Google found distributing Oracle's Java code within Android project - Page 6

Originally Posted by digitalclips

Dates: I am sick of data from years ago being at the top .. is an automatic built in date relevance so hard?

...

I refuse to use Bing so personally I am hoping for a really well done Google alternative!

Originally Posted by nht

The one thing I miss in bing is their advanced search doesn't allow for date ranges. Or at least I haven't found it yet. So I'm using Bing for normal searches and moving to Google when I want to find something by date.

Originally Posted by logic2.6

A very elemental *Google* search would resolve your confusion about "willful" infringement. But since you clearly can't be bothered, let me share some verifiable information:

1. Copyright at its core doesn't require willful infringement - it operates on strict liability. Either you did a proscribed act (in this case, at least two proscribed acts - reproducing and distributing code) or you didn't. If you did, you're liable for statutory damages at the very least, unless a "fair use" exception excuses your violation (needless to say, no court would find that fair use applied in this case).
2. In addition to the strict liability, you get hit with even higher penalties if the plaintiff can demonstrate that you "willfully" infringed on her copyright (e.g. MP3.com putting all those songs on their server "because their users had already purchased the songs" or Google scanning all those books and putting them on the web because...well they're Google and I suppose information wants to be free...to sell ads).
3. To get statutory damages, a plaintiff does not need to show that you made a dime from violating her copyright. Just that you violated at least one of her exclusive rights. If she can prove that you did in fact make profit (and if the free of charge distributed Android violates the code, again no court would find that Google did not profit from it), then she can get significantly more damages.

You may spin the facts (which remain somewhat unclear) as you see fit but you, like Velben, also seem keen on recasting intellectual property LAW to mesh with your view of the world. Doesn't work that way.

Needless to say, there is no "my bad" exception to copyright law, where by you "remove" the "pointless" copyrighted work after having violated the owner's rights and magically escape liability.

Originally Posted by veblen

I think Google is 100% liable for having these particular files within their repository. I just don't think that these particular files were used by Google in a way which significantly damaged Oracle based on the information we have about them. These do not appear to be central to Google's development process at all, they simply existed out in a branch of their repository. From my understanding the commercial gain or loss of the infringement is central to damages. I don't think these files in particular would cost Google a significant amount in damages should Oracle include them in their lawsuit. Since the code in these files wasn't used significantly during the development process and thus wasn't included in the code that shipped I don't think it's likely they'd receive per handset damages like some have suggested. Even if they were found guilty and charged the maximum of $150,000 per infringement, 37 * 150,000 is about 5.5 million. As I've had time to think about this story, I also wonder why if these files have existed since Oracle began it's lawsuit why Oracle didn't include them. Was it because this Mueller individual was more thorough or was it because Oracle didn't think them worth mentioning? My opinions don't have anything to do with anything more than the files mentioned in the Apple Insider article and shouldn't be assumed to apply to all of the code involved in the Oracle vs Google suit.

I don't have any particularly strong feelings for or against Google. Perhaps because I'm a system admin and have been friends with people who administer software repositories I relate more with the difficulties of their job. I can imagine them out at lunch complaining to me about how some 3rd party developer's script globally replaced the licensing headers in code that was eventually uploaded into the repository. How the the developer uploaded the files in compressed format into an obscure branch of the repository and because the code wasn't used it didn't go through internal code review. How it was probably excluded from any scripts analyzing the code because it was compressed. I can imagine executives sending emails asking them to document in detail procedural minutia to relate why this wasn't caught. I can image my words to them, "That sucks." Sounds like a bad Monday at work to me.

Originally Posted by hill60

So how's Oracle's income stream from J2ME coming along?

Pre-Android compared to post-Android?

Originally Posted by hill60

So how's Oracle's income stream from J2ME coming along?

Pre-Android compared to post-Android?

Originally Posted by GoneNuts

It's all about Oracle's lawyers talking with Google Lawyers and seeing how much of the Android pie Google is willing to give to Oracle.

Patent infringement is like having stock options. It's all about watching your stock price grow, then cashing in at the right time. I mean, so how long has the "open source" Android OS been distributed and Oracle hasn't been bothered until recently to look through it? Taking any of this seriously is a mistake.

