Google Developer Testifies That Java Memo Was Misinterpreted

benfrog writes with a piece that appeared in yesterday's Wall Street Journal about the in-progress legal battle between Oracle and Google over Java: "Ex-Sun and current Google employee Tim Lindholm testified that it was "not what he meant" when asked about the smoking gun email (included here (PDF)) that essentially said that Google needed to get a license for Java because all the alternatives 'suck[ed].' He went on in 'brief but tense testimony' to claim that his day-to-day involvement with Android was limited."

Comments

Oh come on

[msobkow]

If he didn't mean they should negotiate a Java license with Sun, why did he say:

...we need to negotiate a license for Java under the terms we need.

How you could possibly interpret that statement as meaning anything other than "we need to negotiate a license" is beyond me. I may not like Oracle's aggressiveness in pursuing the issue, but I can't read this email as being anything other than an acknowledgement that Google needs a license.

Now don't get me wrong. Google could have later used the GPL version of Java safely, but they didn't have that option back then. Plus there's the question of whether you're allowed to use pieces of a GPL piece of software, such as the Dalvik compiler and core runtime with a Dalvik-compiled copy of the Java code for it's libraries and packages.

I would contend that they're well within the GPL, provided that the Dalvik code was also released under the GPL. However, if the Dalvik core isn't under GPL, then they've got the issue of mixing GPL and non-GPL code to muddy the waters, and maybe that's the angle Oracle is playing.

Re:Oh come on

[pla]

How you could possibly interpret that statement as meaning anything other than "we need to negotiate a license" is beyond me.

"We need to buy shiny toy X" doesn't always, or (IMO) even usually, mean "we've already chewed the fingers off it, guess we need to pay for it now".

Re:Oh come on

[dgatwood]

If he didn't mean they should negotiate a Java license with Sun, why did he say:

It seems likely that he meant that they should negotiate with Sun for a license. However, the most likely meaning of such a statement (when spoken or written by an engineer) is that it would be easier to get a quality product out the door in a timely manner if they licensed Java from Sun than if they wrote their own implementation, and thus, from an engineering perspective, they needed to do so. The powers that be chose to rewrite it instead of buying a license, therefore no license was needed from either a legal or a technical perspective. It is therefore downright silly to interpret such a statement from an engineer as implying that a license was legally necessary.

Re:Oh come on

[BillX]

Looking at the various email threads, it reads to me like Google decided a Java-compatible platform was their best option, and licensing one from Sun (they already had one, called Java) was the easiest path to getting the job done. Another email in the exhibit mentions the possibility of clean-rooming their own Java-compatible platform, but basically saying it would be a giant PITA and not cost-effective vs. just licensing Sun's existing one. I don't see the Java license discussions as construing "proof of knowledge of infringement" (etc.), or belief that it was the only legal path forward, only that at least one guy believed it was the easiest path forward.

Fairly plausible

[pla]

Reading the email linked by the FP, I would call his claim fairly plausible - I wouldn't take him to have meant "gee, we've infringed the hell out of it, we need to get legal ASAP", but rather "Can you please just buy the best option for us so we can move on and stop the games?"

Honestly, something like that exact discussion comes up on a monthly basis where I work, and some shyster could probably find examples of me saying substantially the same thing in my emails. And I don't give two shakes of a rat's ass about whether or not my employer wants to stay legal on the licensing side - If they don't mind me using a copy of Windows registered to Razor1911, no skin off my back (and hell, good ammo for me if things get ugly).

Re:Most vital lesson learnt: Hire the right person

[thaylin]

Of course you have never written a message like that, he used proper grammar in his emails. 8)

Nice foresight

[ghn]

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 7:59AM, Dave Sobota wrote:

2. Can you spell out the risk of us relying on Sun for support in more detail? I thought Java was largely opensourced anyway -- so I don't understand why we'd be so worried if Sun went bankrupt, was sold to an unfriendly company or just decided to act erratically with respect to Java. Is it that we are concerned about the parts that are not opensourced (e.g., test suite) --that Sun might jack up the license fees or just stop licensing those altogether?

p29 of the exhibit

This e-mail was years after Google started Android

[Chibi Merrow]

No matter what he meant, it shouldn't matter. Oracle is trying to use the e-mail to prove "Google knew ahead of time they were in the wrong!" when in fact this e-mail was written AFTER Oracle bought Sun and was murmuring about lawsuits. It's also an unsent draft of an e-mail written by a Google employee who wasn't working on Android! Wow!

I guess if I want to screw over my company in the future, I know how to do it now... Incriminating e-mail drafts!

Re:This e-mail was years after Google started Andr

[Chibi Merrow]

Actually they are trying to use the email to show that Google were knowingly breaching the license, not that google knew ahead of time that they were in the wrong.

I don't think I understand the subtle difference in what I said and what you said... So let me try to be clear by pretending to know what I'm talking about for a second: Oracle is trying to use the e-mail to show evidence of WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT.

And it could be evidence of that, except: 1) it was written after Oracle started threatening, 2) it was written AFTER Sun's CEO publicly congratulated Google on releasing Android and promised Sun would support the Android platform 3) it was written by someone in Google not working on Android 4) it was saved as a draft but not sent.

Oracle are dicks, but that is only a mild improvement on the twats that are google.

Are you trying to say Oracle is less evil than Google? Are you at all familiar with Oracle?

Honestly even if Google is in the wrong here (which I strongly disagree with), I think it's vitally important Oracle lose this case, as the legal theory they are trying to push (that public APIs are subject to copyright and licensing) is absolute INSANITY and would be the death knell to a large percentage of the software industry.

Though it would make developing on proprietary systems significantly more painful than Free/Open systems like Linux, so that would make some people around here very happy...

Re:Liar liar

[shutdown -p now]

Because Oracle is on the other side.