U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
After the jury verdict, the Court granted Oracle’s Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law of infringement of eight decompiled computer files, which were literally copied. Google admitted to copying eightcomputer files by decompiling the bytecode from eight Java files into source code and then copying the sourcecode. These files were not proven to have ever been part of Android.
3the 37 Java API packages, the jury found no infringement. As to certain small snippets of code,the jury found only one was infringing, namely, the nine lines of code called “rangeCheck.”In phase two, the jury found no patent infringement across the board. (Those patents, it shouldbe noted, had nothing to do with the subject addressed by this order.) The entire jury portion of the trial lasted six weeks.
This order addresses and resolves the core premise of the main copyright claims, namely,whether the elements replicated by Google from the Java system were protectable by copyrightin the first place. No law is directly on point. This order relies on general principles of copyright law announced by Congress, the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit.* * *Counsel on both sides have supplied excellent briefing and the Court wishes to recognizetheir extraordinary effort and to thank counsel, including those behind the scenes burningmidnight oil in law libraries, for their assistance.
SUMMARY OF RULING
So long as the specific code used to implement a method is different, anyone is freeunder the Copyright Act to write his or her own code to carry out exactly the same functionor specification of any methods used in the Java API. It does not matter that the declaration ormethod header lines are identical. Under the rules of Java, they
must be identical
to declare amethod specifying the
functionality — even when the implementation is different.When there is only one way to express an idea or function, then everyone is free to do so andno one can monopolize that expression. And, while the Android method and class names couldhave been different from the names of their counterparts in Java and still have worked, copyrightprotection never extends to names or short phrases as a matter of law.It is true that the very same functionality could have been offered in Androidwithout duplicating the exact command structure used in Java. This could have been done
Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1202 Filed05/31/12 Page3 of 41