Originally Posted by digitalclips

Maybe it's just me but date would seem a natural built in criteria so should be at the easy section not advanced. Just tried Blekko with .. /date ... at end of search (e.g. global warming/date) ... it works well as intended. It is beta so I assume that is why so many results have weird text issues. Hopefully it will get better. Their financial model seems to be the sharing of search tags as far as I can tell. There is a good into video.

Originally Posted by veblen

Here is the detail on the files I am talking about.

"The second set of 37 files is actually zipped up into one file called MMAPI.zip and tucked away in a directory used for native code audio drivers for one particular type of chip set. Florian really had to go digging for this one. I double-checked the make files and its clear this file is not shipped with Android either. Somebody uploaded it by mistake and it should simply be deleted." - http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/o...n-android/2162

Originally Posted by SomeCallMe...Tim

Frivolous lawsuits are usually dismissed early in the proceedings.

Your solution would certainly add additional discouragement to frivolous suits. However, it would also discourage novel suits by all but the wealthy. This is America, and we like justice better than that.

New and novel causes of action are good for all of us. For example, many product liability lawsuits used to get thrown out as frivolous, but the law has since expanded to give us additional protections against defective and dangerous products.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Instead, try to get the existing protections enforced more often, like sanctions which can be imposed on those who bring forth frivolous cases.

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Just because the body is hard to find, doesn't mean that murder wasn't committed.

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Just because the body is hard to find, doesn't mean that murder wasn't committed.

Originally Posted by veblen

I think Google is 100% liable for having these particular files within their repository. I just don't think that these particular files were used by Google in a way which significantly damaged Oracle based on the information we have about them. These do not appear to be central to Google's development process at all, they simply existed out in a branch of their repository. From my understanding the commercial gain or loss of the infringement is central to damages. I don't think these files in particular would cost Google a significant amount in damages should Oracle include them in their lawsuit. Since the code in these files wasn't used significantly during the development process and thus wasn't included in the code that shipped I don't think it's likely they'd receive per handset damages like some have suggested. Even if they were found guilty and charged the maximum of $150,000 per infringement, 37 * 150,000 is about 5.5 million. As I've had time to think about this story, I also wonder why if these files have existed since Oracle began it's lawsuit why Oracle didn't include them. Was it because this Mueller individual was more thorough or was it because Oracle didn't think them worth mentioning? My opinions don't have anything to do with anything more than the files mentioned in the Apple Insider article and shouldn't be assumed to apply to all of the code involved in the Oracle vs Google suit.

Originally Posted by veblen

Comparing a zip file of code for testing audio drivers for one chipset with murder... seriously? I've read this forum for years, I read your posts and usually agree with you. That's not a statement that's commensurate with these files. These files didn't aid in the development of Android. I agree they are liable for having them there but the damage is minimal if any. If anything it's more like a paper cut, not murder.

Originally Posted by veblen

Comparing a zip file of code for testing audio drivers for one chipset with murder... seriously? I've read this forum for years, I read your posts and usually agree with you. That's not a statement that's commensurate with these files. These files didn't aid in the development of Android. I agree they are liable for having them there but the damage is minimal if any. If anything it's more like a paper cut, not murder.

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Just because the body is hard to find, doesn't mean that murder wasn't committed.

Originally Posted by veblen

Apple pulled AirPrint functionality from printers attached due to licensing issues right? They had the offending files in their development versions of OS X which were distributed to developers. You can even download the files which were included at http://netputing.com/2010/11/11/airprint-hacktivator/. Apple realized these files had licensing issues and didn't ship them to non development versions. To me it would be preposterous for anyone to think that just because Apple included these files in the development versions of their code and distributed it in this limited basis that there is any danger to OS X as a platform or that Apple would end up being liable for a per installation judgement. This is case would be a more egregious violation of a copyright than the Google example here because the files were actually used in the main development code base of OS X. In this I wouldn't consider that Apple had no respect for intellectual property. They realized the code was a license violation and removed it before shipping it to their non-development install base. This kind of stuff happens all the time and doesn't endanger the viability of the platforms themselves.

Originally Posted by anonymouse

I thought it was obvious, but, just to make it clear, I was showing how ridiculous your line of reasoning was by showing how it would apply as a general principle of law. In other words, just because a crime is hard to discover, doesn't make it less of a crime. Note, this criticism dismisses at least 99% of the pro-Google arguments made in this thread, since that's really the only defense there is, that Google's violation of copyright law wasn't easily discovered. Doesn't make it any less of a violation, just like burying the body doesn't absolve one of murder.

Originally Posted by veblen

That was not obvious to me because that the files were hard to find hasn't been my argument. My argument is that the files in the zip file were not used for development of anything significant on Android. There distribution in whatever limited fashion to the development community was likely a violation of the copyright. However, since a significant portion of copyright violation damages have to do with the damage done and gain from the violation, we have to look at the importance of the files themselves and how they were used to estimate what we think the damages might be and how significant the effect of these damages would be to Google.

Originally Posted by asdasd

No amount of explaining that copyright has nothing to do with the compiled executables will apparently work in this thread. Those files are binaries ( there is a hint in where they get installed), not source. Apple is implementing their own version of the idea and the patent is about the workings of the software, not the copying of the source files line by line. in that case pulling from a release is good enough. They are not publishing any source.

Originally Posted by asdasd

The main case against Google is the patent violation. This copyright violation ( and these are probably not the only examples) will make it hard for Google to claim that they "clean roomed" their own JVM.

Their counter argument is that Oracles licences are invalidated by the GPL.

Originally Posted by GalaxyTab

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...10122054409107

This was a good (but lengthy) read on the recent revelations over this (alleged) infringement. This thread has been fascinating too.

Originally Posted by logic2.6

You are inaccurate when you say "Damages are based on whether or not it was intentional" and dead wrong when you say "I can host music on my computer all I want; until someone downloads it from me no infringement took place."

Copyright operates on STRICT liability. You will incur statutory damages for a copyright violation regardless of your intent (if you're thinking of the "innocent infringer" defense, the judge only reduces damages, and anyway it pretty much would never apply to a sophisticated defender like Google.)


Once you make a copy of copyrighted music without authorization, you could be liable for violating the reproduction right. Now on a practical level, if you just copied it to a hard drive that you unplug and put on a shelf for the next 20 years, nobody's going to be able to sue you.

If you put the same music files on a publicly accessible server, you could additionally be liable for violating the right to distribute, whether or not a single copy was ever downloaded.

Your statement is like saying if you made 1000 copies of the Lion King and put it on a shelf in your store, you wouldn't be liable for infringement unless someone actually bought one of your bootlegs. Now even if the copies were in your home, if there were a reason to raid your home (say if a search warrant were issued because you are a notorious bootlegger), you'd still be liable for violating the reproduction right. Now, no judge is likely to issue a search warrant for a fishing expedition into people's homes unless there's a very good reason to think they're engaged in serious violations.

A more accurate statement would be "I can host music on my computer all I want; until someone downloads it from me, no one's likely to sue me for the infringement I've already committed."

Google cannot escape liability simply because only one person or 100 people downloaded an otherwise protected work. The number of people who downloaded it is completely irrelevant to base level liability, as is whether those people were internal or external to Google.

Originally Posted by veblen

That was not obvious to me because the files being hard to find hasn't been my argument. ...

Originally Posted by veblen

No worries on missing the distribute part.

In reference to B) I believe one of the arguments Google was making was that some of the files were only used on internal test devices and were not distributed to external parties.

You mentioned that even if the only people who Google distributed the code to were bloggers who just analyzed it for copyright issues that Google was guilty. I agree, but in this scenario what financial damage did this do to Oracle and what did Google gain from the infringement? This just looks like a little nit picky error that lawyers are going to make a big deal about. Little mistakes like this happen all the time. To me this just makes Oracle look like a patent troll.

Originally Posted by veblen

I'm just talking about the 37 files referenced in the Apple Insider article.

