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

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 70
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,778member
    superdx wrote: »
    <p> 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.</p>

    I suspect you are correct.
  • Reply 22 of 70
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    macarena wrote: »
    <p> 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.</p><p>  </p>
    I have to disagree. A win might not be huge for Oracle cash wise, that is true. However it does paint a different face upon Google in he court of public opinion. It is just another piece of evidence demonstrating how Oracle ignores the law and pretty much steals what they think they need.
    <p> 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.</p>
    From Oracles standpoint is hat a bad thing. Think about it they can bleed Google for years.

    <p>  </p><p> 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!</p>
    The patent cases are very specific. In as such I don't see the copyright case having any impact at all.

    <p>  </p><p> 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.</p>
    It is called evidence.

    <p>  </p><p> 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.</p>

    You are assuming juries are stupid. Further the code would be supplied to them as written/typed documents that they would have to read. I really don't see a problem with the copyright case.
  • Reply 23 of 70
    ijoynerijoyner Posts: 135member


    A couple of things come to mind.


     


    Greg Ham who was the flautist on Men at Work's Land Downunder was found dead yesterday. Apparently he became depressed after a court case found MaW had breached copyright after Ham used a like from a 75-year-old song 'Kookaburra Laughs in the Old Gumtree'. Google's lifting of Java is much more recent and probably much more serious in terms of commercial damage.


     


    My second point is that Android is weird, at least the Dalvik VM it is based on. Who would put in programmer-accessible registers? Who would throw out stack-machine operation? They are both backward steps. That is just taking the programming profession back to the 1950s with arcane low-level machine features making it into languages, because certain machine instruction sets had those capabilities. If these guys show so little understanding, I think Android will just fall over under its own weight.


     

  • Reply 24 of 70
    majjomajjo Posts: 574member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by superdx View Post


    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.



     


    actually, according to this, it does seem like oracle had plans to enter the smartphone race.


     


    http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/17/2955445/oracle-ceo-considered-rim-palm-purchase/in/2709577

  • Reply 25 of 70
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,778member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post





    I have to disagree. A win might not be huge for Oracle cash wise, that is true. However it does paint a different face upon Google in he court of public opinion. It is just another piece of evidence demonstrating how Oracle ignores the law and pretty much steals what they think they need.


     


    I suspect you meant 'Google' in the last sentence.

  • Reply 26 of 70
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post


    How can he not remember?



     


    He was coached by a lawyer after he put in foot in his mouth during a deposition... The problem with engineers in cases like this they tell the truth, generally speaking engineer do not lie, lying usually means someone could die, since most engineer are risk adverse. I am an engineer as well as business person and I have learned how to first not put anything in writing which maybe not factually or could be debated or have larger implications. Second only answer the specific question do not elabortate. I have been deposed by lawyer before and knew they were fishing since they really did not know what they were looking for so I only answer their question, not provide the answer they may have been fishing for.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


     


     


     


    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.



     


    If you are working independently and write code and reuse code for your various clients this is fine. But if you work for a company and they are paying you to develop code for them and you know they copyrighted the code then it is your responsible not to copy and past that code when you work for another company.


     


    You could always argue they for a particular function it can only be done one way or limited ways so the fact it looks the same is reasonable to expect, but when the code used all the same variable names and rountine names and such they can easily conclude it was a copy and past.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by macarena View Post




    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.



    This is just one piece of a much larger issue that is going to unfold. If Oracle win here and Apple and MS win their cases it will show that Andy Rubin who as Apple characterize him as a low level engineer with no original ideas stole idea and know he was doing it. This all help to show Android was stolen ideas from many companies. In the Invention and IP world there are Creators and Gatherers. The creators is obvious, these are people have come up with truly unique ideas. The gatherers are those who go around and collect ideas form other sources and pull them together in a possible unique ways, however, most times not.


     


    If Oracle and others can paint the picture that these guys are not Creators but Gatherers than the whole entire Android platform was stolen from all the companies these people worked for. We all know that Oracle's Larry Ellison was very close friend with Steve and you can imagine that Steve ask Oracle to pursue this and not settle it out of court. They want this all part of the public record since Apple and MS will also use this in their cases as well.


     


     


    It part of the Thermal Nuclear war on Android in spite of what Larry Page thinks. Apple has an all out attack on Google right now and they are coming at them from every which way.

  • Reply 27 of 70
    esummersesummers Posts: 953member


    Although I think Google is on poor legal ground, the range check code sounds like boilerplate code to me.  It is kinda like saying someone copied something like "Once upon a time" or "The end." from their book.  It is not substantial enough to be a copyright violation.  Particularly when something like this is likely related to a programmers style.  Kinda like a writing style, anytime you encounter a particular problem you are going to write it the same way.  Just because you write in a particular style doesn't mean you copied the overall design.  Just the same, I think Google may be on poor legal ground for other reasons.

  • Reply 28 of 70
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,893member


    deleted due to posting glitch

  • Reply 29 of 70
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,893member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


     


     


    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.



     


    I suspect you are still in the first half of your projected life span.  Later on in life, you will experience watching an old movie on video and you know you've seen the movie before but you don't remember the plot at all.

  • Reply 30 of 70


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


     


     


    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.



     




    Of course you'd say that. You have a vendetta against Google.


     


    In coding, there's only so many ways to solve a problem. You find a solution that works and you keep using it. Do you remember all the places you used that particular solution? Probably not. In this instance, you're talking nine lines of code. You do have some grasp of how miniscule that amount of code is right? Especially in something as large and complex as a computer operating system.

  • Reply 31 of 70
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by caliminius View Post


    Of course you'd say that. You have a vendetta against Google.


     


    In coding, there's only so many ways to solve a problem.



     


    And the higher-order the problem, the easier it is to solve with different code. 



    At any rate, it doesn't matter if it's line-for-line independent invention. Oracle owns the right to whatever those lines are.

  • Reply 32 of 70


     


    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". 



     


    Nice try.


     


    Here's another one from Lindholm - July 26 2005 (Slide 21):


     


    “Must take license from Sun”


     


     


    “Google/Android, with support from 


    Tim Lindholm, negotiates the first 


    OSS J2ME JVM license with Sun”


     


    Here's a second one from Andy Rubin - October 11, 2005 (Slide 42)


     


     


    “My proposal is that we take a license that specifically 


    grants the right for us to Open Source our product.  


    We’ll pay Sun for the license and the TCK.”


     


     


    Oracle Slides:


     


    http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/features/opening-slides-1592541.pdf


     

  • Reply 33 of 70
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post


    If you are working independently and write code and reuse code for your various clients this is fine. But if you work for a company and they are paying you to develop code for them and you know they copyrighted the code then it is your responsible not to copy and past that code when you work for another company.


     



     


    If you truly program for a living and have worked for more than one company, you reuse/recycle code as a matter of course. There are different ways of doing it. Never met a true programmer who does not recycle code in some ways.  Copying and pasting is VERY common but it is wise to modify it after you are close to a deadline. My point was that, sometimes, we just forget to *fix* everything.

  • Reply 34 of 70
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


     


     


    If you truly program for a living and have worked for more than one company, you reuse/recycle code as a matter of course. There are different ways of doing it. Never met a true programmer who does not recycle code in some ways.  Copying and pasting is VERY common but it is wise to modify it after you are close to a deadline. My point was that, sometimes, we just forget to *fix* everything.



     


    Lots of high school students copy their essays from Wikipedia, too. That doesn't make it right.


     


    Anyone working as a programmer should learn something about copyright laws and what they are allowed to do and not to do.

  • Reply 35 of 70
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


     


     


    Lots of high school students copy their essays from Wikipedia, too. That doesn't make it right.


     


    Anyone working as a programmer should learn something about copyright laws and what they are allowed to do and not to do.



