Google vs Oracle – Oracle’s intellectual case faltering as verdict nears
Both sides have now rested their cases after a feisty round of rebuttals. Now it’s down to the jury. James Gosling also reiterated his views on the case
The rebuttals began on Friday in the tenth day of the Android
intellectual property trial, with Oracle inferring that Google had
been lazy in using Java patents in building the Android platform,
using the 37 Java APIs to create the greatest return possible.
No one at Google could really deny that they were trying to make
a huge profit with Android and in our opinion this smacks of
desperation as Oracle’s case falters into the second week, still
reeling from Jonathan Schwartz’s testimony a day earlier. Their
only saving grace was the calling of Scott McNealy who contradicted
everything that his former Sun colleague said.
Oracle also recalled Mark Reinhold, chief architect for Java
during the rebuttal phase, mainly to clear up his use of the phrase
‘blueprint’ when describing the Java APIs in question, which others
contested. Reinhold stuck to his guns replying:
They are blueprints. The whole point is that
different people can develop competing implementations.
If you have a good API, once you’ve got that, to do an
implementation from scratch is a relatively easier job. You
start by copying the API, and then you implement it.
Google refuted that writing an API specification doesn’t tell
you how to write the code, which Reinhold conceded.
When asked if implementing an existing an API is less or
more work than designing the API, Reinhold answered ‘Less. There’s
room for creativity, but only within the API.’ – again Oracle
forcing home the point of Google’s laziness in creating
Another interesting appearance on Friday was Duke
University computer science professor Owen Astrachan, who believed
Google was completely within their rights with their cleanroom
implementation of the Dalvik virtual machine, saying
The implementation code in Android is completely
different than the implementation code in Java.
Given his expertise, who’d be one to doubt him? This
contrasts with John Mitchell, a witness Oracle called previously
who reappeared during the rebuttals, to again say Google must have
copied at least some code from the Java platform.
Oracle’s President and Chief Financial Officer, Safra Katz, was
also called to the stand to answer questions over Oracle’s
awareness of the Apache Harmony project. Katz said she did know of
it, but Oracle had never supplied any financial or
technical resources, nor considered using it because they had a
license from Sun.
Both Google and Oracle have rested their cases. Closing
statements are expected today (Monday) from both parties, before
the jury can consider a verdict on the copyright portion of the
trial, which could take a day or two or perhaps even a week. After
the jury have ruled, the patents part of the trial begins. Should
Google be found guilty, then there would a damages section
following on, where both parties would discuss how much money
Oracle would get for the infringement.
Both sides need to take a breather after two weeks of relentless
questioning. Judge Alsup issued a warning:
When the case goes to them, the case is in their hands —
including when they make the decision.
Aside from the courtroom action, Java co-creator James Gosling
has weighed in on the case, reiterating something he had said early
to journalist, affirming that Sun were indeed hurt by Google’s
In Dan Farber’s recent article
on CNET titled “Oracle v. Google: Ex-Sun execs on opposite
sides” he got my position on the case totally
backwards and totally misinterpreted my comments. Just because Sun
didn’t have patent suits in our genetic code doesn’t mean we didn’t
feel wronged. While I have differences with Oracle, in this case
they are in the right. Google totally slimed Sun. We were all
really disturbed, even Jonathan: he just decided to put on a happy
face and tried to turn lemons into lemonade, which annoyed a lot of
folks at Sun.
So Gosling is siding with Oracle on this one, even
though he remains a fairly netural head. His opinion on Jonathan
Schwartz’s views is particularly
Expect some news from Monday proceedings
Picture courtesy of s_falkow on