Slashdot Mirror
Google Says 3rd Parties Would Be Liable For Java Infringement
angry tapir writes "Third parties, not Google, would be liable for any Java copyright violations in the Android mobile OS, according to a filing Google made in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Oracle sued Google in August over a number of alleged Java patent and copyright violations in Android."
Free as in "free to pay microsoft and oracle".
I wonder how Oracle will go suing Android integrators in Korea, Taiwan and China?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Troll
so basically leaving the customers (phone makers) twisting in the wind?
Microsoft promises to take legal responsibiliy in the case of patent lawsuits resulting from use of their platform. Interesting times we live in...
Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com
Mayber some of the following paragraphs from tfa would have fit in the summary:
"""
"Any use in the Android Platform of any protected elements of the works that are the subject of the Asserted Copyrights was made by third parties without the knowledge of Google, and Google is not liable for such use," Google attorneys wrote in one of 20 defenses to Oracle's amended complaint.
Another defense states that Android was "created independently and without reference to any works protected by the Asserted Copyrights."
Elsewhere in the document, Google discusses the formation of the Open Handset Alliance, the coalition of vendors, including Google, that worked together to develop Android.
The filing also notes that Android can be freely downloaded and developers are free to modify the source code to suit their needs.
In addition, Google states that Oracle's patent claims should be denied under the doctrine of misuse. "Oracle has come to the Court with unclean hands due to its practice of requiring licensees of its purportedly open software to pay for licenses to items not covered by Oracle's alleged intellectual property in order to receive a license under Oracle's alleged intellectual property."
"""
?
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
From TFA, Google filed 20 defenses taking an 'everything but the kitchen sink' approach. In other words, they listed every defense they could conceive of, so that Oracle has to defeat each individual defense. If one fails, Google will then rely upon the others.
Furthermore, it's a strategic move - if the others were responsible, Oracle could find itself in the position of trying to sue either companies with much smaller bank balances like the Open handset Alliance or some 20 year old student. That's a lot less attractive than a bumper payday from Google.
It helps to have "friends" in "high places."
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Flame
Take that, you troll.
Here's what the article actually says:
"Any use in the Android Platform of any protected elements of the works that are the subject of the Asserted Copyrights was made by third parties without the knowledge of Google, and Google is not liable for such use," Google attorneys wrote in one of 20 defenses to Oracle's amended complaint."
That is, "we are not responsible for any violations added by the third parties". Well, duh.
It may not work, or it might be full of bugs and you have to pay more for it... But since they cover you for patents, that makes all of the difference? yea, thats the route I would recommend. NOT. I look for solutions. If I can not find solutions, I write them! Go ahead and try to hunt down all of the corps that might infringe your patent.... Their software is not shared. Your access to the source is non-existent. Open source only exposes the code if it is shared. It doesn't have to be. And programmers are not that hard to find. They are cheaper than most software, if kept in house. Which would give you all the advantage any how. Custom answer to custom request. Arrg...
Having a flow chart would clear up so many issues surrounding patents. Here is the question:
What line of reasoning must hold water before a patent is deemed valid?
If you read this story, you realize that each party is asserting their position as the valid one. To me, the confusion surrounding this topic is hitting me hard. A flow chart would help out a lot.
Is it "third parties" as in "anyone remotely connected to Android, including users and developers", or "third parties" as in the Open Handset Alliance which comprises 78 companies?
Methinks Google isn't saying, "Look, don't sue us, you should go after the users", but rather "Oh, you want to sue us? You'd better be prepared to include 77 other defendants with big pockets."
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
GO FUCK YOURSELF!
For actual coverage of Google's counterclaims, I suggest Groklaw: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101111114933605
It's been widely reported that there's a duplicated file, and indeed it there is something close to that. BUT! One thing you'll find missing in Oracle's Exhibit "J" are the package headers at the top of the file. There's a good reason for that. On the Android side the file is in package org.apache.harmony.security.tests.support.cert, in directory support/src/test/java. You can see this in the git repository for android. It's sitting in a directory of test support classes.
So the matching file that we have here is part of the test suite to ensure compliance with the interfaces. It is NOT part of the implementation itself. So the real question is, is it OK to have this kind of file sitting in the test branch, to ensure that the real implementation of it complies?
