Coming a couple of weeks after a jury failed to decide whether Google’s use of some lines of code from Java was fair use, the jury has found that Google did not infringe on Oracle’s patents in their use of Java. The case revolved around eight claims over two patents – namely RE38,104 and 6,061,52 but the patent claims are secondary in importance to the Oracle vs Google case more generally.
Oracle would obviously have liked to have one the case, but they even offered to stay or dismiss the patent case in January in favour of a near-term copyright trial. This didn’t happen as Judge Alsup wanted to ensure that all claims be adjudicated together, but the offer demonstrates that copyright is the central claim and the one in which Oracle believes it has the strongest claim.
Most worrying about such an importance case is, however, that it was decided by a jury of peers at all, with anyone with patent or copyright knowledge excluded from the jury. Whilst juries are a necessity for criminal trials, with most criminal law easily understandable to members of the public, patent and copyright law is very involved and precise. Wherever you stand on this case, Google certainly has an easier time explaining their position to a jury and making Oracle out as the evil corporation.
Here are the official statements by each side:
Oracle:
Oracle presented overwhelming evidence at trial that Google knew it would fragment and damage Java. We plan to continue to defend and uphold Java’s core write once run anywhere principle and ensure it is protected for the nine million Java developers and the community that depend on Java compatibility.
Google:
Today’s jury verdict that Android does not infringe Oracle’s patents was a victory not just for Google but the entire Android ecosystem.
And here’s the full verdict:
12 05 23 Oracle Google Patent Verdict
[via Foss Patents]