Talk:Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.

Sources

I used Wikipedia text from Android (operating system) as of this version and Android version history as of this version. Superm401 - Talk 00:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a ligitimate source. It must be a external source from elsewhere. Although that doesn't matter anymore, as there are different sources in this thread as well.

That doesn's matter anymore, as there's other sources in the main post now. Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There should be a distinction made between using wikipedia as a source and pointing to wikipedia text that has a list of sources. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the fact that while Wikipedia text itself might not be an ideal source but the parts that have citations/references should be considered accepted Sourced Information that is more reliable than a link to an article alone. I mean if one source can deal with two portions of an article page then it should be reused, right? Daesin (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

So what's the current situation?

This article ends without any real indication of what the current situation is. Is the district court looking into it again, or what? 80.62.3.94 (talk) 09:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Removing Fundamentally Incorrect "Unix" Implication Based on Terrible WIRED Article

This page used to contain this paragraph at its conclusion:

One example identified by Wired is the Linux operating system. While Linux is fully open source, it is based on POSIX, a set of APIs that mimic those of the commercial Unix operating system that enable high levels of interoperability for developers; a programmer would only need to write one set of code which then can compile on any system that has the same API, even if the computing architecture of the systems are different. If case law favors Oracle, the current owners of Unix, Micro Focus, could seek damages from any POSIX-based operating system developer intending to use the operating system for commercial use.

I am removing this wholesale. The referenced article:

https://www.wired.com/2016/05/oracle-google-case-will-decide-future-software

and its "correction", the basis that Micro Focus is "the owner of Unix" (referencing https://www.theregister.com/2014/12/19/judge_spanks_sco_in_ancient_ownership_of_unix_lawsuit/)

Te WIRED article, which in 2016 originally stated that AT&T still "owned Unix" (as if further evidence of how badly—if at all—it was researched) fundamentally misunderstands the "Unix" (UNIX) trademark, its relationship to the POSIX standard, and other Unix-like operating systems. In short: UNIX is a trademark, originally owned by Bell Labs, which was transferred to Novell, who in turn transferred to what is now The Open Group, and its use is granted to certified products certified as adhering to the Single UNIX Specification (along with payment of a hefty fee for certification. The Open Group is also publishes the POSIX standard. In short, today, UNIX is based on POSIX, not the other way around. Google v. Oracle has absolutely no bearing.

The claim that Micro Focus is "the owner of Unix" is based on a court judgement against SCO that references "the older Unix software". By this, they mean the System V source code. This is a completely separate, irrelevant, now long settled issue.

For citations regarding the above simply read the "System V", "UNIX" or "Unix wars" pages, or literally anything besides that terrible WIRED article—which should be retracted, if anyone wants to email press@wired.com about it.

Gsnxn (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The Wired article is not exactly who owns POSIX/UNIX, simply that who ever owns that could go after Linux/Free BSD based on how this case could come out, That's still the relevant point. Also note the correction in the Wired article. --Masem (t) 12:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

---

I appreciate the expansion on the implications of this case; and the removal of the specifics from the Wired article. However, I still believe that particular article should not be cited at all due to multiple journalistic and historical inaccuracies:

1. The 2016 article's opening line and main pullquote is: "THE LEGAL BATTLE between Oracle and Google is about to come to an end." It is 2020 and ongoing.

2. The article states "Unfortunately for Google, an appeals court overturned that ruling and the US Supreme Court declined to hear the case." The case is now before the US Supreme Court.

3. The article focuses on the "what is an API" former focus of the case; this is now effectively resolved.

4. My point above was that the correction in the article is itself inaccurate. "Unix" (is not an API, or software—it is a registered trademark). Micro Focus never obtained the rights to "Unix" at all—the trademark was transferred from Novell to its current owner prior to Micro Focus acquiring Novell. The only thing Micro Focus acquired was the copyright to source code to an outdated version of AT&T System V, which is erroneously conflated with "Unix". System V was one of several early implementations of Unix; most certified Unix implementations do not even share any this code. The page on Micro Focus makes no mention of Unix whatsoever!

The other articles you have cited ou have added are excellent and relevant. This article does not belong among them. I shall remove the citation; revert/continue discussion if you disagree. Gsnxn (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Points 1-3 are all surprises that people didn't expect new issues in the case to be brought up at the time the Wired article was written, so they aren't really "wrong" statements. And as I rewrote, all that matters is not the concept about who "owns" Unix or the like, but the fact Wired is pointing out the implications of what a decision in Oracle's favor could mean for open source. That the small details on the ownership of Unix are wrong are not relevant with this now. --Masem (t) 22:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

As a long-time industry vet, I agree that the Micro Focus reference is bizarre. You said you'd remove it, but the article still concludes with that strange claim that Micro Focus had any reasonable claim to the UNIX trademark, ever.

I can't reconstruct the edit history on this, but I ask a relevant authority to consider if it was wise to roll back that removal. Even if Micro Focus ever owned the trademark, it's irrelevant to THIS article.

Please re-evaluate. 76.72.186.120 (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Dubious statement with weak references

At the same time, a judgement favoring Google's position may weaken protection for copyright for software code developers, allowing competitors with better resources to develop improved products from smaller firms, and reduce the motive for innovation within the industry.

The first reference is irrelevant and a bad page full of pop-ups and ads, the second is very biased and do not said anything to show how fair use of APIs may reduce the motive for innovation. A biaised opinion is presented as a fact here.

---

I concur. I'm going to remove it. 20after4 (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Both references directly support the statement and both are reliable sources. Just because one may have pop up ads doesn't affect reliability. Innovation concerns are expressed in both, in discussing the case from "if Google wins" side. --Masem (t) 15:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Final Holding: Citation/Referenced Sources

Shouldn't the final Holding statement in the main "quick facts" summary box have a citation/reference [1] to the source? 🤔 Daesin (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source.

11,500 lines of code deemed central to Java, which were taken from Apache Harmony,

In the same paragraph, we cite https://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/01/oracle_hits_google_with_code_copying_claims/, which makes it pretty clear that the 11.5K lines did not come from Harmony. 2600:6C55:7C00:924:C12C:A543:EC4:711B (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)