

Google's opening slides in the trial v. Oracle - experiment0
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-Trial-GoogleOpeningStills.pdf

======
ChuckMcM
Ok a couple of disclaimers first, one I was one of the original Java folks and
two, I've done expert witness work but not in this case.

When Java was still 'Oak' there was an interesting, on-going, low level debate
about where the 'language' stopped and the 'system' started. There is a very
common analogy in C where C pretty much assumes that there is a 'libc' and in
libc are functions for doing things like printf().

So it was with Java, with the wart/exception that there was no 'main' as Java
was designed to be the entire environment, not something you wrote in and then
passed a binary to a different environment. Sort of like Python in interactive
mode all the time. And that lead to the question of "what can a programmer
assume is true about the environment?" and the answer was eventually some
packages were 'core' and had to be present and some where 'optional' and might
not me. Frank Yellin and James Gosling's book on the topic was the definitive
reference of what was core and what wasn't.

When I was at NetApp (which also used Java (licensed) in their filers) there
was an interesting debate with Sun about whether or not one had to pass the
compatibility suite to be compliant with the license. Since it wasn't an
exported language (customers couldn't write Java code to run on the filer)
NetApp argued that insuring it could run NetBeans compatibly was unnecessary.
Worse (for NetApp) was that they had their own OS and so the port had taken a
while and the newer JDK had a lot of changes (none of which were needed) and
it became clear the Sun was just operating on a script. Eventually it
escalated up to Scott McNealy who quite reasonably understood that if they
insisted on that much effort, NetApp would just move to Python or something
like it (equivalent internal effort to porting the newest JDK) and voted for
'money' rather than 'no money'. That the question even came up though really
brought home how far Java had moved from its roots of the team arguing to
release source, to 'the most profitable on a per-unit basis' that Sun was
selling in the end times.

Looking at the approaches, I think Oracle is going to lose. And I think they
are going to lose for the same reason the font guys lost. My fuzzy memory has
it as a Letraset vs Apple suit but it may have been Xerox (sad how stuff from
30 yrs ago is so hard to find) which basically concluded you could copyright
the _name_ of a font but you could not copyright how it looked. Hence font
names like "Chicago" which look like other more well known fonts. And it is
also why you get 250 'free' fonts where the 'i' character has the dot hinted
slightly higher but is otherwise identical to some Bitstream font.
Historically copyright has been offered on the 'end' product, not on the
'intermediate' product. So you can copyright a game that is written in
language X, but not language X. For the language you can only copyright the
name, and the implementation. If the new implementation is different (or
derived cleanly) you don't have an recourse.

This defense of a 'clean' implementation of a specification severing rights to
the original has been litigated extensively in the 80's BIOS wars where IBM
published the source code to its BIOS in their technical manuals and then
started trying to sue clone makers who re-used the source. Once the BIOS was
implemented in a 'clean room' where team A (who had the BIOS code) provided
specifications to team B who didn't, then you could completely sever the
rights to the code from IBM.

------
experiment0
And for those interested, here are Oracle's slides

[http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/features/opening-
slides-1...](http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/features/opening-
slides-1592541.pdf)

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
The rangeCheck slide is somewhat cringeworthy. What are they supposed to do,
not throw exceptions when it's outside the range?

~~~
BrandonM
I thought so, too, at first, but rangeCheck is a _private_ method. It's used
in implementing a public API. Calling a non-API method "rangeCheck" and using
the same variable names is clear evidence of a non-clean-room implementation,
in my opinion. And in the next slide, the engineer even refers to referencing
the Sun code.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
It's also quite possibly from Sun's open-source code, which they surely
couldn't be held liable for.

~~~
BrandonM
That depends entirely on the license.

------
psychotik
The file cabinet analogy is great to explain packages/namespace. Smart.

After looking through both opening slides, I have to say Oracle's seemed to
make better/stronger arguments. This case is fascinating, I'm glad that
resources are being made available.

