<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/7/2019 4:23 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKHykese02+dxuHOhxD8ii_OKgJORO6hoCaGgFdJLC8e06nwVw@mail.gmail.com">
<div>While I haven't closely followed the details of Oracle vs
Google, purely from a layman and business standpoint it seems
clear that Google did create Android / Dalvik exactly to be
interoperable with Java. This means one can run the same Java
source code on either platform and the java.* namespace offers
the same packages and functionality. </div>
</blockquote>
I believe this is an important distinction that is often missed. No,
Android is not compatible with Java and was not meant to be. "As we
noted in the prior appeal, however, Google did not seek to foster
any 'inter-system consistency' between its platform and Oracle's
Java platform. Oracle, 750 F.3d at 1371. And Google does not rely on
any interoperability arguments in this appeal." <i>Oracle Am., Inc.
v. Google LLC</i>, 886 F.3d 1179, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2018). If the
Supreme Court doesn't go beyond its remit in <i>Google v. Oracle</i>,
the earlier cases holding that this type of use is a fair use will
still be good law. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKHykese02+dxuHOhxD8ii_OKgJORO6hoCaGgFdJLC8e06nwVw@mail.gmail.com">
<div>But importantly, interoperability also goes the other way:
Android was compatible with the millions of developers familiar
with Java syntax and standard libraries.</div>
</blockquote>
This is Google's argument why it is a fair use. It is what the
Supreme Court's decision is likely to decide, although the Court may
go beyond that. The main decision on this type of compatibility, <i>Lotus
Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc.</i>, 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir.
1995), held that the Lotus 1-2-3 menu hierarchy was an
uncopyrightable method of operation. The Supreme Court heard the
case but was equally divided, with the result that the appeals
court's decision was affirmed.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKHykese02+dxuHOhxD8ii_OKgJORO6hoCaGgFdJLC8e06nwVw@mail.gmail.com">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If I remember correctly, Oracle did find early on one
function implementation that had indeed been copy pasted from
OpenJDK to Android. But this was so minor (and obvious) it is
not part of the issues decided in higher courts.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, there was minor copying but it's dropped out of the case.<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
PO Box 2492<br>
Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
919-800-8033<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
</body>
</html>