|
U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup's 41-page ruling determined that the Java APIs (application programming interfaces)in the case were functional and utilitarian components of Java, andtherefore not protected. Oracle's lawsuit claimed that Google'sAndroid software infringed patents and copyrights for Java thatOracle acquired when it bought Sun Microsystems in early 2010. Alsup was careful to say that this ruling wasn't meant to apply toall Java APIs, just the ones in the case, but his decisionnonetheless was applauded by some observers, who felt that if heruled in Oracle's favor, it would set a bad precedent and inhibitnew innovations in programming. Now Oracle will have some time to regroup and mull over strategiesfor its appeal, said Edward Naughton, an intellectual-propertylawyer with the Boston firm Brown Rudnick, in an interview Friday. "The appeal process is an interesting one, because they get moretime and are able to focus their arguments a little bit more onwhat the law should be, rather than what it currently is," Naughtonsaid. Appeals courts consider prior cases when making decisions, as Alsupdid in his ruling, Naughton said. However, "they have a little bitmore freedom to make rulings that embody policy decisions," headded. To this end, "Oracle can talk about what the law ought to be, whatprinciples should be applied to these facts," Naughton said. "Butthey will also have to take on why Alsup's description of the Javalanguage may be a little bit of an oversimplification. They need tochallenge the premise of Judge Alsup's analysis and show thesituation is more complicated than how he described it." But Alsup brought a unique quality to the case, revealing recentlythat he has a background in computer programming, which helped himunderstand the issues in the case. When Oracle goes to an appealscourt, the person sitting on the bench may not have the same depthof knowledge as Alsup, making its attorneys' jobs potentially evenmore difficult. "Alsup is more technical than your average judge," Naughton said. However, "lawyers who deal with technology cases have to translatesome technical things in ways nontechnical people can understand.That's the skill of good appellate lawyers." Oracle's lawyers will likely "comb back" through the testimony inthe original case in search of evidence that shows the Java APIsconstitute "more than just methods of operation," he said. In one sense, Alsup's ruling made Oracle's appeal easier, since thejudge agreed that the APIs reflected creativity and originality onthe part of their creators. "Now they can concentrate their fireand their arguments on the idea of functionality. That's whatthey'll do." Overall, Oracle has a good chance in its appeal, Naughton said."The cases where you don't have a good shot is where the case turnson the credibility of a witness, a 'he-said, she-said' situation.On a case like this, where it's based on a legal question, theyhave a fine shot on appeal." Still, "they're going to have to contend with a thorough,well-written decision by a careful judge and that's not easy,"Naughton added. The ruling is so artfully rendered, in fact, that Oracle will havea tough time winning an appeal, according to Tyler Ochoa, anintellectual-property law professor at the Santa Clara UniversitySchool of Law. "This is by far the most careful and well-written opinion onsoftware copyright I've ever read," Ochoa said via email. "I willbe astonished if it is not upheld on appeal." Alsup's ruling is similar to one made by an appeals court in themid-1990s, which found "that the menu command structure of [thesoftware program] Lotus 1-2-3 was original and creative, but thatit was not copyrightable because it was also a method ofoperation," Ochoa added. "Although that was something of acontroversial ruling at the time, it has widely come to be acceptedlaw, and I would be astonished if the Court of Appeals or theSupreme Court would take issue with it now." Moreover, Oracle will not only have to convince the appeals courtAlsup was wrong, but also "persuade a jury on retrial that the usewas not a fair use" under copyright law, Ochoa added. "Oracle cancontinue pouring money down this sinkhole if it wants to, but itwould be well-advised to concede defeat now." Prior to Alsup's ruling Thursday, a jury cleared Google of patentinfringement in the case. (James Niccolai in San Francisco contributed reporting to thisstory.) Chris Kanaracus covers enterprise software and general technologybreaking news for The IDG News Service. Chris's e-mail address is Chris_Kanaracus@idg.com. We are high quality suppliers, our products such as Dimmable Led Candle Bulbs Manufacturer , Brominated Flame Retardants for oversee buyer. To know more, please visits E14 Led Candle Bulbs.
Related Articles -
Dimmable Led Candle Bulbs Manufacturer, Brominated Flame Retardants,
|