The fact that the package headers have been removed and that this file is from the test suite can't be anything other than a deliberate attempt to deceive, well, someone. ;)
It's rather unbelievable that with thousands of stories out there on this file nobody is talking about WHERE it fits into the android tree.
Microsoft promises to take legal responsibiliy in the case of patent lawsuits resulting from use of their platform
What does that have to do with copyright claims?
Answer: absolutely nothing.
This is extremely revealing. Not only is google content to throw its customers (!?! depending on how they used Android) under the bus, but it is almost a tacit admission that they knew their Dalvik name swap trick won't work.
OK, but the Java license specifically demands that Java be implemented in full with no additions or subtractions (I para phrase). What Google have done is to implement subsets of "Java", and call it something else.
Everyone can see that though they do not call their implementation Java, the implementation is indeed Java to a great extent. That is where Google might lose in my opinion.
They want you to KEEP UNNECESSARY I have a life to PLAYING SO IT'S dying. See? It's perform keeping a5s of them *all, of user base for
The headers haven't only be removed - which is a GPL violation by itself - there's a *new* header:
This is a blatant copyright violation, because you can't re-licence GPL code as Apache.
Dilbert RSS feed
I read and re-read tfa and just coudn't see Sun *ever* doing this level of crap. Larry may be a "great capitalist" but he's a failure as a human being. Bad Larry! Baaad! (smacks Larry on head with rolled up newspaper)
Organization? You must be joking..
the arrogant @$$hole in the polyester suit.
It's a good thing we have choice in the market.
Prediction: They're going to lose all their open source franchises
as developers and customers walk out.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
That's low! It should be on you!
Besides, Java is just the input language - change it for Android 4.0 - change the input language to Basic, make a new compiler and change the virtual machine accordingly. Problem solved.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Evil
If this is true then Wine is in the same boat.
They implement a compatible Win32 layer.
Which is it?
Is Oracle officially the new SCO?
If you don't want to do the research to verify that I am correct, at least read this part from Groklaw:
I must have pointed out about 20 times here on Slashdot that Android is not Google's OS any more than Linux is a Red Hat OS. It is an OS produced by 78 different companies who are members of the Open Handset Alliance and also has numerous unaffiliated contributors.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
So they're just throwing their partners under the bus? I bet that is going to make everyone want to build more Android phones.
or else!
If Oracle sued Red Hat claiming Linux violates their patents, would you say that Red Hat was acting in a "low" fashion for pointing out the fact that Linux is not Red Hat's OS? Of course not. So why would you expect Google to take the hit when Android is not their OS? (Hint: It is FOSS, and is an Open Handset Alliance OS)
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Well, I don't know the entire complaint. But I did check on the PolicyNodeImpl.java file. That code was released by Sun under the GPL with the classpath exception; it isn't proprietary source code. At worst, Google would be guilty of a GPL violation by changing the license. But that's not even what's going on. Google isn't shipping the code as part of Android, the shipped it as part of a test package. Furthermore, that code appears to have to reuse even private variable names because those appear to be accessed via reflection by something.
In general, APIs shouldn't be, and aren't, copyrightable. And since in Java, even private members form part of the API (due to reflection), Oracle really has no leg to stand on in claiming copyright over their choice of private variable names.
Throw the makers to the lions.
Got Code?
"This is a blatant copyright violation, because you can't re-licence GPL code as Apache."
You're assuming this has been copied.
This is pretty much the same as saying someone copied a .h file because they are remarkably similar, sometimes there is only one correct or one common way of writing code.
For this reason, not all code is copyrightable, there are several tests to determine this. I'll be hugely surprised if you could persuade a judge that the similar code in these files is anything other then two implementations of the same standard using common programming practice.
Non-programmers can see that though they do not call their implementation Java, the implementation is indeed Java to a great extent. That is where Google might lose in my opinion.
ftfy. Don't bother telling us "what you think is obviously a Java-VM implementation" until you have (1) read the Dalvik source code, and (2) written a simple compiler/vm.
"...All there is is bullshit, pardon my vulgarity here. Layers of it. One layer of bullshit on top of another. And what you do in life like when you get older is, you pick the layer of bullshit that you prefer and that's your bullshit, so to speak. "
- Bernie LaPlante (Hero)
So whose lawyer has the more preferred layer?
