Where did they take the code with them? In their heads?
Even with a clean room implementation you quoted they had to decompile the original BIOS to see how it worked. They then make a note of how it worked and pass it on to another party to make the Compaq code themselves, to avoid copyright infringement. Hence the "clean room" meaning.
Oracle doesn't care whether or not the code is different; they care that the code infringes on their patents on how Java works, which are broad and obvious. And again, like already mentioned, if you favor Oracle, you favor software patents and people who sue over it, such as those phone patents apple is getting sued over.
Apple can counter sue and come to an agreement ( and yes I believe in IP) . Patents are fuzzy. Copyright is not.
Yes, I guess Sun/Oracle marked these files "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" & "DO NOT DISTRIBUTE!" because they were "extraneous ggarbage".
It's really very simple as a copyright issue: Did they distribute them? The answer is yes. Case closed.
Although, since these were marked "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" they could also be considered trade secrets, increasing Google's liability.
Agree, open and shut case. Google can try and squirm their way out of this one, and even sacrifice some developer's heads on a plate. But I think they have intentionally done this and simply missed wiping their finger prints. It's so simple, human nature does not change just because high tech is involved. Simple case of stealing, I hope they pay big time.
This Engadget article has already been debunked. What a horrible story.
No the slant has been debunked. The fact remains still that Google distributed Oracle/Sun owned/proprietary source code and released it under a license that they were unauthorised to do so.
Whether or not the code found its way on to devices is irrelevant.
The fact the source code has now been removed is irrelevant.
As far as copyright law is concerned, Google made an unauthorised copy of the source code. This fact cannot be changed, and there is enough evidence to support this. The source code has been distributed and is now "in the wild", against its owners wishes and this has been the case since the Android source was released.
As a result, this is going to cost Google dearly, as Oracle are NOT interested in anything other than financial gain.
Hey bud, how many people downloaded that code? One? Five? Who?
How many idiots download the latest crappy Lady Gaga stuff on a torrent? Now how many people download a test suite from Oracle, which is freely available under the GPL as those articles said? Heck even Google can know that via server logs, so unlike the RIAA, Oracle can't pull figures out of its ass about how many copies were infringed. The RIAA can also claim damages even when the person making available the music made no commercial profit. Google making available the code doesn't hurt Oracle in the least bit, and that will be taken into judgment.
Besides, ZDNet already reported they deleted it weeks ago.
If Oracle does sue over it, it will only serve to make them look like stingy bastards (which they already are).
So HIMOKO, stop making an emotionally driven mole hill out of nothing.
NONE of MY BUSINESS on Whatever Reason ZDNet Already Deleted IT or NOT！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
I'm Not Posting Comments on The Basis of ZDNet Articles AT ALL, IDIOT！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
Apple can counter sue and come to an agreement ( and yes I believe in IP) . Patents are fuzzy. Copyright is not.
EDIT: in their heads?
No. Do keep up.
They took Sun code.
Decompiled it.
Published it ( i.e in GIT)
Who is "they"? You don't know who exactly checked it in. And since the only reason this was discovered is by their GIT change logs and they removed all the code before the article was even published, now what? They have no case.
It sounds like you also are claiming Dalvik is just Java decompiled and redone. There isn't any evidence of this yet.
Oracle isn't going to be dumb enough to waste their time with this. There isn't any "willful" infringement when the company found out about the code and said "Removed pointless test files."
While I have no doubt that all three "agreed" to Schmidt being bumped upstairs, I also have little doubt that the move was initiated by Page and Brin and that Schmidt was not given a lot of choice.
When Schmidt came to Google to provide "adult supervision", Google's ambitions were to take on Microsoft. A few years later, we find Google doing battle with not only Microsoft but Apple and Oracle, as well. I am not sure this is what Page and Brin had in mind when Schmidt was hired.
I suspect you are exactly right. It will be interesting to see if ES departs Google entirely in the coming months.
Oracle isn't going to be dumb enough to waste their time with this. There isn't any "willful" infringement when the company found out about the code and said "Removed pointless test files."
crapple go OUT OF BUSINESS and take down the monsterous spawn called crApple Mobile Operating System AOS (IOS is CISCO! geez people! ) and all things idiot idiotphone, idiotmac, idiotpod, idiotpad,
You betcha skippy I am a fandroid. I am for the simple reason... its my portable computing device and I will put on it what I want and when I want, and how I want!
As for the issue at hand... I don't know the facts and the "facts" presented in the media are too distorted to determine the truth...
You hurt my feelings, NOtT. Is that the best you can do? I have heard much worse vitriol coming from others, try a bit harder please if you wish to annoy me.
