“Oracle vs. Google”
In Salvador Ferrandis and Partners we followed with great interest the dispute between Oracle and Google before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The underlying cause for that legal proceeding involves an accusation from Oracle against Google of infringing the copyright and patents of 37 Java APIs (Application Programming Interfaces). The case began on August 2010 upon the acquisition by Oracle of a major manufacturer of Java applications, Sun Microsystem. More specifically, 37 of those Java applications at dispute are essential for Google-developed operating system Android to work properly. Furthermore, Android is run by most technological devices, ranging from smart phones to even cars or microwaves. That draws the attention on the potential waterfall effect this case may involve in practical terms within the current technological scope.
As for the first legal issue, on copyright infringement, the jury issued a partial veredict whereby it was found that Google committed an 8-line copyright infringement on Oracle’s APIs. However the jury stated not being sure whether that use by Google of the controversial APIs was covered by the “fair use” doctrine. The jury found itself unable to decide on such a complex legal issue. In light of that, Google called for mistrial since both “copyright infringement” and “fair use” are two sides of the same coin. Eventually, the jury found Google was not guilty for copyright infringement in the terms originally claimed by Oracle. Therefore, Oracle was not awarded “exemplary damages” as originally intended thereby. However, it is still up in the air whether it will be eventually awarded “statutory damages”, since the Judge William Aslup is dealing so far with the issue on Google’s 8-line copyright infringement.
With regard to the other main legal issue, on patent infringement, the jury returned the veredict that Google was not liable on the grounds that Oracle eventually did not achieve to prove any of its claims that Google infringed its Java patents concerning the APIs at dispute.
All in all, Oracle stated that despite such a favourable outcome for Google, it will keep on battling out for the protection of the kind of technology at stake since they still believe that the jury was nonetheless provided with sufficient evidence that an infringement was committed. However, to say the least, they will not do so within the framework of this case, which can be construed as a left-open door for similar-grounded cases in the future.