Google, Oracle present closing arguments in Java API case
24 May 2016
The lawsuit over Google's use of Java APIs owned by Oracle entered its concluding phase yesterday with Oracle and Google attorneys presenting their closing arguments.
Google stands accused of stealing a set of APIs, while Google suggests Oracle's suit came out of desperation when its own smartphone attempts failed to launch, while Android transformed the smartphone market.
The case is expected to have wide ranging impacts on the software industry. If the jury were to find that Google did indeed steal codes from Oracle, it could fundamentally alter the process that allowed engineers at small startups to build their products and expose them to litigation from major companies whose programming languages they use.
Presiding judge William Aslup last week told jurors in a light-hearted manner to not look up what an API meant over the weekend. Though the remark was meant to caution jurors against doing their own research in the case, it raised fears over the jury still not having understood the technology at the heart of the case.
At the core of the issue was whether Google's implementation of 37 Java APIs in Android was fair use. Google had argued that Sun Microsystems, which created Java, had always intended the free use of Java and accompanying APIs.
Oracle completed its acquisition of Sun, the makers of the Java programming language and platform, in January 2010 and in August the same year, Oracle sued Google for copyright and patent infringement over the company's use of Java-related technology in Android.
Besides other things, Oracle claimed that Google's use of the Java APIs in Android was in violation of its copyright. In 2012, a Washington DC district court ruled in Google's favour, finding that the APIs were not subject to copyright, but the ruling was overturned by an appeals court and the US Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
The dispute had once again landed in the district court which would determine whether Google's use of the APIs constituted ''fair use,'' meaning that Google did not need permission from the copyright holder in order to use them.