"My opinions don't have anything to do with anything more than the files mentioned in the Apple Insider article and shouldn't be assumed to apply to all of the code involved in the Oracle vs Google suit."

If these files weren't used significantly to create Android how would their existence significantly affect Oracle's income stream from J2ME pre and post android? I'm not seeing the correlation between these files in particular and decreased income stream from Oracle. Now I can see Google being found liable for their existence in their repository, but for these files in particular I don't see how the damages would be more than 7 digits at the very most. It's my opinion on the relative insignificance of these files which caused me to post in this string. I have not expressed any opinion on the broader Oracle vs Google suit.

Originally Posted by vvswarup

Calling Oracle a "patent troll" for protecting its IP shows how little respect you have for IP.

Originally Posted by anonymouse

It's a refreshing change from the typical classless Google/Android advocate that we get here that you're doing your best to try to come across as reasonable, but you're just talking in circles, and backpeddling when your arguments don't work out. However, your argument was in fact that the files were hard to find, tucked away in a little backwater, wrapped up in a zip file, who would ever even notice them. And, it's an argument that carries no weight whatsoever. The body was hidden, but it was found.

The rest of it, that they supposedly, apparently, possibly weren't being used for anything important is not only a moot point, but entirely beside the point.

Originally Posted by vvswarup

Calling Oracle a "patent troll" for protecting its IP shows how little respect you have for IP. When a corporation spends millions of dollars on developing a product, it has every right to protect it from being stolen. Oracle has every right to protect its innovation, Java. If Google accepted the license and the license prohibited distribution of the code, then Oracle has every right to go after Google.

Originally Posted by veblen

I shouldn't have said that Oracle looks like a patent troll here. As yet Oracle hasn't included these particular files in their lawsuit. I don't know if Oracle's lawyers are going to make a big deal about these files at all, maybe they won't.

Originally Posted by nht

Groklaw sure would like to paint this as SCO 2 but Oracle isn't desperate and Ellison isn't incompetent. PJ is as biased as every other freetard out there...

Originally Posted by veblen

That was not obvious to me because the files being hard to find hasn't been my argument. My argument is that the files in the zip file were not used for development of anything significant on Android. Their distribution in whatever limited fashion to the development community was likely a violation of the copyright. However, since a significant portion of copyright violation damages have to do with the damage done and gain from the violation, we have to look at the importance of the files themselves and how they were used to estimate what we think the damages might be and how significant the effect of these damages would be to Google.

Originally Posted by logic2.6

Finally, you seem to have gotten the point that *liability* for copyright violation has nothing to do with the "extent" of the infringement. But then you go and continue pulling stuff out of...

Let me explain how the process works (as opposed to how YOU think it should work):

Was there a violation of one or more of the exclusive rights in the copyrighted work?

If yes, then unless one of the limitations on the exclusive rights (i.e. fair use, first sale etc.) applies, the court finds that copyright infringement has occurred, liability is established and ONLY then does the issue of damages come up.

Damages would have nothing to do with the "importance" of the copied files or how they were used; though perhaps a court might look at the economic value of the infringing work (i.e. Android, if it indeed contains infringing code). However, for statutory damages, that examination is not necessary at all.

Originally Posted by sprockkets

For your two blah blah blah posts, you need to read up on actual court cases, not just what the law says. Without proof that any downloading took place, there cannot be any damages assessed to a person by the RIAA.

Of course, just like you, the RIAA thinks making available = infringement. It doesn't, and court case after court case has proven this. That's why mediasentry collects a log of those who share on torrents to collect proof of infringement.

Same case with bootleggers that sell actual copies of "Lion King" (what the heck are you like 12?); unless they actually sell something in front of the authorities they cannot be arrested.

Originally Posted by Wurm5150

Android does pride itself as the first to have "Copy and Paste" in a mobile OS.

Google's new motto: "CTRL-C, CTRL-V"

Originally Posted by hezetation

I suspect Google knew they were walking a thin line and the real issue is Google thought they could get away with all this because what were the chances Sun would do anything about it. Then Oracle bought Sun...oooops....

Originally Posted by nht

PJ is as biased as every other freetard out there...