Jury Finds Only 9 Lines of Copyrighted Code in Oracle vs Google Case

| by Alex Blewitt Follow 4 Followers on May 08, 2012. Estimated reading time: 2 minutes |

The Google versus Oracle trial completed the copyright phase last week, with the jury sent out to debate on the merits of the copyright infringement claims of Google's use of Apache Harmony's source code. By the end of last week, the jury had already decided unanimously on three out of the four questions but took the weekend to decide on the fourth.

Judge Alsup created a Special Verdict Form, asking:

  1. Has Oracle proven that Google has infringed the overall structure, sequence and organisation of copyrighted works?
  2. Has the documentation of the 37 Java API packages as a group been proven as infringed?
  3. Has Oracle proven that Google's use of code is infringing in (A) the rangeCheck in the TimSort class, (B) the seven Impl files and ACL file or (C) the comments in CodeSourceTest and CollectionCertStoreParametersTest?

These answers are now in, with the jury agreeing that the TimSort implementation was infringing (but the others were not) and with the SSO is violated. (The filled in special verdict form is available as a PDF). The jury, however, was unable to come to a unanimous verdict on whether Google had made “fair use” of Oracle’s intellectual property.

The Judge previously ordered the jury to assume that the SSO was copyrightable, but will be making the final decision himself at the end of the trial. So the fact they have found for the one part they were ordered to is not a surprise; but it means that the only win for Oracle thus far is in the rangeCheck method, in code that Google contributed to OpenJDK and since has removed.

Since this court case started, the European Union has ruled that The functionality of a computer program and the programming language cannot be protected by copyright, in a case which is seen to be closely related to the current case. In the other example, SAS Institute claimed that they had copyright on the language, preventing World Programming Limited from re-implementing the language:

The Court recalls, first, that the Directive on the legal protection of computer programs1 extends copyright protection to the expression in any form of an intellectual creation of the author of a computer program2. However, ideas and principles which underlie any element of a computer program, including those which underlie its interfaces, are not protected by copyright under that directive. Thus, only the expression of those ideas and principles is protected by copyright.

The court case now moves on to consider the alleged patent infringements.

Rate this Article

Adoption Stage

Hello stranger!

You need to Register an InfoQ account or or login to post comments. But there's so much more behind being registered.

Get the most out of the InfoQ experience.

Tell us what you think

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

Email me replies to any of my messages in this thread

That's lot of money for 9 line of code by Shi Kafune

For 9 lines, oracle wants $1b ?

SSO? by Sergej Koščejev

What is SSO?

Re: SSO? by Sergej Koščejev

Ah, ok, I see it now, structure and organization of code.

Re: SSO? by 罗 青

structure, sequence and organisation

Re: SSO? by Assaf Stone

I thought SSO referred to the more common usage of Single Sign On. Looks like another case of NAMBLA (South Park reference, though quite appropriate to the industry).

Haha~ by Mr 傻笑

private static void rangeCheck(int arrayLen, int fromIndex, int toIndex) {
if (fromIndex > toIndex)
throw new IllegalArgumentException("fromIndex(" + fromIndex +
") > toIndex(" + toIndex+")");
if (fromIndex < 0)
throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(fromIndex);
if (toIndex > arrayLen)
throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(toIndex);

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

Email me replies to any of my messages in this thread

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

Email me replies to any of my messages in this thread

6 Discuss