for the U.S. Solicitor General's input on whether the petition should be granted. On May 26, 2015 the U.S. Solicitor General recommended that the petition should be denied, expressing agreement with the appeals court ruling. The Court denied the certiorari petition on June 29, 2015.
As a result of the successful appeal, a new district court trial began on May 9, 2016 on the question of whether Google's actions were fair use. Closing arguments were completed on May 23, 2016 and the jury of eight women and two men began deliberations. Oracle was seeking damages of up to US$9 billion. On May 26, 2016, the jury found that Android does not infringe Oracle-owned copyrights because its re-implementation of 37 Java APIs is protected by fair use. Oracle announced its intention to appeal, but before doing so it attempted unsuccessful motions to disregard the jury verdict, and then to hold a re-trial. Oracle officially filed its appeal on October 26, 2016.
- "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.
- Rosenblatt, Seth (May 9, 2014). "Court sides with Oracle over Android in Java patent appeal". CNET. Retrieved 2014-05-10.
- "ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff – Appellant, v. GOOGLE INC., Defendant – Cross – Appellant". Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. May 9, 2014. Retrieved 2015-12-02.
- James Niccolai (28 March 2016). "Oracle seeks $9.3 billion for Google's use of Java in Android". PCWorld.
- Mullin, Joe (26 May 2016). "Google beats Oracle—Android makes "fair use" of Java APIs". Ars Technica. Retrieved 26 May 2016.
- 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 2, 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 2, 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 1, 2012.
- "Google releases Android SDK". Macworld. November 12, 2007.
- "ORACLE'S MOTION REGARDING APACHE HARMONY" (PDF). United States District Court for the Northern District of California/Groklaw. April 22, 2012. Retrieved December 4, 2015.
- "Order Re Copyrightability of Certain Replicated Elements of the Java Application Programming Interface" (PDF). United States District Court for the Northern District of California/Groklaw. May 31, 2012. Retrieved June 2, 2012.
- "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Equitable Defenses" (PDF). United States District Court for the Northern District of California/Groklaw. May 31, 2012. Retrieved June 2, 2012.
- "European Commission - PRESS RELEASES - Press release - Mergers: Commission clears Oracle's proposed acquisition of Sun Microsystems".
- "Oracle sues Google over Android". Reuters. August 13, 2010. Archived from the original on January 12, 2015. Retrieved June 1, 2012.
- "Day 1 of Patent Phase in Oracle v. Google & Google Opp. Re Schwartz, as text". Groklaw. May 7, 2012. Retrieved June 1, 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" (PDF). United States District Court for the Northern District of California/Groklaw. Retrieved 2012-06-23.
- "Court Docket for Oracle v. Google Appeal". Docket Alarm, Inc. Retrieved 10 May 2014.
- Jones, Pamela (October 5, 2012). "Oracle and Google File Appeals". Groklaw. Retrieved November 17, 2012.
- "FOSS Patents".
- "FOSS Patents".
- Oracle v. Google, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 2013-1021, -1022, Decided: May 9, 2014
- Levine, Dan (October 8, 2014). "Google asks Supreme Court to decide Oracle copyright fight". Reuters. Retrieved January 5, 2015.
- Niccolai, IDG News Service (December 8, 2014). "Oracle asks Supreme Court to reject Android copyright case". IDG News Service. Retrieved January 5, 2015.
- Google, Inc. v. Oracle America, Inc., U.S. Supreme Court case no. 14-410, docketed October 8, 2014 (docket).
- Mintz, Howard (January 12, 2015). "Google v. Oracle: Supreme Court asks feds' opinion in copyright fight". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved January 12, 2015.
- "Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae" (PDF). U.S. Solicitor General/Compute Magazine. May 26, 2015.
- "Order List (06/29/2015)" (PDF). U.S. Supreme Court. Retrieved 29 June 2015.
- "Google puts its expert on the stand to combat Oracle, wraps up its case". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2016-05-24.
- "Second Oracle v. Google trial could lead to huge headaches for developers". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2016-05-24.
- "Oracle v. Google". Electronic Frontier Foundation.
- "Oracle v. Google draws to a close, jury sent home until next week". Ars Technica. Retrieved 28 May 2016.
- "Oracle slams Google to jury: "You don't take people's property"". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2016-05-24.
- "Sun's Jonathan Schwartz at trial: Java was free, Android had no licensing problem". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2016-05-24.
- "Oracle economist: Android stole Java's "window of opportunity"". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2016-05-24.
- "Google beats Oracle—Android makes "fair use" of Java APIs". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2016-05-26.
- "Order denying rule 50 motions" (PDF). Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 2016-09-17.
- Mullin, Joe (27 October 2016). "It's official: Oracle will appeal its "fair use" loss against Google". Ars Technica. Retrieved 27 October 2016.