Also, gotta love "Very limited internal expertise to make smart decisions" on
slide 69. I wonder if the slide number being that was just coincidence.

~~~
ajross
Not sure why you'd say that. I think Oracle's _arguments_ are completely
ridiculous. They're arguing that it's illegal to clone an API, something that
has been done repeatedly by every player in the tech world imaginable over
four decades now and has enriched us all. It's obscene.

That said, I think it's true that Oracle's slides have the better _evidence_.
There are all sort of (admittedly out of context) incriminating statement from
the Google people which indicate that Google really wanted a Sun license and
tried really hard to get one. That certainly looks bad, but again I don't
think it speaks to the underlying law.

Edit: I should point out there's a flip side here too. The fact that Sun
wasn't willing to deal despite Google's attempts can be an argument that they
weren't negotiating in good faith. If that was the case, then there are no
damages to award. Obviously we don't have any juicy emails or quotes from
discovery in Google's slides, so there's no way to know.

~~~
chc
Really? Google's slides include numerous direct quotes from people at Sun and
Oracle saying that everything Google did was fine and basically reiterating
Google's core arguments, which seems pretty damning to Oracle's case. On the
other hand, I don't see how the fact that Google would have liked a
partnership with Sun but couldn't work out a deal demonstrates any wrongdoing.

~~~
jimmyvanhalen
here's the problem:

"numerous direct quotes from people at Sun and Oracle"

are not legally binding contracts.

~~~
chc
Well, yeah, but is that really necessary? They demonstrate intent, they
support the accuracy of Google's view of the situation, and I'm pretty sure
they'll make it harder for Oracle to paint Google's actions as tortious. It's
similar to how you'd have a hard time suing somebody for injuring you if you
admitted you jumped in front of their car to get money out of them — that's
not a contract either, but it won't help your case. If even Oracle believes
that what Google is doing is OK and doesn't constitute infringement, then that
paints them as rent-seekers rather than an injured party.

~~~
jimmyvanhalen
-Google has to prove and convince the jury that they obtained a license or a legally binding agreement to use Java. So they need to present evidence that they have those. Any statement from an employee, even from the CEO, is useless if there are no legally binding contract or license.

-Oracle only has to prove and convince the jury that Google willfully and knowingly ignored required licensing agreements. So they can present emails and quotes from employees and executives and the emails alone can do a lot of damage.

~~~
krakensden
> Google has to prove and convince the jury that they obtained a license or a
> legally binding agreement to use Java

Their contention is that they don't need one. Besides, they don't use Java-
They use Dalvik and a JVM bytecode-to-Dalvik translator.

~~~
jimmyvanhalen
>Their contention is that they don't need one. Besides, they don't use Java-
They use Dalvik and a JVM bytecode-to-Dalvik translator.

Google's lawyers are going to have a hard time convincing the jury.

Check out Oracle's slides.

[http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/features/opening-
slides-1...](http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/features/opening-
slides-1592541.pdf)

slide 90:

What Google Said Before Lawsuit

Jul 26, 2005: “Must take license from Sun”

Oct 11, 2005: “We’ll pay Sun for the license and the TCK” “We are making Java
central to our solution”

Feb 10, 2006: “helping negotiate with my old team at Sun for a critical
license”

Mar 24, 2006: “Java.lang api’s are copyrighted”

Sept 28, 2006: “Leverage Java for its existing base of developers”

Nov 6, 2007: “Is Android Java compatible?...No.”

Nov 17, 2007: “Scrub out a few more J’s”

Mar 24, 2008: “Please don’t demonstrate to any sun employees or lawyers”

Aug 5, 2009: “How aggressive do we scrub the J word?”

Aug 6, 2010: “technical alternatives…to Java for Android…suck” “we need to
negotiate a license for Java under the terms we need”

Oct 13, 2011: “Android is hugely profitable”

~~~
ajross
Juries decide on facts, though, not laws. They can determine whether or not
Google thought a license was required, but it's the judge (or more likely an
appellate court) who will decide whether it actually was.

------
shadowmatter
On slide 52, which is supposed to demonstrate that the Android and Java source
code implementations differ, it's clear that the Android definition did not
come from Android: The anotherString parameter is not referenced, and there
are no offsets as parameters.

