Google found distributing Oracle's Java code within Android project - Page 2

More like, ``CTRL-X, CTRL-V'' as it was a series of literally cut and pasted code.

You do realize that the code brought in to question today had absolutely nothing to do with building the OS right? What's that? You didn't realize that? I never would've guessed.

Totally uneducated (as in ignorant) guess. Google claims Dalvik was clean roomed and Daniel saying that it wasn't doesn't prove anything. Aside from that, you don't prototype the execution of Dalvik code in a Java VM any more than you execute iOS apps on a Blackberry.

Exactly what code did Google "borrow" and place in to Android to save time? Android is open source so it should be rather easy for you to point to the offending code that supports your wild accusations. Don't worry though, Oracle has yet to point to any actually infringing code.

This really has happened before. Sun sued Microsoft for Java license violations way back in 1997, and Microsoft settled for $20 million in 2001. But Oracle owns Sun's IP now, and Larry Ellison won't settle for a measly few mil.

Larry wants blood. And he'll get it. The law suit requires all copies of Android to be "impounded and destroyed." Schmidt is getting out while the getting out is still good.

It doesn't matter who wrote Dalvik, where it was written, or whether or not Google even cared that they were in violation of the Java License Agreement. You are either 100% compliant or you are in violation. Black and white.

The Java bytecode is converted into an alternate instruction set, then converted into Dalvik Executable (.dex) format. Why? Because Java and its boat-anchor of a JVM has always been a resource hog.

But who cares why Android uses a bastardized form of Java? It's still a violation of the license agreement. Black and white.

No, it hasn't happened before. Really. Microsoft "created" their own JavaVM to avoid paying Sun licensing fees. Dalvik is not a JavaVM. Apps compiled for J2ME will not run on Android. Really. MS JavaVM and Dalvik have nothing at all in common.

What Ellison wants and what Ellison gets will likely be two different things.

I disagree with your car model, but I agree with your argument. They took the source code and distributed it as their own.

You're a genius ahead of your time.

Converting Java .class files to Dalvik executables is not prohibited by the Sun (Oracle) license.
You can code Java without paying a license fee to Oracle. You can compile Java without paying a license fee to Oracle. Converting to Dalvik executable is none of Oracle's business. The question is Dalvik and since you seem to have the answers all nailed down give Larry a call.

If this were the case Android would have already been impounded and Oracle would have moved on to the Android handset manufacturers and the carriers.

Is this sentence a joke?

Oops: No copied Java code or weapons of mass destruction found in Android

AppleInsider prefers to post 0-day debunked fairy tales about Android rather than reporting about something like the new proprietary screws put on Apple's devices, strange isn't it?

Since when did appleinsider turn from being the best source in apple rumours and news to just anti Google propaganda? Like another said why on earth do you make money running ads for Google products if you all hate them so much? Its a bit hypocritical!

These original junk was posted by a software patent activist - someone who is completely against the open invention group sticking up for the ludicrousy that is software patents. HE IS NOT A LAWYER OR DEVELOPER. He is about as qualified as a gold fish to interpret this. If you look on every other respectable tech blog you will see how this story is now being debunked.


Sent from my 'multiple patent infringing' nexus s. Damn it feels good typing on this thing. Oh yeah I can speak into any text field too with near perfect transcription. I wonder who I am infringing on with that.......

You've given me the idea for a new site, if Google gets away with this then I'm going to make an open source video player and let people contribute movie files that they want to test.

The Pirate Bay will have nothing on this, maybe I should add a blog for copyright testers.

/sarcasm.

1. Analogy totally incorrect
2. Android didn't use those unit testing files

No, Android doesn't use any bastardized form of Java

I won't either and neither will any of my "testers", what a loophole you can publish anything you want, copyright holders be damned.

/sarcasm

Correct analogy, whether it's "accidental", "a third party", "wasn't used", "isn't required" or any of a myriad of excuses, the code WAS distributed, the distributor was Google and the copyright holder is Oracle and their permission is required.

Incorrect analogy, the "movie" analogy to be distributed would be binary code, not source code publicly available from Sun and not used to build Android binaries. And yes, there is GPL violation because the headers were changed, but that's all.

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. "

Mueller, by the way, is a strong open source advocate, besides being an intellectual property lawyer, He 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.

Can you read Ars Technica and ZDNet articles?

Naive, retarded or ignorant? Well, I like people polite like you.

A note to AI. On breaking articles like these that are obviously going to cause a flame war to break out - how about tagging updates to the end of the article?

Regardless of which side of the argument you are on it would be nice to see updates as new information comes out.

Does anyone else agree?

I read them, they provide an interesting TECHNICAL opinion, however what this involves is LEGAL opinion, did Google cause Oracles copyright files to be distributed without Oracles express permission?

Now as the files are/were freely available as part of Android repositories, then the most likely answer is "yes".

That's all Google had to do make the files available in order to infringe copyright.

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.

Go look in the archives DED has already mentioned this, he knows, like many others of the underlying architecture within the android project. Why should he (for your sakes) repeat himself ?

It appears a lot of you are non-programmers.
If I place code and package it (by what ever means), and the package is used, then there is a potential for any piece of code (in that package) to be used.
Let me simplify it, I have many subprograms/routines/methods/procs what ever, and I "compile" them, into a "package" and this package is then distributed, then Google are f&*%#d.
It doesn't matter whether the code is executed or not, it may have been in the past or it may be sitting there ready for a later implementation.
Larry must be rubbing his hands in glee, this is a BIG WIN for Oracle.
Although I think Oracle DBMS systems are rubbish, I should know I have to use them at work, and this itself is another long story.
See I don't have an underlying personal reasons in this, except I want Google to be hurt mighty bad, and take down that monsterous spawn called android.

Wow you must be getting nervous.
Nexus s, is that like the 1, where about 6 people bought it ? No customer support what so ever.
Enjoy your piece of crap, and wow you can speak into a phone, I can do that too.

The problem is that none of that code has been packaged or compiled

NO. I don't like your posts so I will not be helping you, its that simple.

This brings up an interesting point, since Google doesn't make any money from the operating system, except through advertising and the app store. How are damages determined? With all the revenue Google gets as a result of advertising and apps, it could end up being a very expensive lawsuit.

Not to forget the implementation of Android by other manufacturers, if Google ends up having to license it from Oracle, it could slow or stop the adoption, unless Google eats the fee itself.

No, DED doesn't know about Android architecture, he has said in the past that Android derived from java me and now that it uses a java vm

So its sitting there as source, why ?
This makes no sense to me as a programmer.
When I develop I have source code (create/modify/compile/test) available to me, and then I implement it, by what ever means, and I end up with only object code.
No one lets source code float around in a production environment, this is insane.
I just don't get your points, am I missing something here ?

Oh yes he does, go and ask him yourself.
I consider him to be clued up and technically adept in understanding "foreign" architecture.
I even remember reading an article on his web site that explained all of this.
I think you are wrong on this one.

Because the alleged files are:

1. Unit test files, they aren't packaged, they only serve to test the classes before compiling
2. A zip file with source files that aren't used anywhere, actually they can't be used because are java me files

You say it was debunked like the ZDnet and Ars articles were conclusive. They weren't. It is obviously a complex issue and Nilay Patel from Engadget was looking at it from the legal perspective.

He even addressed both sides in his follow up:

Unit test files can't be shipped in the build and the copyright infringement is changing the license from gplv2 to Apache license, not stealing code

Well, in this post helpful says that dalvik is a jvm when this is incorrect and I can find other article where he says that Android derived from java me

It's all about putting your emotions into different compartments and not letting them interfere with each other and with your main business.

For more on that, you should read my business Bible: "What they Don't Teach You at Harvard Business School" by the late great Mark McCormack, founder of IMG and inventor of the whole Sports/TV Sponsorship idiom (which he started from scratch with just a $500 investment).

Well, you and your ilk have been hoping for Apple to be run out of business for years. That didn't happen either so I guess you have a point.

They are re-distributing code in the source tree. The law couldn't care less, and doesn't know anything about compilation. This is a copyright infringement.

If I Steal The Money and Distribute IT to Numerous Persons As GiveAway, Am I INNOCENT？？？？？？？

Of Course NOT！

It Doesn't Matter Whether Google Make A Profit Out Of "IT " or NOT！！！！！！！！！！

What's The Point is "They Stole IT "！

And Some Core FanDroid Even Insists " PROUDLY " that,

" Android is already a money maker and a good one at that, and they are forecasting around $1B per year for android, not to shabby, google's $$$ is just fine "！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！


So Google NEVER CAN GET AWAY from " THIS "！

Um, yes they did. See exhibit J on their last deposition.

Also, none of the recent code was unit tests. It was a security framework. The "expert" who claimed it was a unit test (on zdnet) was mis-directing.

I bet there are hundreds if violations. This case is a dead cert.