Google asked to pay $0 to Oracle over Java API claims

Can’t we all just get along? Oracle, new owner of the Java programming language, has been in court for a couple of years trying to convince a judge and jury that Google has been infringing upon various APIs in the Java programming language. Apparently they did a poor job because, as ZDNet reported last month, the jury found that Google did not infringe on the patents. Today ZDNet is saying that Google will pay $0 in damages. To add insult to injury, the judge has given Google 14 days to submit the paperwork requesting that Oracle pay legal fees.

Unfortunately it appears that this battle isn’t over yet as Oracle plans on appealing the decision. While it’s unclear what grounds the company has for an appeal, these sorts of things seem to drag on so we wouldn’t be surprised to see the two sides going through another trial. However it’s also possible that the mere threat of the appeal may persuade Google to forgo filing for legal fees.

The majority of the case seemed to revolve around nine lines of code within the rangeCheck function. While blatantly plagiarizing is obviously wrong, the code was fairly elementary and clearly wasn’t stealing some important trade secret. In case you haven't already seen it, here is the infamous code that the case revolved around.

private static void rangeCheck(int arrayLen, int fromIndex, int toIndex) {
     if (fromIndex > toIndex)
          throw new IllegalArgumentException("fromIndex(" + fromIndex +
               ") > toIndex(" + toIndex+")");
     if (fromIndex < 0) 
          throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(fromIndex);
     if (toIndex > arrayLen) 
          throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(toIndex);
}

Source: ZDNet

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

The Galaxy S III is hot, so hot it melts

Next Story

Time Warner Cable wins patent to stop fast forward button

22 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

To sue over that piece of code is just silly. It's a basic piece of code, there is no way any court will ever agree with them on these grounds.

Morden said,
sadly truth isn't always prevails, Google lobby was stronger :-(

This is a judge, not a politician who can be bought. This judge had actually done programming himself so he realised that every person on earth would implement the rangecheck function identically. Oracle was asking $6 billion for this lol

simplezz said,
This is a judge, not a politician who can be bought.

Judges can be bought, it's happened a lot in the past, and still happens to this day in certain places. So it's not just politicians that can be bought.

Morden said,
sadly truth isn't always prevails, Google lobby was stronger :-(

The case was less "Tech Giant A" vs "Tech Giant B", it was more of what can be patent / copyright with programming languages and API's.

A stupid man once tried to put all his problems in a casket, nail the casket, and bury it. He died five feet under in a nailed shut casket.

_heracles said,
A stupid man once tried to put all his problems in a casket, nail the casket, and bury it. He died five feet under in a nailed shut casket.

How did he both nail and bury the casket if he was inside it?

virtorio said,
Spot the syntax error.

Hmm are we sure that code is real? I mean yes indeed there is a syntax error

virtorio said,
Spot the syntax error.

I copied it wrong so that Oracle couldn't sue Neowin.

Seriously though, thanks for pointing it out - it's now fixed!

Thank god! It's about time the judicial system started to see the light with these blatant abuses of the court system with frivolous patent litigation. I'm hearing that Apple is also now having problems getting some of their cases off the ground.

arclite01 said,
are you fracking serious? ***** please I learned this in CSCA08
Oracle are coming for you next!

arclite01 said,
are you fracking serious? ***** please I learned this in CSCA08

I'm pretty sure CSCA08 teaches you Python.

(I kid, I kid.)