Gucci vs.

Guess

Guess has been subject to 12 copyright complaints over the last ten years. But they
have successfully managed to resolve all previous situations almost immediately...
until they messed with Gucci.
Case
Guess used many of Gucci's distinctive marks, including a green and red stripe used
on handbags, the repeating, inverted GG pattern, and the company's use of brown
and beige colours, mostly used in conjunction with diamond shape patterns.
Of course, Gucci came out on top, but not in the way they had hoped for. Initially
asking for $221m in damages, the judge told Gucci they were only entitled to an
accounting of profits and limited the damages. In the end, Gucci only received
$4.7m.
Outcome
Guess was also barred from using most of their designs ever again, primarily the
Quattro G patterns in brown and beige colours and the CRG stripe. The judge
concluded that Over the years, Gucci has sent out hundreds of cease and desists
letters to entities ranging from national companies such as Bebe, Juicy Couture, and
Williams-Sonoma, all the way to small-time infringers, such as a counterfeiter
working out of her Los Angeles apartment and a rabbi in New York, who they
suspected might sell counterfeit Gucci products to benefit his synagogue. When it
came to Guess, they waited because the company was facing budgetary concerns
due to counterfeiters. Furthermore, the company had failed to bring non-speculative
evidence to court.

Oracle vs. Google

In 2010 Oracle filed a lawsuit against Google claiming that the search giant violated
their copyrights and patents in the creation of the Android mobile operating system.
Case
On the copyright side of things, the issue centered around the Java programming
languages application programming interface (API). An API is basically a set of
instructions that tell an application how to interact with something else on the

computer. Google, wanting to make Android accessible to JAVA developers, copied

the Java API though nothing else from the language was copied.
Oracle sued claiming, in part, copyright infringement in the API.
Outcome by lower court
The lower court ruled that APIs could not be protected by copyright, siding with
Google. Oracle then appealed that ruling, which was overturned. Google has now
put the case before the Supreme Court, which in turn has asked for advice from the
federal government.
Why its important: The copying and reuse of APIs or elements from APIs is fairly
common in programming. While Java is a programming language, these days almost
every site, application, device or tool has an API that allows connected programs,
devices, etc. to communicate with it.
While this likely wont impact the use of an API for its intended function, many
developers create APIs identical to or similar to others in the field to encourage
others to create applications for it. If APIs are copyright protected and Googles use
is not a fair use, it could spell trouble for a lot of developers.
Why It Was Ignored: Explaining what an API is can be very difficult (so much sure
Im certain my explanation is inadequate). Its a very complex technical term and its
not something that directly impacts a large number of people outside of the tech
community.
Still, this case has the potential to drastically change how various applications and
devices talk to one another and could result in a great deal of additional litigation. If
Oracle wins, its unlikely that this will be the last such lawsuit filed.

Final outcome
Oracle Corp won a legal victory against Google Inc as a U.S. appeals court decided
Oracle could copyright parts of the Java programming language, which Google used
to design its Android smartphone operating system.
A high-profile 2012 trial featured testimony from Oracle's chief executive, Larry
Ellison, and Google CEO Larry Page, and the legal issues go to the heart of how
tech companies protect their most valuable intellectual property.
Google's Android operating system is the world's best-selling smartphone platform. A
San Francisco federal judge had decided that Oracle could not claim copyright
protection on parts of Java, but the three-judge Federal Circuit panel reversed that
ruling.
"We conclude that a set of commands to instruct a computer to carry out desired
operations may contain expression that is eligible for copyright protection," Federal
Circuit Judge Kathleen O'Malley wrote.
"What we have is a decision that will definitely shake up the software industry," said
Samuelson.
But Oracle attorney E. Joshua Rosenkranz said the law has always been clear on
these issues. "There's nothing at all astounding in what the Federal Circuit did," he
said.