Microsoft could indeed (re)sell you a copy of OSX if they possessed one...
It's like Microsoft demanding you pay Microsoft a license fee for OSX in order for you to buy Windows, but in return for that license fee for OSX you get... nothing... Well you get a paper from Microsoft that says that as far as they are concerned it's okay if you get OSX by some other means and then use it. But since Microsoft doesn't have any stake in OSX that paper doesn't actually mean anything.
Now if you replace the copyright/patent (improperly "intellectual property") bits of the claim with the word/idea "Safety" the nature of this as a "protection racket" becomes clear.
You pay Oracle some money to protect you from any claims Oracle might make against you for things Oracle doesn't own...
You pay (entity) some money for protect you from any (action) (entity) might take against you for things (entity) doesn't otherwise have any right to influence (like your kneecaps or your store-front downtown).
[See "The SCO Group".]
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
The objection is, to my understanding, that "Exhibit 'J'" doesn't consist of any of the actual source code at all. It's got nothing to do with the headers or locations. Exhibit "J" is a decompile. To that end it has all the expressive part stripped. It may be that both halves of the comparison are decompiled from their respective objects using the same tool.
This would naturally strip the result of any indicators as to whether any code was copied because the _tool_ would pick the variable names, and the indenting style and so on.
So consider two implementations of some function "int add_two_integers(int, int)".
One guy goes in for the one-liner: "int add_two_integers(int l, int r) { return l+r; }"
Another guy does the long haul: /* giant copyright notice */ /* motivation for writing code */ /*specific integer sizes selected to constrain results within 32 bits for sure */ /*with comments and everything */
int32
add_two_integers(int32 Left, int32 Right)
{
return (Left + Right);
}
In no way did either party "copy" the other.
But you compile both on a 32-bit platform, then decompile them both, and then say look, that second guy just stole the first guy's code.
The outcome of the above would be different code were both compiled for, say, an amd64. The intent is clearly different. The amount of effort clearly different again. The actual act of copying isn't even in question when the source is examined.
But cook it right and use decompiles and whatnot and you produce a misleading sense of similarity.
So don't go looking at the files from the two distributions and how similar or different they are. The objection is to the particular details of an exhibit we don't have that has, according to Google, been produced or redacted or just plain old manipulated to remove the obvious dissimilarities in a way that Google thinks the court should see as dishonest or biased against a correct finding of fact.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
can Oracle now win this lawsuit without simultaneously destroying Java as a product that any developer may choose to use, since it creates the possibility for Oracle to extend the scope of their patents just by the application of the language itself on the part of the developer?
Larry must be fuming at the lawyers who convinced him this was a great strategy to take. Now he may have put his entire company in jeopardy by proceeding with this lawsuit.
but who will be eager to buy a license to a product that Oracle can sue you if you use it?
If this policy begins to bleed into its Java - database offerings, it could sink Oracle as a company within a few years time.
Larry must be freaking out over the lousy legal advise given to him by a few lawyers eager to find a new gravy train.
This is all about suing Google as they deserve that and much more. Google is the biggest plagiarising entity on the planet who has no tolerance for the privacy and copyright of others. Their advertising and search results are dishonest and their billing is nothing more than extortion. They'll be gone soon!
Yes this has been conventional wisdom. However, it looks as if Google may well use it to beat Oracle over the head with it, since it forces anyone using "open source" Java to pay Oracle, when they don't actually own the right to force developers to pay them for what is essentially open source software. That is an illegal extension of the technology that the patents cover, which only strictly pertain to just how similar to the JVM any VM has to be and be permitted to call itself Java. Google makes no pretense that its VM is a JVM, only that it can use the open source Java language, among others, to produce VM Dalvik bytecode. It seems that Google lawyers had done their homework well before Oracle bought Sun and that Larry got some bad legal advice as to the strength and scope of Sun's patents.
Everyone can see that though they do not call their implementation Java, the implementation is indeed Java to a great extent. That is where Google might lose in my opinion.
Uhhh, no. The Dalvik VM is a completely different beast; comparing it to Java is like comparing a sterling engine to an electric engine. Yes, they are both engines. Yes, they might both run on clean energy, and even get you from point to another. However, the damn things don't even have the same guts.
everyone seems eager to smear themselves in s__t as under all that BS is a pot of gold. Fro that either Larry will be glad to paint themselves brown.
