Google engineers defend source code, email in Oracle lawsuit over Java

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014


Two Google engineers, both of whom formerly worked for Sun, testified on Thursday about their role in developing the Android mobile operating system, defending their current employer from Oracle's accusations that it copied code and admitted internally that it needed to negotiate a license for Java.


 


The Lindholm draft


 


Oracle has put forth drafts of an email by Google engineer Tim Lindholm as a vital piece of evidence that the company knew it needed to license Java from Oracle when it was developing Android.


 


"What we've actually been asked to do (by [Google founders] Larry [Page] and Sergey [Brin]) is to investigate what technical alternatives exist to Java for Android and Chrome," Lindholm wrote. "We've been over a bunch of these, and think they all suck. We conclude that we need to negotiate a license for Java under the terms we need."


 


Google had previously sought to have the email suppressed due to attorney-client privilege, but the judge on the case denied the request.


 


The email is apparently so damning that the judge claimed "a good trial lawyer would just need that document 'and the Magna Carta' (arguably the origin of common law) to win this case on Oracle's behalf and have Google found to infringe Oracle's rights willfully," as reported by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents


 


When questioned in court by an Oracle attorney on Thursday, Lindholm said he did not mean that Google should get a license from Sun, The Wall Street Journal reports.


 


"It was not specifically a license from anybody," he said.


 


The engineer's defense, however, is not helped by the fact that he served as one of the original developers of Java at Sun before joining Google in 2005. Oracle acquired Sun, and the rights to Java, in 2010. Lindholm did admit that he worked on Google's negotiations with Sun at one point because of his background with Java, but he added that most of his work has actually been focused on Google's data centers, rather than Android.


 


I don't recall


 


Joshua Bloch, informally known as Google's Chief Java Architect, also served as a witness at the trial on Thursday. Oracle questioned Bloch on whether he had copied nine lines of "rangeCheck" code that he had contributed to Android from his previous work at Sun, as noted by The Verge.


 


"I don't recall," Bloch testified. However, he suggested in a deposition from 2011 that the fact that the code is in the same order and has the same name is "a strong indicator that it is likely" that he did copy the code. Bloch went on to say that he doesn't remember accessing copyrighted code, but that it might have happened.


 


"Under the circumstances I wrote the code, yes, I'm perfectly willing to believe it," he said. "If I did, it was a mistake, and I'm sorry I did it." 


 


Google claims to have created a "clean room" for its engineers as they were developing Android.  It's not clear, though, how Google would have created a clean environment for an engineer who had written the code himself.


 


"According to Bloch, nobody at Google ever spoke with him about whether it was appropriate for him to work on Android given his prior employment at Sun," the report read.


 


Google removed the code in question from Android with the release of version 4.0 of its software.


 


Oracle has sought an injunction against Android, claiming it is an "incompatible clone of Java." The company had previously argued for billions of dollars in damages from Google, but it has since lowered its demands.

«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 70
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member


    1) Talk about damning evidence; this is not looking for Google.


     


    2) When do Google's lawyers use the Infinite Monkey Theorem to claim that while implausible it's possible he could write the same code at times? Is it before or after the Chewbacca Defense?

  • Reply 2 of 70


    How can he not remember?

  • Reply 3 of 70
    tylerk36tylerk36 Posts: 1,037member


    Wow new look.  Different but I will adapt.  Cool.

  • Reply 4 of 70
    majjomajjo Posts: 574member


    hmm, I've been reading through some of the Verge articles on this. From my understanding:


     


    The trial is broken in 3 phases, 


    Phase 1 deals with copyrights


    Phase 2 deals with patents


    Phase 3 deals with damages


     


    We're in phase 1 right now. The basis of Oracle's claim is that Google copied 37 Java APIs that they have a copyright to. Google is claiming that because the Java language is open source, and because those 37 APIs are essential to it, that they should be open source as well.


     


    IANAL, but to me, but it seems Oracle has the favorable position here; although I understand the reasoning behind Google's claims as well.


     


    It will be interesting to see how this plays out.


     


    edit: apparently UBB code doesn't work here anymore.

  • Reply 5 of 70
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member


    Why would they use the Chewbacca defence?


     


    I mean, it just doesn't make sense.


     


    Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense.


     


    So, why would they use it?


     


    They won't use it.


     


    Ladies and gentlemen of the forum, I rest my case.

  • Reply 6 of 70


    Google is phucked !


     


    They have their hands in the cookie jar, and this is just the beginning.


     


    I hope Oracle rings them though for outright theft.

  • Reply 7 of 70


     


    And in other news, Florian Mueller turns out to work for Oracle...


     


    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/04/19/1357207/florian-mueller-outs-himself-as-oracle-employee


     

  • Reply 8 of 70


    What did the programer not know he coded, and when did he know he did not know it?

  • Reply 9 of 70
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member


     



    "And in other news, Florian Mueller turns out to work for Oracle...


     


    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/04/19/1357207/florian-mueller-outs-himself-as-oracle-employee"


     


     


     


    And in even more news:


     


    Who cares?


     


    Florian Mueller isn't going to be judge, jury, and executioner of this case.


     


    Surprisingly, the legal system will be handling this.