By the way, how do you get Cisco involved here. Cisco and Apple came to an agreement to who could use the term iPhone, is that what you infer? You need to articulate a might better in future. Sure go and put the app killer, the number 1 app on their what, 4 app stores, read tomorrow and it will be 6 maybe.
The UI on android phone is rubbish they can't copy Apple too close otherwise they will be sued, it's that simple. Android is for geeks, it's what I term pseudo programmers.
I am a computer programmer and appreciate good UI, simplicity, ease of use, scalability, excellent architecture. That is why I use Apple products, they fit my philosophy, not the other way around, do you now get it. This is a big difference, so your comment on me being a fan boy is incorrect, and don't call me boy, it's quite disrespectful, Iam a man.
Android is on it's downwards spiral to oblivion, sure it will continue to sell, but soon will reach a crunch point where Mr and Mrs citizen cannot ascertain which device to use from the hundreds out there. Some may be good, some average and many more that will be crap.
How will they differentiate? That is why they are in trouble, their very success will be their ultimate downfall.
But in the corner will be the iPad, the iPhone and the iPod, which ones will they choose?
Go on picture the scenarion.
You geeks love to fence yourselves off from the mainstream, play with you android phones, okay, this doesn't bother me in the least, but don't rubbish a product that you don't know anything about, just like those M$ fans who rubbish Macs, but have never used one, but are experts never the less.
yeah, lets leave a few billion on the table because the guys who stole and published our stuff ( for profit as they themselves admit) subsequently removed (some) of the offensive code from their repository, after we filed suit.
It is code from SUN which determines which user is allowed user permissions. it is a fundamental part of package sun.security.
There is a fair amount of nonsense on this thread. Let me clarify:
1) the code here was taken and decompiled from Sun sources, not from the published GPL
2) the licence was changed, illegally. Sun/ Oracle grants licences to users, subject to the GPL. If the licence is changed the original patents apply. The licence was changed to Apache.
3) Publishing means making available on t'internet ( think of a book). The courts in copyright cases dont care about compilation. Was it in the unit test folder, and not compiled. Geeks may care, the courts are unconcerned.
Someone else's property ( Sun/Oracle) was taken and published ( on a source tree) for anyone to use using a licence which was not designed, nor approved by the creator of the intellectual property.
That in itself is enough. The other patent ( non copy right) suits are - suffice to say - encourged by this. You cant say you clean roomed the technology if a court has decided, as it must, that you copied some, or any, or the minutest percent, of someone else's technolgy.
when Compaq "cloned" the IBM BIOS. It
1) Hired engineers who had nothing to do with IBM
2) Had no code or decompiled IBM assembly.
3) Gave the virgin engineers some info about the inputs and the outputs of the BIOS. Fully documented procedures.
4) Created the same BIOS with no common source.
From this came the modern world. Back in 1982 people realised this had to be done. Not one line of IBM bios could be in the finished product.
Google hired Sun engineers, who ( basically) took the code with them and "engineered" a new JVM with most of the code from Sun.
Who is "they"? You don't know who exactly checked it in. And since the only reason this was discovered is by their GIT change logs and they removed all the code before the article was even published, now what? They have no case.
Neither I, nor any court or law, would give what is legally called a flying fuck who uploaded someone else's IP to the repository maintained and thus published by Google Inc, multi-billionaire company. The case is against the company, Google Inc, who published said source code with a different licence.
There is, literally, no defence in law here.
The defence in code, it (were only a small sheep) was unit tests yer hnour, is both irrelevant, untrue, and yet humourous.
It sounds like you also are claiming Dalvik is just Java decompiled and redone. There isn't any evidence of this yet.
I (and most others) don't have enough information to know for sure that there was a copyright breach on the part of Google; I'll leave this to the courts to sort out.
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.
Who is "they"? You don't know who exactly checked it in. And since the only reason this was discovered is by their GIT change logs and they removed all the code before the article was even published, now what? They have no case.
It sounds like you also are claiming Dalvik is just Java decompiled and redone. There isn't any evidence of this yet.
Oracle isn't going to be dumb enough to waste their time with this. There isn't any "willful" infringement when the company found out about the code and said "Removed pointless test files."
I don't believe there has to be anything wilful about copyright infringement, I think you're confusing copyright and patent infringement.
That fact remains that Google released proprietary Oracle/Sun source code when they were not authorised to do so.
Well suggesting that lawyers are "nit picky" when that is their job - to argue the law - is pretty silly, but then to turn around and call Oracle a "patent troll" for suing over patent infringement is simply absurd.
