The trial record contains the source code for the Java code files (TX 623.2–623.8), decompiled versions of Java code files (TX 896.1–896.8), and corresponding Android code files (TX 1031–40). No reasonable jury could find that the copying of entire computer files was de minimis. The evidence at trial showed that Google decompiled eight Java files and copied them each in their entirety. Oracle has had the number of files included in the copyright case extended, from the single nine line rangeCheck function, to cover 8 more files which were used for testing. If Alsup rules that APIs are not copyrightable, both parties have waived their right to a jury trial as far as the damages are concerned. If Alsup finds that APIs are copyrightable, then a new jury will hear the case for monetary damages. Google also proposed giving Oracle 0.015% of revenues for use of the second patent which is valid until April 2018.īoth Oracle and Google have agreed to delay a decision on damages for the copyright phase until Judge Alsup has ruled on the general copyrightability of programming APIs. For future use, Google offered to pay 0.5% of Android's revenue on one of the patents, until its expiry in December this year. Oracle puts their combined value at $4.15m, according to ITworld. Prior to the case being brought to trial, Google offered to pay $2.8m (£1.75m) in damages on the two patents, covering the period during 2011 in which they were used. Oracle is seeking $1bn (£630m) in damages for copyright infringement, though any potential settlement for the claim of patent violation is expected to be much less. Once the jury returns a verdict, assuming they do, the trial is then due to start looking at damages. Google says what that tool does is "pattern matching", not "simulating execution", as the patent says. The patent describes a way of initializing arrays, which Oracle says is used by the Android "dx tool". 104 also describes a dynamic system, he argued, whilst dexopt, a Dalvik optimizing program, "is a static operation".Īs for the 520 patent, Van Nest described it as a very small feature. Google lead lawyer Robert Van Nest told the jury that symbolic references were something that "Android never uses never". During closing remarks, Oracle's lead lawyer, Michael Jacobs, told the jury that Google's own engineers - primarily Andy McFadden - had admitted in their testimony that Android's Dalvik virtual machine gets data in a way just like Oracle's patents describe. The second patent (520) provides a way of using less system resources when a program sets up a static array of values, by simulating the execution of the Java bytecode in question, resulting in less work for the virtual machine.ġ04 is generally considered to be the more valuable of the two. While I have differences with Oracle, in this case they are in the right. Just because Sun didn't have patent suits in our genetic code doesn't mean we didn't feel wronged. 104's inventor, James Gosling, himself no great fan of Oracle, has blogged his support for Oracle in the case. 104 is essentially a method for a computer system to call upon data stored in memory using a symbolic identifier that dynamically resolves to the correct location, rather than using the specific memory location itself. The first patent (hereafter 104), was filed in 1992. With the mixed verdict they delivered in the copyright phase, where they were unable to agree on whether Google's use of Java constituted fair use, a great deal for Oracle now hinges on the outcome of the patent phase. Google case is considering its verdict on the two patents.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |