Originally Posted by Mike Reed
From the articles I've read, the code in question wasn't part of any distributed version of Android. If this is true, then I don't see how Android can be found to infringe them.
If Google was distributing these files from their servers contrary to the original license the files were subject to, then that has nothing to do with Android.
If I wrote some source code, licensed it to Microsoft under terms that they not re-distribute it, and then Microsoft posted it to the web but didn't actually use it in any of their products, I couldn't then turn around and ask for a cut of Microsoft Office profits. One has nothing to do with the other.
Originally Posted by veblen
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.
As TBell Wisely Cited,
"You don't need to show damages for copyright infringement. When the RIAA sues people downloading songs, it obtains huge judgements without showing damages. In those cases, it is impossible to show damages.
Google is likely in trouble because not only did it distribute the Code, but it used the code internally to help build the OS. "
"Google doesn't need to ship an actual product to be found liable for copyright infringement. The copying and distribution of the code is probably enough. Moreover, the issue likely will center around whether using the code benefitted Google in some commercial fashion."
Mueller, by the way, is " A STRONG OPEN SOURCE ADVOCATE, Besides Being INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWYER ", says that he has found "six more files" in Android that show the same pattern of direct copying as Oracle is complaining about from Sun's original Java code. The files form part of the Android 2.2 and 2.3 (Froyo and Gingerbread) code.
And what may prove extremely difficult for Google:
"In addition, I have identified 37 files marked as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" by Sun and a copyright notice file that says: "DO NOT DISTRIBUTE!" Those files appear to relate to the Mobile Media API of the Sun Java Wireless Toolkit. Unless Google obtained a license to that code (which is unlikely given the content and tone of those warnings), this constitutes another breach."
Mueller suggests - following up on some comments on Reddit and elsewhere - that some of the early Android developers might have used a decompiler on the Sun Java code in order to generate their own source code.
So the detective work began:
"I downloaded a Java decompiler named JAD. And when I decompiled PolicyNodeImpl.class from J2SE 5.0, the result was pretty much the same source code as Android's PolicyNodeImpl.java code (which Oracle presented in its Exhibit J). My "PolicyNodeImpl synopsis" document shows the similarities."... My synopsis PDF files document the same problem: Android contains, under the Apache license, code that is essentially just decompiled code of Oracle/Sun software that was never licensed to Apache.... A copyright infringement is a copyright infringement, and if Google publishes code under a license for which it was never made available by its rightful owner, that's a serious legal problem.