Oracle’s overall theme is that Google took a “shortcut” by using Java APIs.

Android chief Andy Rubin stood to make $60 million in incentive payments if Android shipped on schedule.

Oracle’s overall theme is that Google took a “shortcut” by using Java APIs.

Android chief Andy Rubin stood to make $60 million in incentive payments if Android shipped on schedule.

Of the many companies that used Java, only Google had an unlicensed implementation.

Google pointed out that these deals were different, because they included implementing code, trademarks, and Java branding.

Early on in closing, Oracle attorney Peter Bicks pointed to the four factors of “fair use.” He would spend the rest of his statement explaining how they all weigh in Oracle’s favor.

The “real” examples of fair use are the ones enumerated in the law, Bicks said—news reporting, criticism, comment, and teaching, for instance.

Android doesn’t fit any of those, he said, crossing out each example in red.

One factor to consider is whether a use is “commercial” or not.

Google doesn’t deny that Android is commercial, but it claims other factors are more important. Oracle pounded on the profitability of Android, noting here it has earned $42 billion in revenue.

More on Android’s success.

Google CEO Larry Page expounded the systems’ “mind boggling” success, saying in 2012 that 700,000 Android phones were “lit up” every day.

Oracle’s argument is that the Java APIs in dispute are illegally copied code, plain and simple.

The amount of code varied slightly but is included in all versions of Android.

Android shouldn’t be seen as transformative because the Java APIs perform “the same purpose” in both Java and Android.

This slide notes that Google only wrote 23 percent of Android, relying on large amounts of existing open source code.

As much an argument about “transformation,” this can be read as a not-so-subtle attempt to counter Google’s claim that Android was “built from scratch.”

The work at issue is Java SE, a desktop system, parts of which Google re-purposed for smartphones.

But Oracle countered that argument by pointing out a few uses of Java SE that did go in phones.

Are these pictured phones that “smart?” That’s in the eye of the beholder.

Google’s case emphasized that free use of APIs was the industry standard and featured testimony to that effect. Oracle has tried to counter that with documents showing Google knew APIs were copyrighted.

Oracle has leaned on this 2010 e-mail to Andy Rubin perhaps more than any other, because it can’t be dismissed like the earlier, failed negotiations with Sun.

The e-mail, stating that alternatives to Java “all suck,” is dated just days before Oracle filed suit.

This chart is a catch-all of quotes from e-mails used to bolster Oracle’s case.

Among them: Rubin acknowledging in 2006 that “java.lang APIs are copyrighted,” programmer Dan Bornstein’s urging to “scrub out a few more J’s” from the source code, and an e-mail from an Apache Harmony programmer saying Android is “ripping off” Oracle’s IP.

A huge problem for Oracle is that ex-Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz got on the stand on Google’s behalf and said in no uncertain terms that using Java APIs was just fine. Oracle tried to tear down that argument with Schwartz’s private griping about Google over e-mail.

The trial was rife with metaphors.

Google compared APIs to items on a restaurant menu, while Oracle compared them to book titles, chapter headings, and topic sentences from a series of novels—like the Harry Potter series.

The law that APIs are sufficiently creative to be copyrighted has already been established in this case by an appeals court, but Oracle still pushed that point, especially when VP Mark Reinhold was put on the stand.

Oracle urged the jury not to give much weight to the small amount of code—less than one-tenth of one percent of Android—that involved the Java APIs.

Their expert called it the “heart of Android” and made this software map showing the connections.

Finally, Oracle made the hard-to-believe argument that the Java business would have been _huge_ if not for Android.

This chart shows the once-upon-a-time success of Java ME (mobile edition), which they view as a derivative work of Java SE.

Oracle witnesses described the effect of Android as “devastating” to their Java licensing business.
In closing arguments, Bicks highlighted the testimony of CEO Safra Catz, who described how Android’s availability hurt the prices they could charge.

There’s no dispute that Java-based phones foundered while Android flourished.

The question is, did Google compete the right way?

No surprise, by the end of his closing statement, Bicks concluded that all the four fair use factors weighed strongly in Oracle’s favor. Here’s a picture of the scales of justice, the way Oracle would like them to tilt.

Oracle’s lawyers have made their final pitch to paint Google as a copyright outlaw, and the decision is now up to a 10-person jury.

The jurors have been cloistered in a room on the 19th floor of the federal courthouse in San Francisco, and ended their second full day of deliberations this afternoon. They’ll return to court Thursday to continue their discussion.
If Google loses, a separate damages phase will immediately follow.
During a 90-minute closing argument on Monday, Oracle attorney Peter Bicks said every fair use factor weighed in Oracle’s favor and that Google’s behavior showed “bad faith.” Above are some of the slides Bicks showed jurors during his closing argument.
We also asked Google for some of the slides it showed to the jury, but Google declined to provide them. (These in-court visuals aren’t evidence, according to the rules of the court, so it’s up to the parties as to whether or not to show them outside court.)
In all, Oracle prepared more than 150 slides to show the jury during closing arguments.

For those wanting to see all the slides, here’s the first half and second half, in PDF format.

Also available are the 22-page jury instructions and the simple 1-page verdict form.
Listing image by Aurich Lawson