A Patent Troll is a holding company that does nothing but acquire patents and then sue companies who are actually producing products, usually with weak claims on obvious patents that were not known about by the companies who developed their "infringing" technology on their own.
Oracle's patents are intended to prevent the outright theft of the value of the IP created by Sun and productized in Java. Google wasn't unaware that Sun owned patents related to Java. This wasn't some submarine patent case.
It was a situation where Google could either have a) created its own technology or b) simply licensed Java, but instead decided to copy and then modify Java, give it away for free to kill the market for Java, and the use Android to sell its ads.
The only group of people who could categorize this situation as anything other than the definitive, proper role and entire purpose patents are intended to serve are intellectual communists who don't believe research and invention can be owned or sold as entities. And if you don't believe in commercial rights to IP, you can't turn around and say the GPL can be used to enforce the opposite. Either we have intellectual property rights or we don't, and only have anarchy.
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.
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.
Dan, with all of the Google hate when do you post the article taking Apple Insider to task for having Evo, Xoom and Chrome ads running on the site? I mean, if Google is the enemy and Android is an evil ripoff of iOS then why run ads for their stuff right?
Google is NOT AI's enemy. Google is AI's customer. Google gives money to AI. In exchange, AI sells us readers to Google. AI gets Google Money every time we click. More and more. I think that is a good thing.
If not for Google, sites like AI would dry up and blow away. AI owes perhaps its very existence to Google.
AI takes the Google Money, and gives part of it to Daniel. I am not surprised that Daniel talks big. The fact is, however, that he eats using Google's Money.
Comments
Where did they take the code with them? In their heads?
Even with a clean room implementation you quoted they had to decompile the original BIOS to see how it worked. They then make a note of how it worked and pass it on to another party to make the Compaq code themselves, to avoid copyright infringement. Hence the "clean room" meaning.
Oracle doesn't care whether or not the code is different; they care that the code infringes on their patents on how Java works, which are broad and obvious. And again, like already mentioned, if you favor Oracle, you favor software patents and people who sue over it, such as those phone patents apple is getting sued over.
Apple can counter sue and come to an agreement ( and yes I believe in IP) . Patents are fuzzy. Copyright is not.
EDIT: in their heads?
No. Do keep up.
They took Sun code.
Decompiled it.
Published it ( i.e in GIT)
Yes, I guess Sun/Oracle marked these files "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" & "DO NOT DISTRIBUTE!" because they were "extraneous ggarbage".
It's really very simple as a copyright issue: Did they distribute them? The answer is yes. Case closed.
Although, since these were marked "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" they could also be considered trade secrets, increasing Google's liability.
Agree, open and shut case. Google can try and squirm their way out of this one, and even sacrifice some developer's heads on a plate. But I think they have intentionally done this and simply missed wiping their finger prints. It's so simple, human nature does not change just because high tech is involved. Simple case of stealing, I hope they pay big time.
This Engadget article has already been debunked. What a horrible story.
No the slant has been debunked. The fact remains still that Google distributed Oracle/Sun owned/proprietary source code and released it under a license that they were unauthorised to do so.
Whether or not the code found its way on to devices is irrelevant.
The fact the source code has now been removed is irrelevant.
As far as copyright law is concerned, Google made an unauthorised copy of the source code. This fact cannot be changed, and there is enough evidence to support this. The source code has been distributed and is now "in the wild", against its owners wishes and this has been the case since the Android source was released.
As a result, this is going to cost Google dearly, as Oracle are NOT interested in anything other than financial gain.
Hey bud, how many people downloaded that code? One? Five? Who?
How many idiots download the latest crappy Lady Gaga stuff on a torrent? Now how many people download a test suite from Oracle, which is freely available under the GPL as those articles said? Heck even Google can know that via server logs, so unlike the RIAA, Oracle can't pull figures out of its ass about how many copies were infringed. The RIAA can also claim damages even when the person making available the music made no commercial profit. Google making available the code doesn't hurt Oracle in the least bit, and that will be taken into judgment.
Besides, ZDNet already reported they deleted it weeks ago.
If Oracle does sue over it, it will only serve to make them look like stingy bastards (which they already are).
So HIMOKO, stop making an emotionally driven mole hill out of nothing.
NONE of MY BUSINESS on Whatever Reason ZDNet Already Deleted IT or NOT！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
I'm Not Posting Comments on The Basis of ZDNet Articles AT ALL, IDIOT！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...racle-problems
And If Ya Like ZDNet, THIS ARTICLE IS FOR YA！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/by-dr...-into-one/2867
As a result, this is going to cost Google dearly, as Oracle are NOT interested in anything other than financial gain.
