Oracle versus Google moves towards closing arguments

Oracle wants $9.3bn in compensation from Google, but Google claims use of Java APIs in Android as 'fair use'

The presentation of Evidence in the Oracle versus Google intellectual property dispute has ended, with closing arguments expected to be heard on Monday.

The jury's eventual decision could have an impact on software copyrights and whether software vendors have the right to assert intellectual property ownership over APIs, which have hitherto been thought to be open out of necessity.

Oracle claims that Google breached its copyrights for Java by using 37 Java APIs in its Android mobile operating system. Introduced in 2008, Android started to take off from 2010 as a lower cost alternative to Apple's iOS. The APIs enabled Android to run apps written in Java, circumventing the need to use a Java Virtual Machine (JVM) from Oracle.

Google claims that Android's use of Java APIs is fair use, and that APIs have never been copyrightable, even under the US intellectual property system. While a court in 2012 largely agreed with Google, an appeals court disagreed, but was undecided over how much, if any, compensation Google ought to pay.

If Google loses, it could be expensive.

Oracle's 'expert' economist Dr Adam Jaffe claimed in court that Android has generated $42.35bn in revenues for Google - partly via apps downloaded via the Google Play store, but mostly from selling adverts. That $42.35bn figure, though, seems to have increased from a figure of $31bn quoted by an Oracle lawyer back in January, when it also claimed that Google had reaped a pure profit of $22bn from Android since its launch on smartphones in 2008.

As a consequence, Oracle is claiming what it argues is its fair share of the profits, which it pins at $9.3bn.

It also re-asserted claims that Google undermined the market for Java licensing, with potential licensees either opting for Android instead or using Android as a tool to beat-up Oracle in licensing negotiations, because of its ability to run Java applications.

Google's own hired economist, naturally, begged to differ. Dr Greg Leonard claimed that the popularity of Android had no impact on the market for Java licensing and that Android would have been equally successful if Google had based app development on C++ instead.

"Google could well have chosen to use C++ and produced a version of Android that would have been as successful as what actually happened," Leonard told the court.

Hence, even if Google is guilty of ripping off Oracle's intellectual property, the level of compensation that Google should be required to pay should not be anywhere near the $9.3bn the company is demanding.

Earlier in the week, Oracle's co-CEO Safra Catz admitted that the company slashed the price of Amazon's Java licence by 97.5 per cent when it threatened to shift the software platform used in its popular Kindle e-reader from Java to Android. Or, at least, an Android derivative, such as its own FireOS (successfully used in Amazon's tablet computer range and, less successfully in its now discontinued range of smartphones).

When the jury is sent away to deliberate, following closing statements on Monday, it will only be expected to decide whether Google infringed Oracle copyrights or whether, as Google claims, the use of Java APIs is consistent with the principle of 'fair use'.

Yesterday, Google co-founder Larry Page gave evidence, claiming that when Sun Microsystems - which was acquired by Oracle in 2010 - originally developed Java it was open source. "We didn't pay for the free and open things," said Page.

Google's use of Java, he added, was no different from anyone else's in the computer industry. "I think we acted very responsibly and carefully around the intellectual property issues," said Page.

However, Oracle's attorney Peter Bicks claimed that Android co-founder and the former head of Android development at Google, Andy Rubin, had warned that the Java APIs were subject to copyright.

Earlier in the month, Rubin had been subject to a four-hour cross-examination over the use of Java APIs in Android. That indicated that Rubin had been under pressure to develop and ship a workable version of Android, with Oracle's attorney - in that case Annette Hurst - suggesting that the use of Java APIs was, effectively, a corner-cutting exercise done in a bid to catch up with Apple following the successful release of the first iPhone.

"I was constantly looking for ways to speed up the effort, and getting people to contribute to the open source project was part of that," he said.

Emails from 2010 indicated that Rubin was looking for an alternative to Java, with one from engineer Tim Lindholm advising that there were no workable alternatives to the Java APIs: "We conclude that we need to negotiate a license for java under the terms we need," Lindholm wrote.

If Oracle can cut the price of a Java licence for Amazon by 97.5 per cent, why can't it cut the cost of your software licences, too? Tune in to today's INQUIRERdebate on software licensing - one of the biggest causes of frustration for enterprise IT.