Oracle may get second chance to prove Google infringed on Java copyrights

Oracle's appeal of Judge William Alsup's high-profile ruling in the Android lawsuit was heard this week

Oracle's copyright case against Google's Android OS appeared to gain new life this week after a federal appeals court judge poked holes in Google's defense.

A U.S. District Court judge in California ruled last year that Oracle's Java APIs can't be covered by copyright law because they are a functional requirement for writing compatible applications, not creative works.

The appeals court this week seemed to take issue with Judge William Alsup's ruling.

"It seems to me that almost all computer code has to have a functional purpose, otherwise what's the purpose," said Judge S. Jay Plager at the hearing, a recording of which was made public late Wednesday. "You don't write computer code because it has some pretty, expressive phrasing. You write it because it has a function."

Oracle sued Google in 2010, claiming that Google's Android OS infringed patents and copyrights for Java that Oracle acquired when it bought Sun Microsystems.

Google wanted to attract Java developers to its Android OS, so it took "the most important, the most memorable, the most appealing pieces of Java" and incorporated them into Android, Oracle attorney Josh Rosenkranz during the hearing Wednesday at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C.

Some observers believe the outcome of the case could have a big impact on the software industry. Although Alsup specified his ruling wasn't meant to apply to all APIs, the decision has been praised by observers who say a decision in Oracle's favor would set a bad precedent by inhibiting innovation in the software industry. In June, more than 30 computer scientists signed an amicus brief arguing that point.

The case has divided the industry though, with software vendors such as Microsoft and EMC filing briefs in support of Oracle. Software vendors can't create new products if their work isn't protected, they argued.

The appeals court should reverse the lower court's decision on copyright as well as address "whether fair use [of the APIs] can be decided as a matter of law," Rosenkranz said. Oracle has suffered "extraordinary" economic harm due to Android's success and "the use simply cannot be fair."

In the original case, the jury deadlocked on the question of fair use before Alsup's subsequent ruling on copyright.

A discussion of the differences between APIs and other types of code led to a back-and-forth between Google attorney Robert Van Nest and Judge Kathleen O'Malley.

Under the law, "the thing that runs the program, rather than the program itself, or the tool that accesses the program, rather than the program itself, that is not copyrightable," Van Nest said.

That means a finding that APIs can't be copyrighted would apply to other vendors too, such as Apple and Microsoft, O'Malley said. "This would apply to every possible computer program out there," he said.

"Yes but only the command structure, what you need to access the functions," Van Nest replied. For Android, Google "rewrote all the implementing code," he added. "Fifteen million lines of it, is original, and we're not claiming here that that's not copyrightable."

It's not clear when the appeals court will issue a ruling. Depending on what they decide, the case could head to a retrial. It's also possible that Oracle and Google will reach a settlement.

Oracle and Google both declined to comment on the hearing's outcome.

Chris Kanaracus covers enterprise software and general technology breaking news for The IDG News Service. Chris' email address is

Join the Good Gear Guide newsletter!

Error: Please check your email address.

Tags Googleintellectual propertyCivil lawsuitslegalsoftwareOracle

Our Back to Business guide highlights the best products for you to boost your productivity at home, on the road, at the office, or in the classroom.

Keep up with the latest tech news, reviews and previews by subscribing to the Good Gear Guide newsletter.

Chris Kanaracus

IDG News Service
Show Comments

Most Popular Reviews

Latest News Articles


GGG Evaluation Team

Kathy Cassidy


First impression on unpacking the Q702 test unit was the solid feel and clean, minimalist styling.

Anthony Grifoni


For work use, Microsoft Word and Excel programs pre-installed on the device are adequate for preparing short documents.

Steph Mundell


The Fujitsu LifeBook UH574 allowed for great mobility without being obnoxiously heavy or clunky. Its twelve hours of battery life did not disappoint.

Andrew Mitsi


The screen was particularly good. It is bright and visible from most angles, however heat is an issue, particularly around the Windows button on the front, and on the back where the battery housing is located.

Simon Harriott


My first impression after unboxing the Q702 is that it is a nice looking unit. Styling is somewhat minimalist but very effective. The tablet part, once detached, has a nice weight, and no buttons or switches are located in awkward or intrusive positions.

Featured Content

Latest Jobs

Don’t have an account? Sign up here

Don't have an account? Sign up now

Forgot password?