Nope. And any small time manufacturer of Android phones better hope they have cash reserves. Larry needs another private Jet.
I hear.
Apple can counter sue and come to an agreement ( and yes I believe in IP) . Patents are fuzzy. Copyright is not.
EDIT: in their heads?
No. Do keep up.
They took Sun code.
Decompiled it.
Published it ( i.e in GIT)
Who is "they"? You don't know who exactly checked it in. And since the only reason this was discovered is by their GIT change logs and they removed all the code before the article was even published, now what? They have no case.
It sounds like you also are claiming Dalvik is just Java decompiled and redone. There isn't any evidence of this yet.
Oracle isn't going to be dumb enough to waste their time with this. There isn't any "willful" infringement when the company found out about the code and said "Removed pointless test files."
While I have no doubt that all three "agreed" to Schmidt being bumped upstairs, I also have little doubt that the move was initiated by Page and Brin and that Schmidt was not given a lot of choice.
When Schmidt came to Google to provide "adult supervision", Google's ambitions were to take on Microsoft. A few years later, we find Google doing battle with not only Microsoft but Apple and Oracle, as well. I am not sure this is what Page and Brin had in mind when Schmidt was hired.
I suspect you are exactly right. It will be interesting to see if ES departs Google entirely in the coming months.
NONE of MY BUSINESS on Whatever Reason ZDNet Already Deleted IT or NOT！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
I'm Not Posting Comments on The Basis of ZDNet Articles AT ALL, IDIOT！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...racle-problems
You've already been debunked by two different people, and Ars is much better than anyone to make a call on that.
Go home.
Oracle isn't going to be dumb enough to waste their time with this. There isn't any "willful" infringement when the company found out about the code and said "Removed pointless test files."
mmm ... I'm thinking they might.
Well at least your honest, so I will be too:
I want to see:
crapple go OUT OF BUSINESS and take down the monsterous spawn called crApple Mobile Operating System AOS (IOS is CISCO! geez people!
You betcha skippy I am a fandroid. I am for the simple reason... its my portable computing device and I will put on it what I want and when I want, and how I want!
As for the issue at hand... I don't know the facts and the "facts" presented in the media are too distorted to determine the truth...
You hurt my feelings, NOtT. Is that the best you can do? I have heard much worse vitriol coming from others, try a bit harder please if you wish to annoy me.
By the way, how do you get Cisco involved here. Cisco and Apple came to an agreement to who could use the term iPhone, is that what you infer? You need to articulate a might better in future. Sure go and put the app killer, the number 1 app on their what, 4 app stores, read tomorrow and it will be 6 maybe.
The UI on android phone is rubbish they can't copy Apple too close otherwise they will be sued, it's that simple. Android is for geeks, it's what I term pseudo programmers.
I am a computer programmer and appreciate good UI, simplicity, ease of use, scalability, excellent architecture. That is why I use Apple products, they fit my philosophy, not the other way around, do you now get it. This is a big difference, so your comment on me being a fan boy is incorrect, and don't call me boy, it's quite disrespectful, Iam a man.
Android is on it's downwards spiral to oblivion, sure it will continue to sell, but soon will reach a crunch point where Mr and Mrs citizen cannot ascertain which device to use from the hundreds out there. Some may be good, some average and many more that will be crap.
How will they differentiate? That is why they are in trouble, their very success will be their ultimate downfall.
But in the corner will be the iPad, the iPhone and the iPod, which ones will they choose?
Go on picture the scenarion.
You geeks love to fence yourselves off from the mainstream, play with you android phones, okay, this doesn't bother me in the least, but don't rubbish a product that you don't know anything about, just like those M$ fans who rubbish Macs, but have never used one, but are experts never the less.
You've already been debunked by two different people, and Ars is much better than anyone to make a call on that.
Go home.
Lol.
Debuked my arse.
mmm ... I'm thinking they might.
Lol.
yeah, lets leave a few billion on the table because the guys who stole and published our stuff ( for profit as they themselves admit) subsequently removed (some) of the offensive code from their repository, after we filed suit.
No lawyers here, I take it.
This http://bit.ly/guo4rD from FlorianMueller is the same as this published code from Sun/ Oracle
http://bit.ly/gAI3nI from SUN.
It is not a unit test.
It is code from SUN which determines which user is allowed user permissions. it is a fundamental part of package sun.security.
There is a fair amount of nonsense on this thread. Let me clarify:
1) the code here was taken and decompiled from Sun sources, not from the published GPL
2) the licence was changed, illegally. Sun/ Oracle grants licences to users, subject to the GPL. If the licence is changed the original patents apply. The licence was changed to Apache.
