Oracle Desires Copyright Claims to Stay in Google Suit
Senin, 22 Agustus 2011 by Android Blackberry
 |
| Oracle Desires Copyright Claims to Stay in Google Suit |
Oracle Desires Copyright Claims to Stay in Google Suit
Oracle opposed Google's request that a judge problem a summary judgment on the copyright problem
Oracle said that no court has ever found that APIs for software like Java are ineligible for copyright protection, in its objection to Google's request that the court make a summary judgment on Oracle's copyright allegations.
In early August, Google asked the judge in its ongoing dispute with Oracle to rule that Google doesn't infringe Oracle copyright in its implementation of Android. In an objection to that request, Oracle asked the judge to let the charge go to trial.
"No court has ever found that the APIs [application programming interfaces] for a complex software program platform like Java are ineligible for copyright protection," Oracle wrote.
At issue is regardless of whether it matters that Google copies Java code, Oracle wrote. "Google will not dispute the copying. But the parties have a factual dispute over its significance," Oracle stated.
Google has argued that some files it copied from Java are insignificant due to the fact they're test files. But Oracle says they're not, and further that even if they were, "test files are significant too."
Oracle also disputes Google's argument that it had to copy code because there wasn't other language it could use. "Google's copying of the names of 37 packages, 458 classes, 158 Interfaces, two,427 techniques, 893 fields, as well as other elements did not come about as a result of the existence of restricted language," Oracle wrote.
Oracle also points out that Google's actions fragmented Java, "severely undercutting Java's 'write once, run anywhere' promise."
"Despite its claim that its copying was needed for compatibility, the reality is Google took only the parts it wanted and produced several other, incompatible APIs for Android. Consequently, a lot of programs written in Java for other platforms won't run on Android, and many programs written for Android won't run on Java platforms and devices," Oracle wrote.
"This case is just not about Google producing a compatible platform. It can be about Google choosing and picking some Java APIs, but not other people, realizing it would create an incompatible platform," it wrote.
Also, Oracle noted that Google itself essentially asserts copyright on its own software. "Notably, Google needs its OEMs to maintain the full set of Android APIs -- such as the 37 APIs it copied from Oracle -- to prevent fragmentation with the Android platform," it wrote. Android's license is related to Java's, Oracle said.
Google now will have a opportunity to submit further statements supporting its request for summary judgment.
In a separate exhibit filed over the weekend, Oracle's chief corporate architect, Edward Screven, stated that Google's actions have closed the door on any possibility of Oracle entering the mobile industry.
When asked in the course of a deposition if Oracle had a technique for succeeding in the smartphone industry or with a mobile platform, he stated: "I feel Android has fundamentally foreclosed that. I do not believe that there is a technique that we could adopt at this point, right, to displace Android given that they've sucked all of the air out of the room for Java on smartphones."
"Java, you realize, is, in my mind, quite effectively locked out with the smartphone industry because of Android," he stated later in the deposition.
Late last week, the judge denied some further requests from Google to file for summary judgment but allowed other people. A jury trial within the case, initially filed late last year within the U.S. District Court for the District of California, is scheduled for Oct. 31
Oracle opposed Google's request that a judge problem a summary judgment on the copyright problem
Oracle said that no court has ever found that APIs for software like Java are ineligible for copyright protection, in its objection to Google's request that the court make a summary judgment on Oracle's copyright allegations.
In early August, Google asked the judge in its ongoing dispute with Oracle to rule that Google doesn't infringe Oracle copyright in its implementation of Android. In an objection to that request, Oracle asked the judge to let the charge go to trial.
"No court has ever found that the APIs [application programming interfaces] for a complex software program platform like Java are ineligible for copyright protection," Oracle wrote.
At issue is regardless of whether it matters that Google copies Java code, Oracle wrote. "Google will not dispute the copying. But the parties have a factual dispute over its significance," Oracle stated.
Google has argued that some files it copied from Java are insignificant due to the fact they're test files. But Oracle says they're not, and further that even if they were, "test files are significant too."
Oracle also disputes Google's argument that it had to copy code because there wasn't other language it could use. "Google's copying of the names of 37 packages, 458 classes, 158 Interfaces, two,427 techniques, 893 fields, as well as other elements did not come about as a result of the existence of restricted language," Oracle wrote.
Oracle also points out that Google's actions fragmented Java, "severely undercutting Java's 'write once, run anywhere' promise."
"Despite its claim that its copying was needed for compatibility, the reality is Google took only the parts it wanted and produced several other, incompatible APIs for Android. Consequently, a lot of programs written in Java for other platforms won't run on Android, and many programs written for Android won't run on Java platforms and devices," Oracle wrote.
"This case is just not about Google producing a compatible platform. It can be about Google choosing and picking some Java APIs, but not other people, realizing it would create an incompatible platform," it wrote.
Also, Oracle noted that Google itself essentially asserts copyright on its own software. "Notably, Google needs its OEMs to maintain the full set of Android APIs -- such as the 37 APIs it copied from Oracle -- to prevent fragmentation with the Android platform," it wrote. Android's license is related to Java's, Oracle said.
Google now will have a opportunity to submit further statements supporting its request for summary judgment.
In a separate exhibit filed over the weekend, Oracle's chief corporate architect, Edward Screven, stated that Google's actions have closed the door on any possibility of Oracle entering the mobile industry.
When asked in the course of a deposition if Oracle had a technique for succeeding in the smartphone industry or with a mobile platform, he stated: "I feel Android has fundamentally foreclosed that. I do not believe that there is a technique that we could adopt at this point, right, to displace Android given that they've sucked all of the air out of the room for Java on smartphones."
"Java, you realize, is, in my mind, quite effectively locked out with the smartphone industry because of Android," he stated later in the deposition.
Late last week, the judge denied some further requests from Google to file for summary judgment but allowed other people. A jury trial within the case, initially filed late last year within the U.S. District Court for the District of California, is scheduled for Oct. 31
