Oracle and Google laid out their closing arguments to the jury yesterday, in the latest lawsuit between the two companies over Google's use of Java in Android. Google maintained the use of
Java APIs was transformative and counts as "fair use" for copyright purposes, while Oracle managed to sum up its entire argument into one short sentence, telling the jury "You don't take people's property and use it without permission."
Google laid out its closing argument first, with
The Recorder noting lead lawyer Robert Van Nest as putting forward more technical arguments than the Oracle legal team's "theatrical" style. Noting the "free and open" history of Java, it was put to the jury that copyright is less of an issue when it comes to Android and Java. "This is a system and a method of organization. It's not a novel, it's not a play, and it's not a phone." Android is said by Van Net to be "exactly the kind of thing" that needs to be protected by fair use. To hammer home the point to jurors, Van Nest brought a metal file cabinet to the courtroom, using it as a visual metaphor for the Java APIs being purely functional code.
Van Nest also framed Oracle's motives as a grab for cash. While the Oracle-owned Sun was "open and free" about Java and its APIs at first, Oracle CEO Larry Ellison was also fine with Android's use at first, with Van Nest arguing "It wasn't until later that Mr Ellison changed his mind." Van Nest insists the situation now is where "Oracle, which had no investment in Android, took none of the risk – they want all the credit and a lot of the money. And that's not fair."
By contrast, Peter Bicks of Orrick, Herrington, and Sutcliffe arguing on behalf of Oracle dismissed the fair use claim, continuing the argument that Google's use of the Java APIs was an intentional theft of code for commercial purposes. Bicks highlighted testimony from Oracle's chief architect of Java Mark Reinholt, describing the APIs as similar to the names, chapters, and topic sentences of a Harry Potter novel. Unlike the filing cabinet, the novel metaphor is said to suit the Java APIs better, in order to demonstrate the complexity and interaction in the overall Java structure.
Bicks also took time to go through emails brought up elsewhere in the trial, including one from an engineer to Android head Andy Rubin in 2010, advising that alternatives were not suitable and "We conclude that we need to negotiate a license for Java. This email specifically was highlighted by the lawyer, claiming "this document disproves everything stated over the last hour," the period when Van Nest laid his arguments out. "Everyone thought what they were doing was OK and that they didn't need a license."
The jury started deliberations yesterday, with a single-page verdict form asking if Google has "shown by a preponderance of the evidence that its use in Android of the declaring lines of code and their structure, sequence, and organization" constitutes fair use under copyright. If Google fails, the trial continues to a second phase to deliberate damages, with Oracle looking to hit Google's wallet for around $9 billion.
Top