3) Publishing means making available on t'internet ( think of a book). The courts in copyright cases dont care about compilation. Was it in the unit test folder, and not compiled. Geeks may care, the courts are unconcerned.
Someone else's property ( Sun/Oracle) was taken and published ( on a source tree) for anyone to use using a licence which was not designed, nor approved by the creator of the intellectual property.
That in itself is enough. The other patent ( non copy right) suits are - suffice to say - encourged by this. You cant say you clean roomed the technology if a court has decided, as it must, that you copied some, or any, or the minutest percent, of someone else's technolgy.
when Compaq "cloned" the IBM BIOS. It
1) Hired engineers who had nothing to do with IBM
2) Had no code or decompiled IBM assembly.
3) Gave the virgin engineers some info about the inputs and the outputs of the BIOS. Fully documented procedures.
4) Created the same BIOS with no common source.
From this came the modern world. Back in 1982 people realised this had to be done. Not one line of IBM bios could be in the finished product.
Google hired Sun engineers, who ( basically) took the code with them and "engineered" a new JVM with most of the code from Sun.
Goodbye android. And good riddance.
So you are yahew?
Who is "they"? You don't know who exactly checked it in. And since the only reason this was discovered is by their GIT change logs and they removed all the code before the article was even published, now what? They have no case.
Neither I, nor any court or law, would give what is legally called a flying fuck who uploaded someone else's IP to the repository maintained and thus published by Google Inc, multi-billionaire company. The case is against the company, Google Inc, who published said source code with a different licence.
There is, literally, no defence in law here.
The defence in code, it (were only a small sheep) was unit tests yer hnour, is both irrelevant, untrue, and yet humourous.
So you are yahew?
yeah.
It sounds like you also are claiming Dalvik is just Java decompiled and redone. There isn't any evidence of this yet.
I (and most others) don't have enough information to know for sure that there was a copyright breach on the part of Google; I'll leave this to the courts to sort out.
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.
Who is "they"? You don't know who exactly checked it in. And since the only reason this was discovered is by their GIT change logs and they removed all the code before the article was even published, now what? They have no case.
It sounds like you also are claiming Dalvik is just Java decompiled and redone. There isn't any evidence of this yet.
Oracle isn't going to be dumb enough to waste their time with this. There isn't any "willful" infringement when the company found out about the code and said "Removed pointless test files."
I don't believe there has to be anything wilful about copyright infringement, I think you're confusing copyright and patent infringement.
That fact remains that Google released proprietary Oracle/Sun source code when they were not authorised to do so.
You've already been debunked by two different people, and Ars is much better than anyone to make a call on that.
Go home.
WhatEver MUCH Ya Defend Google, In Vain！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
You Can NOT Avoid Google's " Demise " which HAS ALREADY BEGUN！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
Well suggesting that lawyers are "nit picky" when that is their job - to argue the law - is pretty silly, but then to turn around and call Oracle a "patent troll" for suing over patent infringement is simply absurd.
A Patent Troll is a holding company that does nothing but acquire patents and then sue companies who are actually producing products, usually with weak claims on obvious patents that were not known about by the companies who developed their "infringing" technology on their own.
Oracle's patents are intended to prevent the outright theft of the value of the IP created by Sun and productized in Java. Google wasn't unaware that Sun owned patents related to Java. This wasn't some submarine patent case.
It was a situation where Google could either have a) created its own technology or b) simply licensed Java, but instead decided to copy and then modify Java, give it away for free to kill the market for Java, and the use Android to sell its ads.
The only group of people who could categorize this situation as anything other than the definitive, proper role and entire purpose patents are intended to serve are intellectual communists who don't believe research and invention can be owned or sold as entities. And if you don't believe in commercial rights to IP, you can't turn around and say the GPL can be used to enforce the opposite. Either we have intellectual property rights or we don't, and only have anarchy.
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.
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.
Dan, with all of the Google hate when do you post the article taking Apple Insider to task for having Evo, Xoom and Chrome ads running on the site? I mean, if Google is the enemy and Android is an evil ripoff of iOS then why run ads for their stuff right?
Google is NOT AI's enemy. Google is AI's customer. Google gives money to AI. In exchange, AI sells us readers to Google. AI gets Google Money every time we click. More and more. I think that is a good thing.
If not for Google, sites like AI would dry up and blow away. AI owes perhaps its very existence to Google.
AI takes the Google Money, and gives part of it to Daniel. I am not surprised that Daniel talks big. The fact is, however, that he eats using Google's Money.