You are viewing a read-only archive of the Blogs.Harvard network. Learn more.

Timeline of Oracle v. Google and the docket files

(This is an ongoing case and therefore this post will be updated along with the development.)
Issue: whether Oracle can claim a copyright on Java APIs and, if so, whether Google infringes these copyrights. In order to allow developers to write their own programs for Android, Google’s implementation used the same names, organization, and functionality as the Java APIs. May 2012, Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California ruled that APIs are not subject to copyright: where “there is only one way to declare a given method functionality, [so that] everyone using that function must write that specific line of code in the same way,” Oracle appealed to the ninth circuit. The circuit ruled in favor of Oracle in May 2014, finding that the Java APIs are copyrightable, but leaving open the possibility that Google might have a fair use defense. Google filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review (on the issue of whether API is copyrightable) but failed. The case returned to the district court for trial. In May 2016, a jury unanimously agreed that Google’s use of the Java APIs was fair use. Oracle appealed. In March 2018, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court. The Court rejected the jury’s verdict (after previously saying that the jury had to decide the case) and held that Google’s use was not fair use as a matter of law. Google appealed to the Supreme Court. This time the SC granted the cert. Oral argument is expected in March 2020, and a decision by June. Documents in Docket:

Supreme Court (2020)

Oracle Brief (February 12, 2020) Google Opening Brief (January 6, 2020)

Amicus Briefs

In support of Respondent

In support of Neither Party

In support of Petitioner

Cert Petition (2019)

Solicitor General Brief (Sept. 27, 2019) Google Reply Brief (April 10, 2019) Oracle Response in Opposition (Mar. 27, 2019) Google Petition for Writ of Certiorari (Feb. 25, 2019)

Amicus Briefs

In support of Petitioner

Federal Circuit (2018)

Google’s petition for rehearing en banc (May 29, 2018) Federal Circuit Decision (March 27, 2018)

Amicus Briefs

In Support of Oracle

In Support of Google

Federal Circuit (2014)

Federal Circuit Decision (May 9, 2014)


NDCA Order Denying Rule 50 Motions (June 8, 2016) NDCA Jury Verdict (May 26, 2016)

Video: Tim Wu talks the end of the Free Internet

Columbia law professor Tim Wu warns of the end of the free internet in his book The Master Switch.

Watch Videos at Here

Do Not Dial 110 – or You will be Fined 500

[Translation] Notice

As a respond to the spirit of “Welcome Asian Games, Build Homonization”, according to the admininstration & Service center of Rental Estate at Da Shi Street, all the non-permanent residencts living in the Da Shi Street should refrain from dialing “110” [Chinese 911 number]. Who dial once will be fined RMB500 [USD$75], twice fine RMB1000 [USD$150], so on so forth. If you need to call the police, please call:

Da Shi Police station: 020-8478-3027

Da Shi Public Security Force: 020-8478-5533 or

Da Shan Police Station General: 020-3993-1632


I know what happened. There must be a stupid internal standard during the Asian Games in Guang Zhou – The police stations must assure the public security during the Asian Games, and one of the standards of examining their working achievement must be the times that the “110” Emergency Center recieved the calls from the regions under the police stations’ administration. (The 110 Center is set up in the headquater of the Guangzhou police Bureau).

Da Shi Street must be a region where a lot of non-permanent residents are living – most of them are low class employees — To avoid lagging behind other police stations, and then blamed by the superior officer, the Da Shi Police Station invented such notice: “hey there, if there is any emergency, you should not call 110, but call our local offices.”

You always get surprises at a place where the power comes from the superior but not  society.

The Jailbreaking Exemption and Apple Peel 520

As it has been known by all creatures on earth (maybe except lawyers), the U.S. Library of Congress issued a statement on Monday that legalized “jailbreaking” wireless telephone handsets.

It is no doubt a good news for jailbreakers, the unauthorized App developers, as well as iPhone buyers. Now you can strut up to the black corner of the computer arcade, looking straight inside the eyes of the guy who knows how to satisfy your desire (of anything that Jobs don’t want you do, such as watching flash video), and speak laudly: “break it, please.”

“Wait, wait! It’s an iPod … OK … if you like to call it iTouch, then it is an iTouch… It’s not an iPhone, I mean … not a telephone handset.”


Let’s stop the drama and go back to the law:

At least from the literal meaning of the newly annouced exemption, iTouch owners may be excluded from the benificiaries. Here is the fulltext of the exemption:

… Persons making noninfringing uses of the following six classes of works will not be subject to the prohibition against circumventing access controls (17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)) until the conclusion of the next rulemaking.

