2
LVL 29

Expert Comment

by:dpearson
I think users of Java are fine, but if you're in the business of modifying Java and releasing that version for another purpose, that business model could be in serious trouble after this ruling.  And of course if this stands it's not specific to Java.  That would apply to lots of other open source projects where there are "forks" or modifications of an original open source code base.

Seems to me the legal system isn't well suited to understanding or applying systems (like copyright or patent law) that made sense in a non digital world to the digital universe we now live in.
3
LVL 14

Expert Comment

by:Brandon Lyon
Yikes. This could get ugly.
0
LVL 4

Expert Comment

by:Christopher Rourke
Consider the following:

The first case was brought in 2010, adjudicated in favor of Google in 2012, then reversed on appeal in favor of Oracle in 2014.
In 2016 a jury determined Google's actions were shielded by fair use which, again, was overturned on appeal in Oracle's favor two years later.

What I see is a court system of tech illiterate lawyers arguing the merits (or lack thereof) of software & open-source copyright/patent law to tech illiterate judges and juries unaware of the extent and ramifications of their rulings. This will likely continue, the back & forth, for another 8 years or until SCOTUS decides to take up copyright and patent cases of this kind. We can only hope we address the application of laws used to protect the invention of the cotton gin being applied to software.

tl;dr: I wouldn't count android as dead just yet
1

Keep in touch with Experts Exchange

Tech news and trends delivered to your inbox every month