… in finding that Google did infringe on Java (in terms of its overall structure, sequence, and organization) in regards to the copyright infringement phase of the trial. The jury however could not say whether or not Google made “fair use” of Java. Both of these were parts of the first question (out of four) the judge had asked the jurors to answer. Google lawyers unsurprisingly asked for a mistrial because that 2nd part of the question regarding “fair use”, had it been unanimous in Google’s favor, would have taken them mostly off the hook.
To be frank, Google is picking hairs at this point regarding the whole “fair use” point when they basically forked Java in creating the Android platform. Java is a language with its set of API’s (application programming interfaces) which requires a run-time environment (i.e Java virtual machine); it’s that whole platform which Google lifted to create Android. Java (the language) was used as a basis in order to give developers a carrot (an environment where they could leverage their knowledge of Java to create programs for the Android platform) in order to fast track the uptake of the platform in light of the rapid uptake of Apple’s then new iPhone. The e-mail trail shows that the key principles knew the right thing to do was to take a license for Java. In typical Google “arrogance” though, they proceeded on their current course, ignoring other peoples intellectual property to achieve their objective. This infringing attitude seems to be par for the course at the company. The attitude seems to be advocating for an “open” approach so long as Google benefits.
And all of this is “given away” under the guise of “free” and “open” when the reality is that all of this free stuff (software and services) is used to drive advertisement revenue.