I also find it amusing that in Oracle's slides, "Java On Our Computers" is
demonstrated with the Java update screen. Sigh.

~~~
cpeterso
> I also find it amusing that in Oracle's slides, "Java On Our Computers" is
> demonstrated with the Java update screen. Sigh.

Is the Java Updater even written in Java? That would be an even funnier
example of "Java On Our Computers." :)

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
The controls in it have a strange, non-native feel, so I'd hazard that it
might be.

------
orbitingpluto
The quotes from, uh, Larry Ellison, uh, seem to be, uh, primarily there to
anger Larry Ellison.

...or to make Oracle look like a purchase and litigate company with "limited
internal expertise to make smart decisions".

Not a very good strategy IMHO, but I would hazard a guess and say Google feels
very comfortable about their chances.

~~~
OzzyB
Thank you, for uh, writing this comment. I was, uh, thinking the same thing,
uh, myself and how tacky that was.

I'm sure it was intended, as perhaps a "low blow", since it's very easy to
quote someone without all the damn "uh"s.

Not very classy IMO.

------
cpeterso
Let this be a reminder to be careful about what you say, professionally and
personally, in email.

I love the Google email asking to "Scrub out a few more J's" and "How
aggressive do we scrub the J word?" :)

~~~
Tobu
Scrubbing the Java name is just obeying trademark law (only Sun can allow you
to use that name, and you'll have to licence the TCK and manage to pass it). I
don't see what trademark law has to do with the case, except that Oracle wants
to leave a certain impression of Google in the minds of the jurors.

~~~
jimmyvanhalen
how about slide 52.

Dick Wall: Can we demonstrate the tooling, emulator, dev environment, etc.?

Andy Rubin: Yes, one-on-one only please, where you know exactly who you are
talking to. Please don’t demonstrate to any sun employees or lawyers.

yikes.

------
Symmetry
I thought it was confusing and possibly disingenuous that Oracle isn't
contesting that Google stole their JVM, but most of the "smoking gun" quotes
they have from Google's leadership are about the need for the Java JVM, or
about going ahead anyways without getting Sun's permission to use the JVM.

------
liyanchang
Did not know that lawyers could use slides in court.

Learn something new everyday.

~~~
eitally
One of my friends makes a living creating graphical assets for court
presentation: <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/april-tishler/18/162/94b>

<http://www.capitalnovus.com/divisions/novus-trial-consulting>

<http://www.a2lc.com/>

------
johansch
I find it cute that Google used a screenshot of an early version of our Opera
Mini browser rather than one of their own to illustrate Android-based web
browsing in slide 29. :)

~~~
bmelton
Except... isn't Chrome written in C?

------
amalag
If we take the law as it is, i think Oracle should win. This is very
interesting because it covers the copyright on the API and not software
patents. I think this is a legitimate and winning case for Oracle. What were
Sun/Oracle's conditions that Google could not do for licensing?

~~~
Symmetry
I can certainly see how you could argue that the APIs should be covered by
copyright, but I'm not sure how you could say that invoking them in your code
is ok but that implementing them isn't - at least baring specific language in
some contract the user signed.

~~~
amalag
I can see that argument if you consider the API design to be a significant
intellectual contribution which Oracle can prove considering the popularity of
Java and it's ecosystem.

~~~
Symmetry
I'm not sure I see what you mean there. If the API design is a significant
intellectual contribution, and I'm inclined to say it is, that would be that
the API is copyrighted. But that would mean that the API is copyrighted, not
that its copyrighted for some purposes and not for others. Oracle seems to be
saying that the API is only copyrighted for the purposes of implementing them,
not invoking them, and I can't see what basis they're using to make that
distinction. There may be something I'm missing, though.

------
emehrkay
Is the media image on 34 from android or ios? I only ask because it looks like
quicktime.

This is interesting (funny). I guess learning powerpoint in school is useful
if you're entering law.

Edit: I love the file cabinet visual analogy they're using. I would assume
that it helps non-technical people understand the idea of packages/namepsaces.
Those images should be default when teaching those ideas

------
luminaobscura
as far as i understand,

both sides agree on: \- you cannot copyright language \- you can copyright
implementation.

so all comes down to: \- can you copyright APIs ?

