or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google found distributing Oracle's Java code within Android project
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google found distributing Oracle's Java code within Android project - Page 7

post #241 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheff View Post

Even if it does Google can easily pay it without charging for Android.

Care to share with us the judgement fee for infringement that your crystal ball is predicting to verify your claim that they can "easily" pay it?

Google may be big but they aren't invulnerable.
post #242 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranReloaded View Post

Royalties not enough... I say bring it down!

and watch apple's main competition dissolve? Suppose it would be interesting to see how little apple feel they have to innovate without any competition on their heels.

Anyone thinking there would be no effect, do you really think wifi hotspot would be coming to iOS if it wasn't on every android phone under the sun already?
post #243 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

And if you are in favor of Oracle, you are in favor of software patents

Talk about people who don't know what they are talking about. Take a look at this:

http://www.jamesshuggins.com/h/tek1/...ent_oracle.htm

Oracle has a long history of opposing software patents. However, they are the current law of the land and Google did blatantly disregard them with Android.

I'm not huge believer in software patents in their current form either, but Google deserves to get their ass handed to them, and Oracle is just the company to do so.

Just honestly answer this question - if Google thought about doing Android after Oracle bought Sun, do you think they would have gone down the same path?

Your answer will be very telling...
post #244 of 278
Let's remember guys - none of you are hot shot patent lawyers let alone judges. Your say on this is completely worthless. It is all biased opinion and conjecture.
post #245 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archos View Post

Google is screwing both, stealing commercial technology for commercial release under the guise of "Free Software," while violating the GPL by erasing copyrights and replacing them with its own invented license. Would be hard to find examples of more egregious theft of technology outside of China.

The emperor indeed has no clothes.

Here's some interesting points this discussion has made me consider. As Google's cloud computing initiatives are pitched more and more to businesses, what are the contractual ramifications? If I move my company to Gmail, and Google gets sued and an injection gets issued against them what happens to my data? Yup, I can move my email to another provider, but what about my historical data? How do I get it back?

What about other Google products? Or other cloud providers? What about bankruptcy? Not a problem (hopefully) for Google, but other smaller cloud providers? You may have rights to your data but if a company ceases operations suddenly how long could it take to get your data back, if ever?

Ugh, the things that keep me up at night these days Having gone through a bankrupcty with a hardware manufacturer we had contracts with there are unfulfilled orders we will never be "made whole" on as well as machines returned for warranty repair we will never see again. Ugh, I see the need for some sort of data escrow arrangement or other overhead that starts to negate the "cloud" advantages...
post #246 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by veblen View Post

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.

Oracle doesn't want damages. They want Android shut down until all infringing code is eliminated. So extents of economic damage don't matter, only is there an infringement or not, and how long would it take the Android devs to recover should the judge agree with Oracle.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #247 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Just tried Blekko with .. /date ... at end of search (e.g. global warming/date) ... it works well as intended.

Yup, so far Blekko is reminding me of what Google was in the early days. I'm using it more and more - I hope they can keep it going!
post #248 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by veblen View Post

Comparing a zip file of code for testing audio drivers for one chipset with murder... seriously? <snip> If anything it's more like a paper cut, not murder.

You seriously missed the point of his remark...
post #249 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

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...

Anyone trying to paint this as SCO part 2 certainly is letting their biases show
post #250 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by veblen View Post

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 case would be a more egregious violation of a copyright than the Google example because the files were actually used in the main development code base of OS X. In this example 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.

Apple does not have copyright issues because the AirPrint code is not a copy of somebody else's code. No open airprint-like code is in the wild yet to copy from and Apples AirPrint implementation wouldn't be available as an open source code for anyone else to see anyway.

Patent licensing issues are at work there. The existence of non-working code doesn't means anything in a patent case, only in a copyright case (Oracle's case is both). Apple needed to get the licensing straight before they can ship an AirPrint implementation for other than HP printers, and as long as they don't they stay on the correct side of the patent law.

Oracle on the other hand has accused Google of infringing on JavaME patents with the Dalvik JVM among other parts. That's very central and in-use code within Android. Oracle has listed a single instance of copyright infringement to satisfy the judge that discovery should be allowed to go forward and not have the copyright part of the case dismissed. These teensy-tiny blogosphere file snippets are nowhere near what Oracle has to have already if they have put this much effort into the suit. If they were all Oracle could have we could be pretty sure the case would die with a whimper, and Oracle would know that. Since Larry isn't stupid, he must have a pretty long list of slam dunk problems for Google. Google hasn't debated the factualness of any of Oracles file claims, just counter-claimed that it must actually be OK to use those files because Google is using them via Open Source license.

