Editing Oracle Corporation (section)

===Lawsuit against Google===
{{main|Oracle v. Google}}

==== Background ====
Oracle, the plaintiff, acquired ownership of the Java computer programming language when it acquired [[Sun Microsystems]] in January 2010.<ref name="ReutersJune2011" /> The Java software includes sets of pre-developed software code to allow programs and apps to accomplish common tasks in a consistent manner. The pre-developed code is organized into separate "[[Package manager|packages]]" which each contain a set of "[[Class (computer programming)|classes]]". Each class contains numerous [[Method (computer programming)|methods]], which instruct a program or app to do a certain task. Software developers "became accustomed to using Java's designations at the package, class, and method level".<ref name="Quimbee">{{cite web |title=Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc. |url=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/oracle-america-inc-v-google-inc |access-date=2018-01-29 |website=Quimbee |language=en}}</ref>

Oracle and [[Google]] (the defendant) tried to negotiate an agreement for Oracle to license Java to Google, which would have allowed Google to use Java in developing programs for mobile devices using the [[Android (operating system)|Android]] [[operating system]]. However, the two companies never reached an agreement. After negotiations failed, Google created its own programming platform, which was based on Java, and contained 37 copied Java packages as well as new packages developed by Google.<ref name="Quimbee" />

==== First trial ====
In 2010, Oracle sued Google for [[copyright infringement]] for the use of the 37 Java packages.<ref name="Quimbee" /><ref name="ReutersJune2011">{{Cite news |date=2011-06-18 |title=Oracle seeks up to $6.1 billion in Google lawsuit |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oracle-google-lawsuit/oracle-seeks-up-to-6-1-billion-in-google-lawsuit-idUSTRE75H0FP20110618 |access-date=2018-01-29|last=Levine|first=Dan|editor-first=Todd|editor-last=Eastham}}</ref> The case was handled in [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California|U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California]] and assigned to Judge [[William Alsup]] (who taught himself how to code computers<ref name="verge" />).<ref name="ReutersJune2011" /> In the lawsuit, Oracle sought between $1.4 billion and $6.1 billion.<ref name="ReutersJune2011" /> In June 2011 the judge had to force Google through a judicial order to make public the details about Oracle's claim for damages.<ref name="ReutersJune2011" />

By the end of the first jury trial (the legal dispute would eventually go on to another trial) the arguments made by Oracle's attorneys focused on a Java function called "rangeCheck":<blockquote>The argument centered on a function called rangeCheck. Of all the lines of code that Oracle had tested—15 million in total—these were the only ones that were 'literally' copied. Every keystroke, a perfect duplicate. – ''The Verge'', 10/19/17<ref name="verge">{{Cite news |last=Jeong |first=Sarah |date=2017-10-19 |title=How the judge on Oracle v. Google taught himself to code |work=The Verge |url=https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/19/16503076/oracle-vs-google-judge-william-alsup-interview-waymo-uber |access-date=2018-01-29}}</ref></blockquote>Although Google admitted to copying the packages, Judge Alsup found that none of the Java packages were covered under copyright protection, and therefore Google did not infringe.<ref name="Quimbee" />

==== First appeal ====
After the case was over, Oracle appealed to the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit]] (750 F.3d 1339 (2014)).<ref name="Quimbee" /><ref name="eff-org">{{Cite news |date=2013-05-22 |title=Oracle v. Google |language=en |work=Electronic Frontier Foundation |url=https://www.eff.org/cases/oracle-v-google |access-date=2018-01-29}}</ref> On May 9, 2014, the appeals court partially reversed Judge Alsup's decision, finding that Java APIs are copyrightable. API stands for "application programming interface" and are how different computer programs or apps communicate with each other. However, the appeals court also left open the possibility that Google might have a "[[fair use]]" defense.<ref name="eff-org" />

==== Supreme Court petition ====
On October 6, 2014, Google filed a petition to appeal to the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]], but the Supreme Court denied the petition.<ref name="eff-org" />

==== Second trial ====
The case was then returned to the U.S. District Court for another trial about Google's fair use defense.<ref name="eff-org" /> Oracle sought $9 billion in damages.<ref name="ZDNet">{{Cite news |last=Tung |first=Liam |date=2017-02-13 |title=Just as you thought Java-Android row was over, it all kicks off again |language=en |work=ZDNet |url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/oracle-vs-google-just-as-you-thought-java-android-row-was-over-it-all-kicks-off-again/ |access-date=2018-01-29}}</ref> In May 2016, the trial jury found that Google's use of Java's APIs was considered fair use.<ref name="eff-org" />

==== Second appeal ====
In February 2017, Oracle filed another appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.<ref name="eff-org" /> This time it was asking for a new trial because the District Court "repeatedly undermined Oracle's case", which Oracle argued led the jury to make the wrong decision. According to ZDNet, "For example, it [Oracle] says the court wrongly bought Google's claim that Android was limited to smartphones while Java was for PCs, whereas Oracle contends that Java and Android both compete as platforms for smart TVs, cars, and wearables."<ref name="ZDNet" />