Despite losing against the web search giant in an infringement battle, Oracle Corporation (NASDAQ:ORCL) is still up against Google Inc (NASDAQ:GOOG) by claiming that a U.S. judge erred when he dismissed its billion dollar copyright claim against Google.
In an appeals brief filed earlier this week in the Federal U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Oracle Corporation (NASDAQ:ORCL) said Google’s use of Java structure was “decidedly unfair.”
“Copyright protects a short poem or even a Chinese menu or jingle,” Oracle wrote. “But the copied works here were vastly more original, creative, and labor-intensive.”
Google was sued by Oracle Corporation (NASDAQ:ORCL) in 2011, on the grounds of infringing on Oracle’s patents. The company claimed that Google violated its rights to the Java programming language in its Android mobile platform.
Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG) was acquitted of most of the infringement claims in Oracle’s lawsuit last May, despite Oracle’s accusations that the web search giant copied portions of Oracle’s Java code. The jury ruled that Oracle’s APIs were not eligible for copyright protection under U.S. law.
“This Court should not stop at finding that Google Inc (NASDAQ:GOOG) infringed Oracle’s copyrighted work. A remand to decide fair use is pointless,” Oracle said in a filing on Monday to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The District Court ruled that the infringed code and organization of the 37 packages were devoid of copyright protection.
“Nothing about Google’s use was fair,” Oracle Corporation (NASDAQ:ORCL) said in the filing. Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG) could not be immediately reached for comment.
Arguing Google’s infringement, Oracle’s attorney E. Joshua Rosenkranz used that hypothetical example of a fictitious author “Ann Droid” who obtained an advance copy of “Harry Potter” and pirated several parts.
“Google has copied a blockbuster literary work just as surely, and as improperly, as Ann Droid – and has offered the same defenses,”
Reuter says Google Inc (NASDAQ:GOOG) is expected to file its own reply brief in May.