  • Reply 10 of 70
    superdxsuperdx Posts: 67member


    SJ and Larry Ellison were quite close. Perhaps in this case Oracle is an indirect proxy for the overall Apple vs. Android story. Oracle obviously has no intention of a mobile device, their core expertise is enterprise bloatware. Although I normally despise Oracle products, in this case I do hope they are victorious vs. Android. Seems like not only did Google steal from Apple in terms of UI and design, now they've stolen from the fundamentals as well.

  • Reply 11 of 70
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,177member


    By the way, since the AI article doesn't mention it, the "damning" Lindholm email isn't from when Google was developing Android. It was written in 2010 after Oracle made known it's intent to bring suit. The judge got the impression from Oracle that it was written in the early development years for Android and thus his comment. According to the same Florian Mueller the judge no longer has the same opinion of the "Lindholm email". 

  • Reply 12 of 70
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member


    deleted

  • Reply 13 of 70
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post


    How can he not remember?



     


     


    If you have done extensive programming, you'd understand.


     


    Most of us reuse code. When we reuse code for different clients or employers, we would try to alter them to avoid IP conflict.  The changes are sometimes substantial and sometimes superficial. Sometimes, you paste in code and intend to change it,  but you forget or run out of time.


     


    When you're young, you remember every small change you make. After decades of programming and burning the midnight oil many many times, the old memory just isn't the same.

  • Reply 14 of 70
    macarenamacarena Posts: 365member


    The problem for Oracle is that the copyright case while extremely strong, is also quite weak in terms of actual damages. The copyright case itself is not going to hurt Google too much - most likely it will be a slap on the wrist of the developers involved, and some token compensation to Oracle at best. The actual code that was copied is not extremely significant - and it is debatable whether it is part of a shipping device any more. It might have been shipped in devices at some point, but might have been removed. In such cases, a token penalty for past infringement is the most Oracle can win.


     


    The patent case is where Oracle can really turn the screws on Google - but here, Google has the case going in its favor. A lot of the claims were removed as Oracle was forced to streamline the case, and of the remaining patents, a lot were invalidated by the patent office. Oracle can of course file a fresh case and add on more patents - but that will take a whole lot longer.


     


    The best option for Oracle is if they can come to some sort of settlement with Google based on the copyright case. If Google loses the copyright case, they might be willing to settle the patent case as well - because a future patent case by Oracle could be strengthened if Google loses the copyright case now. That is probably the best option for Oracle now. Alternately, they can leverage the copyright case and try for an injunction - it takes only one bullet to kill, as Google itself would agree!


     


    It is also extremely interesting that Oracle is choosing to use the Lindholm email and other smoking guns in the Copyright case. If you think about it, the Lindholm and Rubin emails are about licensing - which is not connected to copyright per se. But these smoking guns paint Google in a very bad light, and could easily sway the jury in favor of Oracle.


     


    Yet another point that most people haven't realized. Judges know that it is extremely difficult to "prove" copyright violations. Even in cases of actual copying, there would be some minor changes made, even by an automatic code indenter, that would change the code substantially. The fact that Oracle has found 37 files that are copied verbatim should not be looked at as if it is minor insignificant files. It should be considered that these 37 files are just the immediately visible signs of blatant copying, and if these insignificant files were copied verbatim, there would be dozens more that would be tweaked marginally to evade automated copyright checkers! While this aspect would be immediately obvious to the judge, the jury might not be able to see it that way.

  • Reply 15 of 70
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    It messes up the "clean room" defence.

    As far a Google claiming they "used open source", why did they change the license of their code which was not permissible under the license the open source software was released under?
  • Reply 16 of 70
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,857member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by majjo View Post

    ... Google is claiming that because the Java language is open source, and because those 37 APIs are essential to it, that they should be open source as well...


     


    An argument that is both nonsensical and ironic.

  • Reply 17 of 70
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,857member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    By the way, since the AI article doesn't mention it, the "damning" Lindholm email isn't from when Google was developing Android. It was written in 2010 after Oracle made known it's intent to bring suit. The judge got the impression from Oracle that it was written in the early development years for Android and thus his comment. According to the same Florian Mueller the judge no longer has the same opinion of the "Lindholm email". 



     




    Regardless of when it was written, it's still an admission of guilt.

  • Reply 18 of 70


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post


    How can he not remember?



     




    Because he's probably written thousands of lines of code since he wrote it. Thousands of lines of very similar looking code most likely.


     


    If I read a couple lines from a paper you had written in college, do you think you'd remember writing them?

  • Reply 19 of 70
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,857member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by caliminius View Post


     


     




    Because he's probably written thousands of lines of code since he wrote it. Thousands of lines of very similar looking code most likely.


     


    If I read a couple lines from a paper you had written in college, do you think you'd remember writing them?



     


    I'd say he's still being disingenuous. Does he remember the exact moment he copied and pasted the code? Maybe not. Does he know he copied it? Almost certainly.

  • Reply 20 of 70
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,718member
    That is exactly how I think this is playing out. Apple are still very close to Oracle, isn't the new data center an Oracle set up for example? Like you I hope this is serious trouble for those thieves at Google.

    I hope I am replying to the correct post, on my iPad I am not seeing what I am replying to in this new system ...??? Why is this mods?

    Ah I see, I hit reply not "quote" ..... Sorry bout that, not awake yet.
Sign In or Register to comment.