The file is not "duplicated". Somebody used a decompiler (probably "jad") to decompile the corresponding Java 5 class. Java 5 here, not OpenJDK.
That somebody then tacked the Apache license on top of the decompiled code.
Pretty obvious if you compare the file to PolicyNodeImpl.java from the publicly accessible Java 5 sources. Again, Java 5, not OpenJDK.
Indeed, if you look at the two files in question, there are many differences that aren't obvious at first glance. I don't know if one of them changed over time, or if one was influenced by the other, or if class definitions were copied (but not the impl), or what... but it should be pointed out they aren't exact duplicates.
Well, yes, for the sake of argument. I don't know if it has or not, that's for the court to decide. But if it has, it's a copyright violation.
Dilbert RSS feed
>>> But you compile both on a 32-bit platform, then decompile them both, and then say look, that second guy just stole the first guy's code. >>>
Copyrights protect expressions. You have two functions clearly different as they are expressed but after compilation they look the same. So what?
you pull a new defense out of the hat near the end of the trial.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pr3sBks5o_8. 'Nuff said.
The headers haven't been "removed" since the file is clearly not a copy. The file does appear to have been derived from Sun's source file, but not necessarily in a way that violates copyright.
IANAL, but ISTYOMLOS** so I have picked up a few things.
Ellison will have his legal team print all the JVM source code and ship it to every Android integrator by Sikorsky helicopter.
On top of each pile, there will be a note: "Show us your violations."
**I Squandered Ten Years Of My Life On Slashdot
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
You probably should have read the first few paragraphs:
... and ...
The entire document relates to and describes terms of service for the website, not Android. If you want to know about the licensing terms for Android you need to look at the license(s) in the source.
Not just for the website, but for (and I quote the lines you just quoted, emphasis mine):
1.2 Your use of products, software, services and websites in connection with the Open Handset Alliance website
So, it is not just related to (and describing terms of) service for the website but:
related to the OHA website. Somehow I think Android is a) a product and/or b) a software related to c) the OHA website (and/or the OHA itself which is also a Google trademarked name.)
All this talk about headers .... when the replacement of the header was a violation in itself.
No, the code is different. They obviously had different authors implementing the same specification. One author prefers while loops, the other for loops. Variables and members are named differently. See these examples:
Java:
private void getPolicyNodes(int depth, Set set) {
if (mDepth == depth) {
set.add(this);
} else {
Iterator it = mChildren.iterator();
while (it.hasNext()) {
PolicyNodeImpl node = (PolicyNodeImpl) it.next();
node.getPolicyNodes(depth, set);
}
}
}
Android:
private void getPolicyNodes(int i, Set set) {
if(mDepth == i) {
set.add(this);
} else {
PolicyNodeImpl policynodeimpl;
for(Iterator iterator = mChildren.iterator(); iterator.hasNext(); policynodeimpl.getPolicyNodes(i, set))
policynodeimpl = (PolicyNodeImpl)iterator.next();
}
}
-molo
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
The Java license, as I understand it, is requirements on how to implement something called Java. If they're not calling it Java, how is the license applicable?
... this sounds like a crap move. But you have to consider just why Oracle went after Google. Practically every cellphone vendor has some models with Java support. So just about anyone using Android already has a Java license of some kind. And it's hard to imagine Google didn't make this announcement only after talking to strategic partners in the Android business.
As well, as long as they're not actually making Android devices (Google-branded Nexus devices are made by existing phone makers, not Google), it's hard to imagine just how Oracle manages to really sue Google on this, regardless of the actual truth behind the open source licenses Sun put in place ages ago. Oracle seems hell-bent on making Java irrelevant, rather than making money on it. Google doesn't want to move off Java, but if their Dalvik JIT is violating the original FOSS license (which seems to be Oracle's entre into the lawsuit business here), they could migrate developers to other technologies using the same JIT. Or do a cleanroom Java, for that matter. Only a small hill to climb for a company as powerful as Google.
-Dave Haynie
The Google/Oracle patent litigation is really heating up. If judged in the court of public opinion, it's looking more and more like Oracle would be the loser.