6-year Java case replay flip: Google wins, why?

Absrtact: Google is the world's largest internet company, Oracle is the world's largest established database software business, both the soul of Schmidt and Ellison are the story of the Silicon Valley man. This is a heavyweight contest, with Google's unilateral victory as the outcome, Oracle will not rest.

Not long ago, the San Francisco federal Court jury ruled that the proper use of the Android operating system (fair usage) Javaapi code did not infringe its copyright and rejected Oracle's claim to Google for a $9.3 billion lawsuit, a news that surprised the industry. Surprisingly, Google in the entire Java case in the absolute disadvantage, but in the second round of lawsuits against Oracle, puzzling.

Google's nightmare began in 2012, after Oracle appealed to the Federal Circuit appeals court, the Court in 2014 to determine the copyright protection of the API, Google must compensate for infringement, Google's decision to appeal to the United States Supreme Court, was dismissed.

The 2016 San Francisco Federal Court review of the case, Oracle Bite 37 pieces of code, the evidence, together with the period of the father of Android e-mail incident (Rubin believed that JAVAAPI is copyrighted) exposure, can be said at the time of the form to judge Google lost the lawsuit is only a matter of timing.

And some of the details also reflect the fact that Google itself is prepared to accept such a result and prepare for the worst. For example, the new version of Android to abandon the private sunjdk and switch to open source OpenJDK, in the lawsuit is inclined to as far as possible out of court settlement and reduce compensation losses (Oracle $9.3 billion too high price).

In this case, the Java case can be a big reversal, Google should be flattered. We interpret the reasons for this:

Paranoid Judge of Silicon Valley

Looking back on the case, Google was found to have won a small victory in the May 2012 California district Court ruling, when the judge who ruled that Google was not infringing was William Aslup. After the defeat of Oracle on appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Google appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to be dismissed and the case returned to the San Francisco federal Court for review, and the judge in charge of the case was William Aslup 4 years ago.

Who is the judge?

William Aslup, a 71-year-old federal court judge in the North District of California, pointed out in 2012 that the API is an accurate command structure-a useful feature of the symbol set, listing the pre-allocation capabilities of each symbol. According to 102th (b) of the United States copyright law, this kind of command structure is a kind of operation method, so it is not protected by copyright, and the structure of copy command is an essential programming behavior of program interoperability. The judge then ruled that Javaapi was not protected by copyright.

Looking back at that trial, the judge William Aslup how many Silicon Valley engineers have some paranoia and rivalry. In order to study the Java case, Aslup even learned to use Java programming, and feel very esoteric, this is enough to spell.

Later, as the case progressed, Aslup invited an economist to assess whether the controversial 9 lines of code in Android were infringing (in fact, to assess the value of the infringing portion for $1 billion), a move that had infuriated Oracle, a professor of economics, who was simply not qualified to evaluate professional code.

In any case, on the issue of whether or not the API is copyrighted by law, William Aslup's views tend to have a significant impact on the two ruling results. This is undoubtedly beneficial to Google.

Open-source culture prevails in Europe and America

As we all know, Europe and the United States is the birthplace of open source, the year by Richard Stallman, Eric Raymond launched free software and open source software movement makes today's open source community swept the world. Since Linus Torvalds released Linux, the creation of open source software has sprung up, the idea of open source and development has been deeply rooted.

With the further promotion and exploitation of open-source software, a series of open-source licenses came into being, a common feature of these licenses, which is that they are conceptually contrary to existing U.S. copyright laws (Copyleft), but they do not violate the law. The difference is that some licenses allow the modified code to be closed without the need to place a copyright note, which relaxes the possibility that open source software can be a multi-commercial operation.

However, most of them adhere to an iron law-users must follow the rules established by the original developer, which is interpreted by the industry as "open source contagious."

There is no objection to the Sun Protocol (GPL license) used by the JDK in this case and the Apache license used by Android, but the key is whether JAVAAPI is protected as part of the JDK by copyright law, and there is no precedent or verdict in the United States law or even the world.

The importance of the Java case in the industry is that the outcome of the case will affect the global developer behavior and the business attitude of the software industry.

If the court finally determines that JAVAAPI is protected by copyright law, it will drive more software business companies to launch more lawsuits with private application interfaces, and to a certain extent, developers will be forced to stop using proprietary API code, not just Java developers.

Developers are the most critical part of the entire software ecosystem and are called Fountainhead by platform vendors. and the open source community as the world's largest developer circle, its influence in the industry has a significant weight.

From the perspective of the public opinion in Java, Oracle's approach is more or less controversial in the US, especially in the Silicon Valley developer environment, where open source ideas are popular. This is why the recent review of the 10-person jury unanimously agreed that Google's use of the Java platform to develop Android is under the copyright law "reasonable use" clause, so rejected the $9.3 billion compensation request. Thus, to a certain extent, the Oracle lost in the hearts of the people (Open Source society).

Is the Java case over yet?

We think things are not so simple. Google is the world's largest internet company, Oracle is the world's largest established database software business, both the soul of the People Schmidt and Ellison are the story of the Silicon Valley man. This is a heavyweight contest, with Google's unilateral victory as the outcome, Oracle will not rest.

In fact, for this verdict, Oracle said on the spot that the above, its general Counsel Dolian Daley statement: Oracle believes that Google in the development of Android, the mobile market in the process of illegally replicating the core technology of Java.

The tug of the Java case will still continue.

　

Http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_7362e71e0102wh0h.html

Http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_7362e71e0102wh0l.html

Http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_7362e71e0102wh0n.html

Http://blog.ifeng.com/article/44890758.html

Http://blog.ifeng.com/article/44890830.html

Http://blog.ifeng.com/article/44890961.html

Http://site.leshou.com/s/27013070.html

Http://site.leshou.com/s/27013553.html

Http://site.leshou.com/s/27013729.html

Http://site.leshou.com/s/27014199.html

Http://site.leshou.com/s/27014515.html

Http://blog.ifeng.com/article/44891667.html

Https://club.1688.com/article/60910644.html

Https://club.1688.com/article/60910655.html

Http://www.360yue.cn/news/show-82834.html

Http://www.360yue.cn/news/show-82836.html

Http://www.360yue.cn/news/show-82837.html

Http://blog.tianya.cn/post-7237701-115588338-1.shtml

Http://shiyou.huangye88.com/xinxi/81336371.html

Http://shiyou.huangye88.com/xinxi/81336836.html

Http://shiyou.huangye88.com/xinxi/81337163.html

Http://mt.sohu.com/20160530/n452037737.shtml

Http://mt.sohu.com/20160530/n452039008.shtml

Http://mt.sohu.com/20160530/n452039295.shtml

Http://www.99inf.com/jinrong/qhqq/757503.html

Http://www.99inf.com/jinrong/gpzq/757512.html

Http://mt.sohu.com/20160530/n452041589.shtml

Http://www.99inf.com/jinrong/qhqq/757527.html

Http://www.docin.com/p-1608795503.html

Http://www.docin.com/p-1608798502.html

Http://www.docin.com/p-1608804191.html

Http://blog.dqccc.com/s/article_6561658.html

Http://blog.dqccc.com/s/article_6561723.html

Http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_7362e71e0102wh34.html

Http://blog.ifeng.com/article/44899854.html

Http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_7362e71e0102wh35.html

Http://blog.ifeng.com/article/44899945.html

Http://blog.ifeng.com/article/44900031.html

Http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_7362e71e0102wh37.html

Http://blog.ifeng.com/article/44900154.html

6-year Java case replay flip: Google wins, why?