Search giant Google are bracing themselves for what might be their biggest test yet over the next couple of months, as they strive to prove they have not breached Oracle’s copyrights and patents when designing their Android software for mobile devices.
Oracle claims that Google infringed thirty seven copyrights and other patents which they own. The claim relates to the Java programming platform they bought from Sun Microsystems in 2010.
When they first made their claim against Google in August 2010, Oracle was seeking a multi-billion damages payout. However, if they are successful, a damages sum in the region of hundreds of millions and an injunction to force Google to pay to use Java is more likely.
The jury on the case was sworn in on Monday and some of Google’s big names, including chief executive Larry Page, are expected to take the stand.
Google say they haven’t violated Oracle’s copyrights and remain steadfast that Oracle doesn’t have the right to copyright certain parts of the Java platform anyway. However, sources say that they may be willing to pay $2.8m and 0.515% of any future Android revenue. Google doesn’t make money from the sale of Android but they do receive advertising revenue suggested to be in the region of $2.5bn.
If Oracle fail in their bid for compensation, their control over Java could be gravely compromised.
Oracle’s lawyer Mark Jacobs said in his opening statement:
“We will prove to you from beginning to end … that Google knew it was using someone else’s property.”
Google’s lawyers are expected to counter Oracle’s opening statement today.
The trial will take place in three parts, each expected to last around two weeks and comprise of copyright claims, patent claims and, if Oracle are successful, damages.
The case boils down to the use of the Java as a computer language, it’s not about Oracle’s Java APIs or tools. And this very computer language had previously been released by Sun as an open-source platform before it was acquired by Oracle.
Many developers believe that because Java is a language, albeit a computer language, it cannot be copyrighted anyway. The best analogy is trying to copyright the English language. You can’t copyright the alphabet, but you can copyright works created using the alphabet, i.e. books.
News from the case will no doubt be featuring on every TV station and internet news site over the next couple of months. We’ll wait with bated breath to see if Google’s world domination is halted and a chink appears in their seemingly impenetrable armour.