The transfer of license issue Google is arguing (saying the old GPL2 implicit patent license still holds even though the code was improperly turned into an Apache license without Sun/Oracle permission) hasn't been ruled on before from what I see on the internet, but it is an awfully big bet for Google that it will go their way. Should Google lose, which I personally think is likely, the real problem is for all the handset and tab manufacturers, not Google itself. They will be next and subject to big claims for previously shipped phones, and no hope of winning because the technical precedent would be set in stone.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #251 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Yup, so far Blekko is reminding me of what Google was in the early days. I'm using it more and more - I hope they can keep it going!

I hope it does better than Cuil.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #252 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

You seriously missed the point of his remark...

ok. I understood the point he was making after he clarified.
post #253 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

Let's remember guys - none of you are hot shot patent lawyers let alone judges. Your say on this is completely worthless. It is all biased opinion and conjecture.

Well, at least you finally realized you weren't convincing anyone that all is well in Androidville.
post #254 of 278
deleted
post #255 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Oracle doesn't want damages. They want Android shut down until all infringing code is eliminated. So extents of economic damage don't matter, only is there an infringement or not, and how long would it take the Android devs to recover should the judge agree with Oracle.

I'm just referring to the 37 MMAPI files which were referred to in the AI article. Since Android doesn't use MMAPI I wouldn't imagine that they would have to shutdown for these particular files. I think all they would do is delete them from their repository. I understand there is a more complex issue at hand here with the ongoing suit between Oracle and Google for possibly infringing on Oracle's Java VM. I'm just referring to the 37 MMAPI files from the AI article.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Apple does not have copyright issues ...Patent licensing issues are at work there.

Your right the fact that AirPrint was not shipped due to patent issues as opposed to a copyright issue does make this a poor example. I'll take a look around and see if I can find a better one.

http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/trade_defin.jsp
post #256 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Well, at least you finally realized you weren't convincing anyone that all is well in Androidville.

Considering that this site is AppleInsider and not AndroidInsider, I don't think it's surprising no one's being convinced.
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
post #257 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob View Post

Considering that this site is AppleInsider and not AndroidInsider, I don't think it's surprising no one's being convinced.

Considering that you think no one can be convinced that Google isn't on the wrong side of the law simply because this site is AppleInsider and not AndroidInsider, why do you bother to post?
post #258 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by veblen View Post

I'm just referring to the 37 MMAPI files which were referred to in the AI article. Since Android doesn't use MMAPI I wouldn't imagine that they would have to shutdown for these particular files. I think all they would do is delete them from their repository. I understand there is a more complex issue at hand here with the ongoing suit between Oracle and Google for possibly infringing on Oracle's Java VM. I'm just referring to the 37 MMAPI files from the AI article.

Sure, those 37 files can be fixed right quick from a copyright perspective. If they indicate a patent issue in the tested code it might not be so clean though (chances of that actually low). Oracle wasn't the one to unearth those though, that was just someone poking though the code looking for obvious comment strings, and finding smoking guns trivially.

A realistic possibility is that if any form of tainted code can be found that easily, there probably is more tainted code not quite as easily found. Code where the comment headers were successfully changed with the license changes. On those more craftily hidden files, the computational power necessary to do a full comparison across Oracles proprietary, the Sun/Oracle GPL code, the Harmony Apache licensed code and Googles Android code belongs to Oracle and Google. Bloggers and others will just be taking semi-directed shots in the dark.

I'm sure the Oracle legal team has had at least several dedicated engineers on this task for months so far, and they don't have to tell anyone anything until discovery is complete. And once that's done the trial is either won or lost for Google because the law left after Googles response to Oracle is pretty cut and dried. No arguments over prior art, no attempts to invalidate patents, just claims of license transfer which has never been upheld before because it apparently never went to court before. Even FSF admits it's implicit patent license in the GPL2 hasn't been tested in court, which is the first step Google needs. But since the code in contention is Apache license without Oracle making it Apache license, they have to hope the courts get really liberal and grant patent license transfer, of implicit licenses granted only for unmodified code, against the owners wishes and into further modified code under a different less restrictive license. How likely does anyone really think that is?
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #259 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

If I move my company to Gmail, and Google gets sued and an injection gets issued against them what happens to my data? Yup, I can move my email to another provider, but what about my historical data? How do I get it back?

