Judge William Alsup Posts

Judge: Oracle’s Java API Elements Cannot Be Copyrighted


Late last month, a jury voted 9-3 in favor of Google against Oracle in a lawsuit regarding whether the search giant was violating the software giant’s Java patents. Oracle obtained the Java patents when they acquired Sun Microsystems in April 2009. After the jury’s decision, the issue about the infringement of the structure, sequence, and organization of 37 Java APIs was still undecided. Judge William Alsup has ended discussions by ruling that the single sign-on of the APIs is not covered by current copyright law. Oracle’s related infringement claims were dismissed completely.
Continue reading →

The Jury Voted 9-3 In Favor Of Google Against Oracle


Yesterday we reported that the jury voted in favor of Google. As part of a follow-up to that article, I just wanted to add that the jury was split 9-3 in favor of Google. Jury foreman Greg Thompson spent time answering questions for reporters while Oracle’s lawyers had listened quietly. It turns out that Oracle did not have a chance to win all along. Oracle had to convince the jury that some portions of their Java APIs can be classified as protected. Google uses these APIs as the foundation for the Android operating system. Judge William Alsup even prompted to consider Java APIs as being copyrighted.
Continue reading →

Jury Finds Google Android Infringes Oracle’s Java Copyrights

Oracle Logo
A U.S. jury has found that Google Android is infringing on Oracle’s Java API copyrights. This gives Oracle a partial victory in the first part of a three-part trial against Google. The jury at a U.S. District Court in San Francisco was asked four questions about copyrights in Java code that is being used in Android.
Continue reading →

Apple Wins Court Favor Against Psystar Corporation

Psystarlogo
In a lawsuit against Psystar Corporation, a judge ruled in favor of Apple Inc. However there isn’t a clear winner in this case. Psystar will have to cease designing their core products unless they appeal the case. And Apple is restricting the market share of their operating system.

Psystar installed the Mac operating system into hardware that normally is used for PCs only. After that they sell the PC with the Mac operating system which is better known as a “Hackintosh.” Perhaps Apple saw Psystar as a threat to the sales that they would otherwise make on selling the Mac directly through retail stores or Apple.com. Clearly Apple is slightly concerned about their operating system price when installing it in their own hardware because the company filed for a patent that would allow operating systems to be sold on the cheap assuming there was ads built in.

“In sum, Psystar has violated Apple’s exclusive reproduction right, distribution right, and right to create derivative works,” stated U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup.