Can you explain further please? The brief snip of the license I saw in the article stated not to redistribute the code. Can't you have the files containing the code on your system? My understanding is that most source code repositories just link to existing files or copy them to new locations and track changes. Most also aid in distribution of the code, but distribution isn't always necessary. If the license says I can use the code but not redistribute it how am I violating the license by simply having the code in multiple locations and tracking changes to it? Wouldn't it be at the point at which I redistributed the code be where the license is violated?
Can you explain further please? The brief snip of the license I saw in the article stated not to distribute the code. Can't you have the files containing the code on your system? My understanding is that most source code repositories just link to existing files or copy them to new locations and track changes. Most also aid in distribution of the code, but distribution isn't always necessary.
I'll try to explain. Say you write a book that sells millions. A NYT best seller. Then some one takes a chapter of yours and writes a whole book based on it. This is very similar to CopyWright laws. Trying to explain this to the judge is where it all gets messed up. IMHO.
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.
I'll try to explain. Say you write a book that sells millions. A NYT best seller. Then some one takes a chapter of yours and writes a whole book based on it. This is very similar to CopyWright laws. Trying to explain this to the judge is where it all gets messed up. IMHO.
In this instance Google didn't take a chapter of Oracle's code and write a whole book based on it. I don't read anywhere that Google actually used the code at all. The code just existed on some branch of a repository they hosted apart from their main codebase. If they had used the code and it was central to the product they shipped I think Google would be in big trouble because Oracle could show they were financially damaged. I just don't see the damage done in this instance.
Google DID distribute the code. Even if the only people that downloaded those files were the bloggers that were looking in to this that is distribution. Google didn't just have them on some internal server. The license was stripped and replaced by the Apache license and they were placed in the source tree of Android. That is a problem for Googke regardless who actually uploaded the files.
Google DID distribute the code. Even if the only people that downloaded those files were the bloggers that were looking in to this that is distribution. Google didn't just have them on some internal server. The license was stripped and replaced by the Apache license and they were placed in the source tree of Android. That is a problem for Googke regardless who actually uploaded the files.
I asked
"I can put code in a repository and not distribute it to anyone else without violating a license can't I?"
You replied "No you cannot."
Your explaining that Google did distribute the code doesn't answer my question. I agree it was the act of distributing the code under a different license that would be the problem for Google. But how does this explain why I can't put code in a repository, not distribute it to anyone and violate the license.
No you can ask for statutory damages. That used to be $100, 000 per infringing copy. Might still be that high, or possibly higher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by veblen
I think if the code existed in Google's repositories and people downloaded from there they are guilty of distributing some of Oracle's code in violation of their license. But what would the damages be? Don't you need to show that you were financially harmed to get a decent amount in damages? If the code wasn't widely distributed and wasn't actually used in the code that Google received money from how high could the damages really be?
No you can ask for statutory damages. That used to be $100, 000 per infringing copy. Might still be that high, or possibly higher.
Thanks I'll take a look at statutory damages. Are there any infringing copies though? The code wasn't in the copies of the software that shipped. There isn't any evidence that Google actually used it.
"I can put code in a repository and not distribute it to anyone else without violating a license can't I?"
You replied "No you cannot."
Your explaining that Google did distribute the code doesn't answer my question. I agree it was the act of distributing the code under a different license that would be the problem for Google. But how does this explain why I can't put code in a repository, not distribute it to anyone and violate the license.
I missed the not distribute part of your first post. In your second post, you are describing the act of making available which Googke had no right to do. It is licensed code that Googke stripped attribution and license from and then open sourced. In your third post you are back to not distributing the code, merely archiving it.
A) Google did it.
Your scenario of non-distribution is not relevant to the discussion.
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.
It did what manufacturers do with prototypes sometimes. For example, with a concept car generally only the body and interior are new designs. That is what the public sees. To show the concept in operation, companies will use underlining parts (generally their own parts) from other cars to make the vehicle functional. If the car is brought to market, then the borrowed parts are replaced by parts actually designed for the concept. Companies aren't going to design a concept product from the ground up just to show case a potential product.
So, Google was likely borrowing Oracle's Code to save it time putting together a functional version of Android. Google likely started by creating the pretty GUI parts, but borrowed Oracle's code as the engine for testing and showcasing purposes. Google could test a working version of Android and slowly replace the borrowed code.
Since Google's use of Oracle's Code was essentially commercial in nature, it likely is in hot water. Borrowing Oracle's Code benefitted Google commercially because it probably saved Google a lot of time developing Android.
Quote:
Originally Posted by veblen
In this instance Google didn't take a chapter of Oracle's code and write a whole book based on it. I don't read anywhere that Google actually used the code at all. The code just existed on some branch of a repository they hosted apart from their main codebase. If they had used the code and it was central to the product they shipped I think Google would be in big trouble because Oracle could show they were financially damaged. I just don't see the damage done in this instance.
If you want, see my other post. 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. If Google used the code in some fashion that didn't benefit it commercially and that didn't hurt Oracle commercially, Google probably would be OK. However, Google probably did benefit commercially. If the allegations are true, it likely used the code to both expedite the development of Android and show a concept without having to have the whole product finished. Both activities commercially benefitted Google.
Quote:
Originally Posted by veblen
Thanks I'll take a look at statutory damages. Are there any infringing copies though? The code wasn't in the copies of the software that shipped. There isn't any evidence that Google actually used it.
I missed the not distribute part of your first post. In your second post, you are describing the act of making available which Googke had no right to do. It is licensed code that Googke stripped attribution and license from and then open sourced. In your third post you are back to not distributing the code, merely archiving it.
A) Google did it.
Your scenario of non-distribution is not relevant to the discussion.
No worries on missing the distribute part.
In reference to I believe one of the arguments Google was making was that some of the files were only used on internal test devices and were not distributed to external parties.
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.
If you do an Internet search of copyright and statutory damages, you will get quite a few relevant hits. Wikipedia breaks it down nice. The formula is a bit more involved then I suggested before. For willful infringement, if Wikipedia is currently correct, a court can award up to $150, 000 for one instance of infringement (I think it may have been upped to $250, 000, but I am too lazy to dig through the copyright code right now).
Generally it is lower though, ranging from $750 to $30, 000 for each instance. Keep in mind the lower amounts are when you didn't intent to violate the copyright. Yes, that is right, intending to violate the copyright law isn't a requirement to be found liable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by veblen
Thanks I'll take a look at statutory damages. Are there any infringing copies though? The code wasn't in the copies of the software that shipped. There isn't any evidence that Google actually used it.
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?
Um, because the ads on this site are served by Google Ads, actually. And those Android products need all the advertising they can get
If you want, see my other post. 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. If Google used the code in some fashion that didn't benefit it commercially and that didn't hurt Oracle commercially, Google probably would be OK. However, Google probably did benefit commercially. If the allegations are true, it likely used the code to both expedite the development of Android and show a concept without having to have the whole product finished. Both activities commercially benefitted Google.
Those are all good points. You explained yourself very well. I think where we disagree here is in the commercial benefit of the code in question. If I'm understanding correctly these were simply test files uploaded by a third party (not google) which were not central to the product and which could simply be deleted from their repository because they were included by mistake. Simple mistakes like this happen. I haven't read that these files were used to expedite the development and show a concept without having to have the whole product finished. I guess we'll see.
Google has a history of infringing on IP. Didn't they and they alone try to distribute all books for free without any consideration for the publishers and authors?
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.
No, Google didn't use that code on Android never. This was a zip file from a 3rd party Open Handset Alliance used by them for testing before they submitted to Android code base. It's explained on Ars Technica post
Comments
No you cannot.
Can you explain further please? The brief snip of the license I saw in the article stated not to redistribute the code. Can't you have the files containing the code on your system? My understanding is that most source code repositories just link to existing files or copy them to new locations and track changes. Most also aid in distribution of the code, but distribution isn't always necessary. If the license says I can use the code but not redistribute it how am I violating the license by simply having the code in multiple locations and tracking changes to it? Wouldn't it be at the point at which I redistributed the code be where the license is violated?
Can you explain further please? The brief snip of the license I saw in the article stated not to distribute the code. Can't you have the files containing the code on your system? My understanding is that most source code repositories just link to existing files or copy them to new locations and track changes. Most also aid in distribution of the code, but distribution isn't always necessary.
I'll try to explain. Say you write a book that sells millions. A NYT best seller. Then some one takes a chapter of yours and writes a whole book based on it. This is very similar to CopyWright laws. Trying to explain this to the judge is where it all gets messed up. IMHO.
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.
I'll try to explain. Say you write a book that sells millions. A NYT best seller. Then some one takes a chapter of yours and writes a whole book based on it. This is very similar to CopyWright laws. Trying to explain this to the judge is where it all gets messed up. IMHO.
In this instance Google didn't take a chapter of Oracle's code and write a whole book based on it. I don't read anywhere that Google actually used the code at all. The code just existed on some branch of a repository they hosted apart from their main codebase. If they had used the code and it was central to the product they shipped I think Google would be in big trouble because Oracle could show they were financially damaged. I just don't see the damage done in this instance.
Can you explain further please?
Google DID distribute the code. Even if the only people that downloaded those files were the bloggers that were looking in to this that is distribution. Google didn't just have them on some internal server. The license was stripped and replaced by the Apache license and they were placed in the source tree of Android. That is a problem for Googke regardless who actually uploaded the files.
Google DID distribute the code. Even if the only people that downloaded those files were the bloggers that were looking in to this that is distribution. Google didn't just have them on some internal server. The license was stripped and replaced by the Apache license and they were placed in the source tree of Android. That is a problem for Googke regardless who actually uploaded the files.