There's a reason that MS' cloud solutions allow you to self host. Self hosting isn't all that hard if you have an IT staff at all. The cloud is great for non-sensitive and data that isn't all THAT important if you lose it.
post #260 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Oracle doesn't want damages. They want Android shut down until all infringing code is eliminated. So extents of economic damage don't matter, only is there an infringement or not, and how long would it take the Android devs to recover should the judge agree with Oracle.

Nah, Oracle would be happy if Google paid at the same rate as JavaME license holders including retroactively for all the handsets out there. Google will certainly try to claim that Oracle should be going after the handset manufacturers instead. Not sure that will work out...

Someone around here claimed that Google will indemnify hardware makers. Seems unlikely and that's something that would have been front page news. If they don't and MS, Apple and Oracle prevail then Android adoption among the handset vendors will plummet. Cheaper to go WP7 than the "free" Android.
post #261 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Anyone trying to paint this as SCO part 2 certainly is letting their biases show

Yah, it's pretty silly to try to do so at this stage and even if you believe that SCO was a proxy for someone nefarious *cough*MS*cough* this isn't a fight through proxies but titan against titan. Stakes are far higher with billions at stake.
post #262 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Someone around here claimed that Google will indemnify hardware makers. Seems unlikely and that's something that would have been front page news. If they don't and MS, Apple and Oracle prevail then Android adoption among the handset vendors will plummet. Cheaper to go WP7 than the "free" Android.

I don't remember anyone claiming that Google will indemnify the handset makers but I did make this comment:
Quote:
However, the Oracle suit hangs a dark could over Dalvik (and hence, Android) so I am surprised that Google has not indemnified the handset makers (this would demonstrate that Google strongly believes that they are in the clear). This just seems to make sense in the course of business. Were I running a handset maker, I might be very inclined to buy into the known costs of WP7 over the unknown cost (to be determined by the courts) of using Android.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=157
post #263 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Well, at least you finally realized you weren't convincing anyone that all is well in Androidville.

and all is not well in Appleland either. Jobs probably went home to die. no offense meant to him.
post #264 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Nah, Oracle would be happy if Google paid at the same rate as JavaME license holders including retroactively for all the handsets out there. Google will certainly try to claim that Oracle should be going after the handset manufacturers instead. Not sure that will work out...

Someone around here claimed that Google will indemnify hardware makers. Seems unlikely and that's something that would have been front page news. If they don't and MS, Apple and Oracle prevail then Android adoption among the handset vendors will plummet. Cheaper to go WP7 than the "free" Android.

I don't think Oracle can get much out of Google cash-wise. Google will just argue they have no Android income, so there aren't any infringing sales to recoup against. I would also bet it's a longshot that Oracle could convince a judge of ad related revenue being Android specific enough. And then there's that pesky code in Android that's not under a clear gotta pay Oracle license. Elimination of that code in the business-using wild is really what Oracle is after.

If Oracle wins against Google on Android, I do see them suing the handset makers at the rates you mention. Maybe releasing Android code themselves with appropriately fixed licensing language, but never allowing the current Google curated Android versions to remain -- too much risk there.

We need a bigger popcorn popper for this show.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #265 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

I don't remember anyone claiming that Google will indemnify the handset makers but I did make this comment:

It was one of the usual trolls that I have on ignore now...so Im not going back to look for whom.
post #266 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Considering that you think no one can be convinced that Google isn't on the wrong side of the law simply because this site is AppleInsider and not AndroidInsider, why do you bother to post?

Because I can? I didn't see a rule that says "All users must post comments that appease the user anonymouse".

Seems like you're the only one here that has any issue with me speaking my mind. If you didn't like my post, then why do you bother to read and respond to it?
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
post #267 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

and all is not well in Appleland either. Jobs probably went home to die. no offense meant to him.

A little harsh and probably too soon. I'm sure Tim Cook will do a fine job of running Apple (when the time comes), but no one can match Steve Jobs as CEO.
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
post #268 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob View Post

Because I can? I didn't see a rule that says "All users must post comments that appease the user anonymouse".

Seems like you're the only one here that has any issue with me speaking my mind. If you didn't like my post, then why do you bother to read and respond to it?