(2) Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.

Is an iTouch a “wireless telephone handset”? I don’t know. At least Apple, even before such exemption promulgated, has already said it isn’t a telephone – it is a great iPod, a pocket computer and a game player, but not a telephone… because only iPhone will be a telephone. (How about iPad 3G? Too big to be a “handset”?)

While in practice, if you do own an iTouch, you must have tried to make it being a telephone – The easiest way is to install a Skype. That dose not need jailbreak.

Recently, there is a more exciting way to turn iTouch to a telephone, a real GSM mobile phone. After jailbreaking, you may turn your iTouch to be a real telephone in the near future by wearing this: Apple Peel 520.

This adapter not only offers voice calling and text messaging (presumably requiring a jailbroken iPod touch for the apps; GPRS not possible yet), but it also doubles up as an 800mAh battery and provides 4.5 hours of call time or 120 hours of standby juice.
[kml_flashembed movie="" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
This is interesting… And by the way, this is made in China. China do have the regulation prohibiting the circumvention tools. While such regulation does not have a mechanism of the administrative exemption.  It’s hard to say whether the copyright law can be used to prohibit the distribution of Apple Peel 520. In fact, from my knowledge, another heavier sword over Apple Peel would be: “Network Access License for Telecommunication”, which is issued by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. Each model of cellphone must be licensed before being sold legally in China…again, license issued by the government might be a bigger problem than the copyright license.
BTW, “520” means “I love you” in Chinese SMS language.

Google’s License renewed, and ISP Liability Released

The game of “Spoting the Difference” starts again!

Google’s ICP license renewed. See the captured today’s web page below (left), and compare it with the page in last week (right). on 9 July 2010: on 4 July 2010:

Exactly as what I predicted few days ago, Google is trying to make being a non-search engine website. It now places “Music”, “Translation” and “Shopping” at the web page. These are what Google wishes to keep on running in China. While the search engine service of is replaced by a link to Legally speaking, is not providing search engine service currently. It is merely a link to another website. Just like the links added in any of our own web posts.

Interestingly, please pay attention to those minor changes. It seems Google’s lawyers are demonstrating their legal skills. For example, in the 4 July version, it says “we have moved to (我们已经移至)”, while in current page, “we have moved to” has been moved. Why? I assume the reason might be: The sentence “WE have moved to” acknowledged that the one who runs “” is identically the same one who runs “”. In that circumstance, would still be critisized by Chinee authority on providing searching results including “illegal” materials. Without such sentence, when it is accused by the government, Google China may say that it is an independent legal entity who is distinctive from the operator of

Besides the censorship topic. Let’s discuss something about intellectual property law (this might be more interesting): Is there any difference between providing a link to a search engine and providing a search engine service per se?

Yes, of course.

When you place a link to a web page. You will not be a service provider, therefore you will not be liable for the copyright/trademark infringement even when the linked page is full of infringing materials. If a right owner wants your money, he/she at least has to send you a notice saying “hey! The web page you are linking is full of my proprietary stuff. Please move that hyperlink!” After you recieved such letter, in China, you may have to remove the link if there is really infringing contents at the web page you are linking to. However, now in the Google’s circumstance, this will no be a problem because is linking to, which is owned by’s parent company.

In short, by replacing search box with a hyperlink to, may escape from being accused for vicarious liability, which is by far a “killing application” of the intellectual property holders in this era of the Cambrian explosion of the Internet.

Statutory Damages Flexible: Tenenbaum Case Updated

Represented by Professor Charles Nesson, Joel Tenenbaum pulled one back in his P2P downloading case, in which he was sentenced $675,000 dollars statutory damages to the copyright owners.
I was sitting in the hearing when Professor Nesson presented his move of either placing a new trial or granting a remittitur. Briefly, Charlie’s argument is: 675,000 dollars is unconstitutionally high, and therefore instructing the jury that maximum amount should be a mistrial.
After five months awaiting, Judge Nancy Gertner agreed Joel’s motion of remittitur by reducing the damages Joel owes to $67,500 – one-tenth of the original one. In her ruling, she wrote:

Reducing the jury’s $675,000 award also sends another no less important message: The Due Process Clause does not merely protect large corporations, like BMW and State Farm, from grossly excessive punitive awards. It also protects ordinary people like Joel Tenenbaum.

Still, for each song, Joel has to pay $2,250, and if my memory serves, upon what is the appropriate amount of damages, “30 Dollars”, Charlie said after the hearing.

Next Page »