In fact, Oracle’s legal team had already concluded that the copied code had ZERO value. [1] The reason is that Joshua Bloch, who wrote that code for Google had already written that code and donated it to OpenJDK (the open-source versions of Java).[2, 3] So except for Google’s admission that those nine lines did appear in Android until recently, Sun/Oracle really doesn’t have anything they can get out of it.

Additionally, Judge Alsup has yet to rule on the copyrightability of APIs, which Oracle is asserting. If he rules that they are not copyrightable (a legal position based on historical treatment of them and legal precedent – see Lotus v Borland) then this jury decision is moot.

[1] “Oracle’s own expert, the judge pointed out in court, valued those 9 lines of code at zero. This is 9 lines out of millions. So that means, if we are looking at damages, that so far Oracle has won nothing. There is no liability. ” http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120507122749740

[2] “Q. The rangecheck function: Did you copy the Sun code while working on Android?

“A. I did that while working on Timsort, and it was during the period I was employed at Google, but not for Google. It was something I wrote on my own for OpenJDK.”
…
“Q. And you included this in Android?

“A. Yes, as part of the JDK.”

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120419221941261

[3] “So, what do we make of Mitchell’s expert opinion that ‘the person that wrote that had access to the Sun code’ and Jacobs question about ‘clean-room’?

“Ah, yes, they are talking about the nine rangeCheck lines (including the line that had ‘}’) in timsort that Joshua Bloch wrote and donated to Oracle. ” http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120423121100882#c968933

You can’t actually copyright the code segment that adds two numbers. The code that adds two numbers can be copyrighted as part of a larger non-trivial function. It’s a fine line to walk, and one that physics text books tread all the time because the fundamental equations don’t change.

The judge obviously tried to side step making a ruling on this critical issue. If the jury had found no infringement, or that the infringement constituted fair use, he wouldn’t have had to rule and things in the industry would remain the same. I do actually approve of the judge’s approach, but I also recognize it for what it was, and that it was a risk.

It is also inappropriate to not note that the rules of engagement changed when Oracle acquired Sun. Schwartz was obviously promoting Google’s approach even though Sun wouldn’t license the jvm Google wanted to use. So it isn’t cut and dried.

He didn’t like multiple choice, or scantron – said it didn’t give a good enough picture of the students’ minds and whether they’d absorbed anything – so all tests were essay, and each class required at least one major research paper. He’d been a lawyer, teaching and going to Cubs games was his “retirement gig”… and he didn’t give a damn about what the administration thought of his tests.

Anyway, these two bimbos* collaborated on one of the research papers, and did almost exactly what you describe – some of the sentences were re-ordered, some of the words changed, but the picture of the students’ minds were identical.

He asked if they’d worked together, they denied it. He flunked them both. Not for working together, he would have been fine with that, but for being stupidly dishonest about it.

Mew

* after flunking them, their appeal to the dean claiming he’d harassed them…. they lost. Guess the administration didn’t want to mess with a lawyer who had made enough to be “retired” at 40 either.

Mew

Nice goalpost shift there.

It was the only thing copied verbatim.

9 lines.

Of course.

Don’t be evil.

From all indications, google took all the “Clean room” precautions required – except that one of the main programmers worked for Sun, and helped develop the Java language. He has admitted that he wrote the “range check” function largely from memory. However, it constitutes 9 lines of code among millions. and if the judge determines that API’s aren’t copywritable, would be the only infringement that Google performed. Note that in the latest AOSP build of android, the rangecheck code has been changed for at least the last two API steps at least.

The problem here is that if APIs are copyrightable, something no programmer has previously assumed, nobody can ever do a clean room implementation of programming functionality. That’s a staple of the computer industry. Worse, it opens the door for companies to copyright code for things like the now discredited Amazon “One Click” patent, which screws up the industry even more than the patent would have.

Personally I have come to the conclusion that the courts screwed this one up when they help computer programs to be something that can be protected by copyright. While they are creative, they have more in common with building a machine than they do with writing a book, so I think patenting is the better route for society. And I think Congress ought to specifically enact a different patent for programs than other machine oriented patents. Programming ages out much more quickly than physical machines do, so the term should be shorter – something between 3 and 7 years.