~~~
amalag
Google's slide said that the API is just using nouns and verbs. I think this
is not a good defense, the book I wrote is just nouns and verbs, and we know
you can't copy it.

~~~
shagrath
but Google can write a different book with using the same nouns and verbs,
which they did

~~~
amalag
Oracle will say it's the same book, there are always grey areas. You can't
copyright a love story between a boy and a girl, but you can copyright a
particular book on it. So if the API is copyrightable, then even though it was
implemented differently, isn't it using their property?

------
exit
if a software engineer ended up on the jury of this trial would they be
percluded from ever working for google or oracle?

~~~
Tobu
Quite a few people who were familiar with software (one works at HP, one at
Cisco) were excused from the jury, because they would already have her own
interpretation of the law — opinions you cannot set aside, as the judge put
it.

Here's a lot more detail about the jury selection; five people were excused by
the judge, then three more by each party:
<http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120416085550303>

I was rather surprised by the demographics, there were a lot of engineers and
lawyers, and for some reason I though jury duty was a statistically unbiased
sample of major citizens. I guess I should be glad the trial takes place in
San Francisco rather than East Texas:
[http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2010/03/east-texas-jurors-
and-p...](http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2010/03/east-texas-jurors-and-patent-
litigation/)

------
CervezaPorFavor
I find it odd that Google would use Angry Birds to describe High Performance
Graphics. lol.

~~~
cellis
Jurors. All about the jurors. Average, non-fuckin-HN-reader jurors, and they
know what Angry Birds is. If they had used something more representative like
SHADOWGUN, no one would know what they were talking about.

------
suyash
ORACLE WILL WIN - Software Engineer at Oracle Corp

------
senthilnayagam
did you see they mentioned sun and oracle had tried to build smartphone
platform on Java and failed, this can backfire for argument sake as it kind of
justifies google did a favor by making android a success.

------
clintboxe
I loved the "FAILED" stamps on Oracle's mobile phone docs.

~~~
suyash
fU, I work at Oracle!

------
loverobots
is the entire Oracle argument, so far, that you can use Java, but can't cut
and paste the APIs done by Oracle /Sun engineers? With what I've read, Google
sure thought they needed a licensing agreement

~~~
krakensden
I thought part of the fallout of the ancient AT&T vs BSD case was that APIs
are _not_ copyrightable.

Additionally, GNU Classpath seems to have always been considered A-OK by Sun
and Oracle, and they have no license.

You'd need a license to use Sun/Oracle source code. You'd need a different
license to get the compatibility test kit so you could call your stuff
Java(TM). If you thought there was patent liability, you ought to license
that.

~~~
loverobots
Jurors are going to see a list of companies that license java, almost every
name out there. And then Google emails and communications how they need a
license, can't do without Java, maybe shouldn't get it now, or whatever.
Either way it was a boneheaded move to invest billions (?) on Android without
a relatively cheap Java license.

~~~
bad_user
Maybe it was a boneheaded move to use Java, the programming language, in the
first place.

If they used C/C++ they wouldn't have had any problems and considering how
awesome Qt is, you can clearly make the development experience enjoyable. Then
they could have introduced Google Go in the mix and/or Javascript, to appeal
to the younger generation.

Ironically, they could have used the ECMA parts of .NET and get away with it.

~~~
amalag
Why didn't they? They could have avoided being sued, this again goes to Oracle
favor for this lawsuit, they wanted Java's advantages as a virtual machine
implementation and not bare metal programming like C/C++.

~~~
krakensden
Of course, they _wrote their own virtual machine_ , that is totally different
from the JVM, so it's unclear to me that they got any advantage from Java's VM
implementation.

What they really got for free was much of the Java tooling and ecosystem.
Which isn't nothing.

