After the panel returned apartial verdictin the right of first publication phase angle of the Google - Oracle trial – unable to decide whether Google ’s recreation of the Java platform constitute “ mediocre habit ” of Oracle ’s copyright – the run has now participate the patent phase , where the same panel will seek to decide whether Google impinge on Oracle ’s patents .
No doubt , the literary argument will be just as heated – and just as complicated . But with his possible action salvo , Oracle counsel Mike Jacobs state the panel there ’s a least one affair it no longer has to worry about . “ I think you ’ll be proud of to know that ‘ fair enjoyment ’ is n’t a part of the patent phase , ” he said .
This is true . And it ’s a good thing . In fail to agree on the honest manipulation issue during the copyright phase angle , the panel left the case in limbo , as the world expect for a definitive decision from Judge William Alsup on whether the Java genus Apis , or applications programme programming interfaces , can be copyrighted . In the patent form , the panel should be able to make a cleaner decision on whether Google impinge on Oracle ’s intellectual property in ramp up a unexampled variation of the Java chopine for its Android operating arrangement .
prophet sued Google in 2010 , after acquiring Sun Microsystems , the Lord of Java . With Android , Google built a new version of the Java political platform get it on as the Dalvik practical machine , and Oracle claims that with Dalvik and other character of the mobile OS , Google violated both its letters patent and its copyrights .
When the case come to trial last month , Alsup decided it should be dissever into two disjoined stage – one that speak Oracle ’s copyright title , and one that addresses the patent claims – and that each would have separate verdict . On Monday , the panel decided that Google did infringe on Oracle ’s copyrights in mimicking 37 Java genus Apis – user interface that let programmers build applications for the Java political program – but it could n’t determine whether this infringement constituted fair use under the law . Google promptlymoved for a mistrial , and Alsup is expected to dominate on this later in the week .
In the meantime , the trial has continue to the patent stage . After the panel watched a short educational telecasting about patent render by the Margaret Court , both Google and Oracle gave their first step disceptation .
When Oracle ab initio filed courtship in August of 2010 , it claimed that Google encroach on seven of its patents , and over the course of several month , Alsup and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ( PTO ) whittled this number to two . After the tribulation start on April 16 , the PTO overturned an earlier ruling that dismissed one of the patent , but Alsup did not allow it back into the shell .
The two remain patent of invention – U.S. Patents6,061,520andRE38,104 , aka ‘ 520 and ‘ 104 – are related to the underpinnings of the Java virtual simple machine , a piece of software program that runs applications publish in the Java programming language . Oracle will have to prove not only that Google infringes on the two patents with the Dalvik practical machine , but that Google was “ willfully blind ” in doing so , meaning that the search hulk was cognisant it was infringing . In addition , Oracle plans to prove that Google charter in “ rush infraction ” because it then distributed Android to third party , such as handset manufacturers Samsung and Motorola .
As the two position battle over patent ‘ 104 – which delineate a “ method and apparatus for resolve datum references in bring forth code ” – the arguments will revolve around the full term “ emblematic reference ” and how this applies to computer software digest , the unconscious process of turning programming computer code into practicable software . A “ symbolic reference ” tags data with a name rather than its numeral memory localisation , and the two are then dynamically resolved . Google will contend that it does not practice emblematic references , Jacobs said , but Oracle will argue otherwise . “ The evidence is the generator codification , ” he state .
The ‘ 520 patent describes a “ method and system for perform static initialization . ” fundamentally , this is a direction of consolidating course of instruction of data file , let practical machines to action less code than they otherwise would . Here the key terminus is “ imitation execution . ” Oracle claims Google uses simulated execution with Dalvik , while Google says it does n’t simulate – it only parse files .
Google lawyer Robert Van Nest said this patent of invention would get “ less clip and attending during the visitation . ”
After the opening arguments , Oracle call Googler Tim Lindholm back to the stand . As was discussed during the copyright phase , Lindholm sent a 2010 e - mail service to the head of the Android projection , Andy Rubin , order he believe Google needed a license to use Java . But before Lindholm testified , Alsup told Oracle that the e - mail could not be mentioned , as it was not relevant to the patent stage – though he order that Oracle could reference other e - mails Lindholm received and sent .
Oracle ’s Jacobs call Lindholm a Java virtual machine expert , pointing to the Java Virtual Machine Specifications that Lindholm co - author and his 17 patents receive as a Sun employee as evidence that he was well - verse in the technology underpinning Java . Lindholm testified that Andy Rubin had “ perfectly not ” require him to investigate whether Android conflict on Oracle letters patent .
Oracle also called Robert Vandette and Noel Poore – two other Java virtual machine Guru that make for Oracle but were not yield as witnesses – to bear witness about public presentation tests they ran on the Android operating organisation . Vandette said that when you transfer the patent Oracle engineering in the Froyo adaptation of the operating scheme , bench mark performance drops to 9.4 percent of the performance of the oxygen that does use the technology .
Google countered Vandette ’s testimonial by suppose he was n’t looking at software performance specifically , and it countered Poore ’s testimony by saying that he ’d done his tests with an software that generated nothing more than a “ Hello World ” world message – a vulgar but basic programming exercise .
Alsup believe this phase of the trial will be far brusque than the right of first publication phase , likely between four and five day . The panel would deliberate a finding of fact on the patent issue . According to the initial price report in the case , the projected patent damages are a bare fraction of the projected right of first publication damages .
Image by AP
Wired.com has been expanding the hive mind with technology , skill and eccentric person culture tidings since 1995 .
GoogleJavaOracle
Daily Newsletter
Get the best tech , science , and culture news in your inbox day by day .
News from the future tense , delivered to your present .
You May Also Like