I asked
"I can put code in a repository and not distribute it to anyone else without violating a license can't I?"
You replied "No you cannot."
Your explaining that Google did distribute the code doesn't answer my question. I agree it was the act of distributing the code under a different license that would be the problem for Google. But how does this explain why I can't put code in a repository, not distribute it to anyone and violate the license.
I think if the code existed in Google's repositories and people downloaded from there they are guilty of distributing some of Oracle's code in violation of their license. But what would the damages be? Don't you need to show that you were financially harmed to get a decent amount in damages? If the code wasn't widely distributed and wasn't actually used in the code that Google received money from how high could the damages really be?
No you can ask for statutory damages. That used to be $100, 000 per infringing copy. Might still be that high, or possibly higher.
Thanks I'll take a look at statutory damages. Are there any infringing copies though? The code wasn't in the copies of the software that shipped. There isn't any evidence that Google actually used it.
I asked
"I can put code in a repository and not distribute it to anyone else without violating a license can't I?"
You replied "No you cannot."
Your explaining that Google did distribute the code doesn't answer my question. I agree it was the act of distributing the code under a different license that would be the problem for Google. But how does this explain why I can't put code in a repository, not distribute it to anyone and violate the license.
I missed the not distribute part of your first post. In your second post, you are describing the act of making available which Googke had no right to do. It is licensed code that Googke stripped attribution and license from and then open sourced. In your third post you are back to not distributing the code, merely archiving it.
A) Google did it.
Google is likely in trouble because not only did it distribute the Code, but it used the code internally to help build the OS.
It did what manufacturers do with prototypes sometimes. For example, with a concept car generally only the body and interior are new designs. That is what the public sees. To show the concept in operation, companies will use underlining parts (generally their own parts) from other cars to make the vehicle functional. If the car is brought to market, then the borrowed parts are replaced by parts actually designed for the concept. Companies aren't going to design a concept product from the ground up just to show case a potential product.
So, Google was likely borrowing Oracle's Code to save it time putting together a functional version of Android. Google likely started by creating the pretty GUI parts, but borrowed Oracle's code as the engine for testing and showcasing purposes. Google could test a working version of Android and slowly replace the borrowed code.
Since Google's use of Oracle's Code was essentially commercial in nature, it likely is in hot water. Borrowing Oracle's Code benefitted Google commercially because it probably saved Google a lot of time developing Android.
In this instance Google didn't take a chapter of Oracle's code and write a whole book based on it. I don't read anywhere that Google actually used the code at all. The code just existed on some branch of a repository they hosted apart from their main codebase. If they had used the code and it was central to the product they shipped I think Google would be in big trouble because Oracle could show they were financially damaged. I just don't see the damage done in this instance.
Thanks I'll take a look at statutory damages. Are there any infringing copies though? The code wasn't in the copies of the software that shipped. There isn't any evidence that Google actually used it.
I missed the not distribute part of your first post. In your second post, you are describing the act of making available which Googke had no right to do. It is licensed code that Googke stripped attribution and license from and then open sourced. In your third post you are back to not distributing the code, merely archiving it.
A) Google did it.
No worries on missing the distribute part.
In reference to
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.
Android does pride itself as the first to have "Copy and Paste" in a mobile OS.
Google's new motto: "CTRL-C, CTRL-V"
Nice.
Generally it is lower though, ranging from $750 to $30, 000 for each instance. Keep in mind the lower amounts are when you didn't intent to violate the copyright. Yes, that is right, intending to violate the copyright law isn't a requirement to be found liable.
Thanks I'll take a look at statutory damages. Are there any infringing copies though? The code wasn't in the copies of the software that shipped. There isn't any evidence that Google actually used it.
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?
Um, because the ads on this site are served by Google Ads, actually. And those Android products need all the advertising they can get
If you want, see my other post. 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. If Google used the code in some fashion that didn't benefit it commercially and that didn't hurt Oracle commercially, Google probably would be OK. However, Google probably did benefit commercially. If the allegations are true, it likely used the code to both expedite the development of Android and show a concept without having to have the whole product finished. Both activities commercially benefitted Google.
Those are all good points. You explained yourself very well. I think where we disagree here is in the commercial benefit of the code in question. If I'm understanding correctly these were simply test files uploaded by a third party (not google) which were not central to the product and which could simply be deleted from their repository because they were included by mistake. Simple mistakes like this happen. I haven't read that these files were used to expedite the development and show a concept without having to have the whole product finished. I guess we'll see.
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.
No, Google didn't use that code on Android never. This was a zip file from a 3rd party Open Handset Alliance used by them for testing before they submitted to Android code base. It's explained on Ars Technica post
Android does pride itself as the first to have "Copy and Paste" in a mobile OS.
Google's new motto: "CTRL-C, CTRL-V"
More like, ``CTRL-X, CTRL-V'' as it was a series of literally cut and pasted code.