Well, I, at least, am curious why you even come here. You don't like Apple, you don't like any of their technology, so what's the draw? I mean, if you're a shill, you should just be honest, come clean about that and admit it. If you aren't, then you should categorically deny it. And, in the latter case, please explain the draw and fascination of AppleInsider to you, why you keep coming back to post largely derogatory and aggressive comments. What exactly is the draw for you? Venting of hate? Displeasure with Apple's success? A feeling of inferiority that this site largely invalidates your personal choices that you are trying to overcome? Simply a desire to be belligerent?
post #269 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Well, I, at least, am curious why you even come here. You don't like Apple, you don't like any of their technology, so what's the draw? I mean, if you're a shill, you should just be honest, come clean about that and admit it. If you aren't, then you should categorically deny it. And, in the latter case, please explain the draw and fascination of AppleInsider to you, why you keep coming back to post largely derogatory and aggressive comments. What exactly is the draw for you? Venting of hate? Displeasure with Apple's success? A feeling of inferiority that this site largely invalidates your personal choices that you are trying to overcome? Simply a desire to be belligerent?

1. I never started that I hated Apple's success or their technology. I give them all the credit they deserve. I'm happy for their success because all it does is drive the industry as a whole towards success. And that benefits me as a consumer. I personally don't own an iPhone or a Mac because, quite simply, it's just not what I want to use. Harp on me all you want, but it's a personal choice.

2. I come here because it's good to hear/read the thoughts of from all sides. I frequent blogs dedicated to all (iOS, Android, webOS, WP7, etc) so I can keep informed. News for one side will affect how the others progress. If you just go to one site and read only what's posted there, then you're not getting a fair view of things. Every once in a while, a post will pop up here that will give me a new way of looking at something.

3. If anything, your posts are more derogatory and aggressive than my posts will ever be. Just look at the post of you're I'm responding to as proof. Apparently one cannot respond to a post of yours (even in mild jest) without being attacked, words put in their mouth, and called a shrill. All for posting opinions that differ from yours.
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
\Apple has always had competition. It's just been in its blind spot.
Reply
post #270 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob View Post

1. I never started that I hated Apple's success or their technology. I give them all the credit they deserve. I'm happy for their success because all it does is drive the industry as a whole towards success. And that benefits me as a consumer. I personally don't own an iPhone or a Mac because, quite simply, it's just not what I want to use. Harp on me all you want, but it's a personal choice.

2. I come here because it's good to hear/read the thoughts of from all sides. I frequent blogs dedicated to all (iOS, Android, webOS, WP7, etc) so I can keep informed. News for one side will affect how the others progress. If you just go to one site and read only what's posted there, then you're not getting a fair view of things. Every once in a while, a post will pop up here that will give me a new way of looking at something.

3. If anything, your posts are more derogatory and aggressive than my posts will ever be. Just look at the post of you're I'm responding to as proof. Apparently one cannot respond to a post of yours (even in mild jest) without being attacked, words put in their mouth, and called a shrill. All for posting opinions that differ from yours.

I like how you danced around the issue of confirming or denying that you are a shill.

BTW, it's your pattern of posting that makes me think you're a shill, not whether you agree with me or not. There are plenty of people who post here that don't agree with me and whom I don't think are shills. But you, I do think so.
post #271 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

Sure it does. Damages are based on whether or not it was intentional. You familiar with the Microsoft case with MP3 patents?

Again, we're talking copyright infringement, so a patent case bears almost no relevance at all.
post #272 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson View Post

Again, we're talking copyright infringement, so a patent case bears almost no relevance at all.

Oracle is suing Google over java patents and copyright infringement...
post #273 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson View Post

Again, we're talking copyright infringement, so a patent case bears almost no relevance at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Oracle is suing Google over java patents and copyright infringement...

And the validity of the patents in that part of the case is pretty airtight and not in dispute, even from Google.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #274 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Oracle is suing Google over java patents and copyright infringement...

Why is it that you and others don't seen to be able grasp the simple concept that the patent side of the case is only enforceable BECAUSE OF Google's licensing of Oracle COPYRIGHTED content be distributed under a different license.

If th copying hadn't occured then they wouldn't be able enforce the patents at all, due to licensing agreements.
post #275 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson View Post

Why is it that you and others don't seen to be able grasp the simple concept that the patent side of the case is only enforceable BECAUSE OF Google's licensing of Oracle COPYRIGHTED content be distributed under a different license.

If th copying hadn't occured then they wouldn't be able enforce the patents at all, due to licensing agreements.

I've had just over a decade of IP law experience under my belt, and I don't grasp this simple concept.

You're saying that Oracle can enforce an issued patent ONLY because Google used Oracle's content in ways at variance with a license for the copyright?

I'd say that you have NO idea what you're talking about, but perhaps that's because your message is garbled - "BECAUSE OF Google's licensing of Oracle COPYRIGHTED content be distributed under a different license."

Do you mind explaining what exactly the simple concept is?

Unless by saying:
Quote:
If th copying hadn't occured then they wouldn't be able enforce the patents at all, due to licensing agreements

...you're making the stunningly obvious point that if Google had used the IP (patent or copyright) strictly according to Oracle's license terms for use of that IP, then Oracle wouldn't have had any grounds to sue. Because that WOULD be...well STUNNINGLY OBVIOUS!
post #276 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by logic2.6 View Post

I've had just over a decade of IP law experience under my belt, and I don't grasp this simple concept.

You're saying that Oracle can enforce an issued patent ONLY because Google used Oracle's content in ways at variance with a license for the copyright?

I'd say that you have NO idea what you're talking about, but perhaps that's because your message is garbled - "BECAUSE OF Google's licensing of Oracle COPYRIGHTED content be distributed under a different license."

Do you mind explaining what exactly the simple concept is?

Unless by saying:

...you're making the stunningly obvious point that if Google had used the IP (patent or copyright) strictly according to Oracle's license terms for use of that IP, then Oracle wouldn't have had any grounds to sue. Because that WOULD be...well STUNNINGLY OBVIOUS!

I think he's confused over the implicit patent grant in GPL 2. In theory Google would be covered under the implicit grant for GPL'd code from java. However, this is one case where the implicit patent grant probably can't be assumed as the intent of the IP holder given that field of use restrictions for TCK patent grants.

Typically, the theory has been that if you release something under the GPL license you also mean to allow downstream folks to use any associated patents you own. Of course, that was told me by a Google IP lawyer. Implicit grants to forks of a project (like Android/Dalvik) are legally untested waters AFAIK. IANAL, etc.

But Google isn't using code from a GPL2 implementation (they used Harmony) and so doesn't have an implicit patent grant like they would if they had based off OpenJDK. They also aren't using code that passed the TCK and has a patent grant that way since Harmony never passed. In any case Android would never meet the JCP patent grant terms either because they did subset/superset Java.

Should be interesting how it pans out.
post #277 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson View Post

Why is it that you and others don't seen to be able grasp the simple concept that the patent side of the case is only enforceable BECAUSE OF Google's licensing of Oracle COPYRIGHTED content be distributed under a different license.

If th copying hadn't occured then they wouldn't be able enforce the patents at all, due to licensing agreements.

This is patently false. Ha ha. Pun intended. Patent enforcement has absolutely nothing to do with copyrights. At all. Ever. There are relationships between the two in time and space, but they are always considered individually.

The main time-space interaction of patent and copyright is that under a public release of open source code (that doesn't state otherwise like GPL3 does) it is understood that implicit granting of patents occurs for use of that released code in unmodified form. That's it.

That is also the position of the FSF in GPL2 (copyright) licensed code. The copyright license doesn't do anything for the patents, those are just assumed by the courts to be implicitly granted because it would be screwy to give someone the code to use under a specific copyright license and then sue them for patent infringement when they are using the licensed code in the appropriate manner.

Googles Android problem is that changing the license from GPL2 to Apache even removed that set of very limited legal protections for them. Leading to Googles main argument that the courts should allow it anyway, rather than attacking the patents validity.

No copying of anything even necessary here, just plain patent infringement for the patent areas. Even clean-room reverse engineering doesn't avoid patent problems, but it does avoid copyright issues.

[now I read far enough and nht says the same thing more succinctly]
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #278 of 278
FOSS has an update on the latest legal wranglings between Google and Oracle, and it looks as though Oracle is finding a tougher time with them than they may have anticipated. It becoming increasingly evident that the Judge in the case will issue a stay as requested by Google as the patents Oracle is claiming infringed are all undergoing reexamination for validity. At least 5 of the 7 patent claims may eventually be invalidated in full or part according to a separate report available at FOSS. In a nutshell, Oracle may decide it's not in it's best interests to continue concentrating on Google, and instead go after the smaller fry using the Android OS.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...emplating.html

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...acle-java.html
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google found distributing Oracle's Java code within Android project