     


    There are two fundamental misunderstandings in your perspective.  First of all, we are talking about reusing one's own code, not plagiarizing (although plagiarism is rampant too).  Now, arguably, that's still illegal (well, perhaps there is no argument about that) if you develop code on someone's payroll.  


     


    Second, programmers do not need any lesson here.  It's a matter of practicality.  Reality is that the software industry simply CANNOT function with code recycling. It's an unspoken but universal practice.  Some try to as ethical as possible and take care to reuse an algorithm but not the code.  Some change the variable names, etc.  Sometimes, when you have to deliver something functional in 24 hrs, you just copy and paste, and fix the copyright problem later.  


     


    Do you honestly believe there are that many people who can produce 1000 lines of original code day in day out?


     


    Do you honestly believe that there are an infinite number of ways to code certain fundamental functions?


     


    How do you think full-featured apps and websites can be developed so fast?


     


    Many experienced programmers have code catalogues.  There are even programs that recycle code automatically (with basic changes). 


     


     


     


     

  • Reply 36 of 70
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post


    deleted due to posting glitch



     


    You shouldn't post glitch.

  • Reply 37 of 70
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    You shouldn't post glitch.



     


    Yeah, that tends to be b?ad? ?n?e?w?s? n??o????????? ??????m??a??????t???????????t???????e???r?? ???h????o???????w????????y??????????????????????o???????????????????u?????????????????? ????????????????l??????????????????????????o???????????????????????????o??????????????????????????k????????????????????????? ????????????????????????a???????????????????????????t?????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????i?????????????????????????????????t??????????????????????????????.???????????????????????

  • Reply 38 of 70
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Yeah, that tends to be b?ad? ?n?e?w?s? n??o????????? ??????m??a??????t???????????t???????e???r?? ???h????o???????w????????y??????????????????????o???????????????????u?????????????????? ????????????????l??????????????????????????o???????????????????????????o??????????????????????????k????????????????????????? ????????????????????????a???????????????????????????t?????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????i?????????????????????????????????t??????????????????????????????.???????????????????????



     


    Can't say I totally agree. 


     

  • Reply 39 of 70
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,898member
    tundraboy wrote: »
    <p>  </p><div class="quote-container"> <span>Quote:</span> <div class="quote-block"> Originally Posted by <strong>anonymouse</strong> <a href="/t/149435/google-engineers-defend-source-code-email-in-oracle-lawsuit-over-java#post_2098715"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> <br /> <p>  </p> <p>  </p> <p> 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.</p> </div></div><p>  </p><p> I suspect you are still in the first half of your projected life span.  Later on in life, you will experience watching an old movie on video and you know you've seen the movie before but you don't remember the plot at all.</p>

    I certainly hope you're right about my lifespan, but your analogy is, well, shall we say not analogous.
  • Reply 40 of 70
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,898member
    caliminius wrote: »
    <p>  </p><div class="quote-container"> <span>Quote:</span> <div class="quote-block"> Originally Posted by <strong>anonymouse</strong> <a href="/t/149435/google-engineers-defend-source-code-email-in-oracle-lawsuit-over-java#post_2098715"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> <br /> <p>  </p> <p>  </p> <p> 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.</p> </div></div><p>  </p><p> <br /> Of course you'd say that. You have a vendetta against Google.</p><p>  </p><p> In coding, there's only so many ways to solve a problem. You find a solution that works and you keep using it. Do you remember all the places you used that particular solution? Probably not. In this instance, you're talking nine lines of code. You do have some grasp of how miniscule that amount of code is right? Especially in something as large and complex as a computer operating system.</p>

    A vendetta implies revenge, and I have nothing to seek revenge against Google for. I don't like them, I think they are a dangerous, outlaw company, and I'd like to see them held accountable for their actions, but that's beside the point here.

    The issue isn't whether programmers commit copyright violations all the time, it's about whether it happened in this instance and whether the testimony wasnthenwhole truth.
Sign In or Register to comment.