Finally got around to reading the slides from both sides... wow Google slides are so weak. Their four points:
- Sun gave Java language to the public
They basically just say APIs and programming languages are the same thing, and Ellison said the programming language is free for everybody, therefore the APIs are too. Their quoting an expert saying that an API is like a technical paper is bizarre, since technical papers are clearly copyrightable... Google basically agreed (slide 12) that an API is copyrightable.
- Google built Android using free and open technologies
Basically saying other people did it and Sun didn't sue, so it's ok for us to do it. Also another defense that, ok maybe they did what Oracle claims, but even so it's no big deal. The 'me too' and 'meh' defenses.
- Sun publicly approved Android's use of Java
The defense is that Sun approved the announcement of Android as a Java-based platform, which Google says it isn't. So Sun didn't approve of Android.
- Google made fair use of the Java language APIs in Android
The defense is that Sun was incompetent so Google had the right to go it alone without Sun's approval or license. Seriously?! Their quote to support this from Ellison even talks about licensing Java to phone carriers -- why would they do this if Java was free? Their own evidence presented undermines their argument.
Meanwhile the Oracle presentation is chock full of damning quotes and evidence from Google's own people. Google better have some serious kung-fu in the trial part, because the opening statements are a disaster for them.
Alright; you're now allowed to read and write English, but you can't use any of the words in the Oxford English Dictionary, as they are a copyrighted API.
I know that you can't copy the OED as a whole, or in significant parts. You have to purchase it. Similarly, you could copy and use parts of the Java API in your programs but not the whole API.
I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if Google's case is solid legally, but putting myself as a juror the Oracle opening statement I think would be very convincing compared to Google's.
But my reading of the slides is probably colored though by my personal opinion that the Java API should be copyrightable. It's a substantial creative work and no two people would create the same APIs even containing the same ideas and concepts (.NET for example).
APIs such as Java's are original, creative works of authorship that no two people would create the same way. But they shouldn't be copyrightable because 'history would be different'... great argument there, genius.
- Sun gave Java language to the public
They basically just say APIs and programming languages are the same thing, and Ellison said the programming language is free for everybody, therefore the APIs are too. Their quoting an expert saying that an API is like a technical paper is bizarre, since technical papers are clearly copyrightable... Google basically agreed (slide 12) that an API is copyrightable.
- Google built Android using free and open technologies
Basically saying other people did it and Sun didn't sue, so it's ok for us to do it. Also another defense that, ok maybe they did what Oracle claims, but even so it's no big deal. The 'me too' and 'meh' defenses.
- Sun publicly approved Android's use of Java
The defense is that Sun approved the announcement of Android as a Java-based platform, which Google says it isn't. So Sun didn't approve of Android.
- Google made fair use of the Java language APIs in Android
The defense is that Sun was incompetent so Google had the right to go it alone without Sun's approval or license. Seriously?! Their quote to support this from Ellison even talks about licensing Java to phone carriers -- why would they do this if Java was free? Their own evidence presented undermines their argument.
Meanwhile the Oracle presentation is chock full of damning quotes and evidence from Google's own people. Google better have some serious kung-fu in the trial part, because the opening statements are a disaster for them.