Android *Directly* Copied Java Code - Ooops

[Patranus]

In typical Google fashion, Google has jumped first and asked questions later. Googles typical strategy is to create such a large user base that it forces the hand of those who own the IP to strike a deal with Google in the name of the "consumer". Being the new kid on the block and lacking IP (Where IP = Control) it is really the only way for Google to get things done.

Florian Mueller has been killing it these past few months with his analysis of various tech patent suits on his FOSSpatents blog, and today he's unearthed a pretty major bombshell: at least 43 Android source files that appear to have been directly copied from Java. That's a big deal, seeing as Oracle is currently suing Google for patent and copyright infringement in Android -- which isn't a hard case to prove when you've got 37 Android source files marked "PROPRIETARY / CONFIDENTIAL" and "DO NOT DISTRIBUTE" by Oracle / Sun and at least six more files in Froyo and Gingerbread that appear to have been decompiled from Java 2 Standard Edition and redistributed under the Apache open source license without permission. In simple terms? Google copied Oracle's Java code, pasted in a new license, and shipped it.

Now, we've long thought Google's odd response to Oracle's lawsuit seemingly acknowledged some infringement, so we doubt this is a surprise in Mountain View, but we're guessing handset vendors aren't going to be so thrilled -- especially since using Android has already caused companies like HTC and Motorola to be hit with major patent lawsuits of their own. We'll see what happens, but in the meantime you should definitely hit up Florian's site for the full dirt -- it's some 47 pages worth of material, and it's dense, but if you're into this sort of thing it's incredibly interesting.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/21/oops-android-contains-directly-copied-java-code-strengthening/

I wonder if this had anything to do with Eric Schmidt stepping down considering the fact Schmidt pioneered the Java development efforts and was Suns CTO.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Do you really think this is unique to Google or are you just trolling Android users?

FYI:

 

[Patranus]

Do you really think this is unique to Google or are you just trolling Android users?

I think copying source code directly is very unique to Google for such a large company.
I wouldn't be surprised if they copied god in many of their other products such as WebM.

If you don't think that this news is big, you need to take your head out of the sand.

 

[DivideBYZero]

I think copying source code directly is very unique to Google for such a large company.
I wouldn't be surprised if they copied god in many of their other products such as WebM.

If you don't think that this news is big, you need to take your head out of the sand.

I again refer you to the infographic and suggest to you that this is how ish goes down in the mobile market. Deal with it.

EDIT: In fact if you actually looked at it you can clearly see the Oracle<>Google litigation shown.

 

[SunnyD]

Let's see... Google has already previously admitted they were using Java code. So, duh?

 

[akugami]

Do you really think this is unique to Google or are you just trolling Android users?

A lot of the companies filing suits against each other are for patent infringements, not copyrights. In all honesty, some of the patents are overly broad. Copyright infringement is on a different scale. It's just as bad but you can infringe on a patent and not realize it, it's kind of hard for your developers to infringe on a copyright and not realize it.

In the end, I don't think it will affect Android as a whole. It will likely not affect OEM's making Android handsets because they really don't pay anything to license the Android OS. This is definitely going to give Google a major headache as they're going to have to pay a pretty penny to make this problem go away.

 

[DivideBYZero]

A lot of the companies filing suits against each other are for patent infringements, not copyrights. In all honesty, some of the patents are overly broad. Copyright infringement is on a different scale. It's just as bad but you can infringe on a patent and not realize it, it's kind of hard for your developers to infringe on a copyright and not realize it.

In the end, I don't think it will affect Android as a whole. It will likely not affect OEM's making Android handsets because they really don't pay anything to license the Android OS. This is definitely going to give Google a major headache as they're going to have to pay a pretty penny to make this problem go away.

This action is clearly listed on the Infographic I posted. Not news, even in the slightest.

 

[dguy6789]

I think copying source code directly is very unique to Google for such a large company.
I wouldn't be surprised if they copied god in many of their other products such as WebM.

If you don't think that this news is big, you need to take your head out of the sand.

You must be the new resident Apple fanboy. I bet you'll even deny that Apple does exactly what this thread says Google is doing all the time.

 

[akugami]

This action is clearly listed on the Infographic I posted. Not news, even in the slightest.

Actually no. What this new article shows is that while Oracle is saying Google was infringing on Oracle's patents, it also seems that Google was committing copyright infringement wholesale and it looks to be willful infringement. That is not the case in most of the other disputes where it's some vague patent or other being infringed and the majority of the time it's not even willful. The major news is not that Google might be infringing on Oracle's patents, it's the wholesale lifting of code that was clearly not licensed for distribution.

You must be the new resident Apple fanboy.

What does this have to do with Apple? Nowhere was it mentioned by the poster you replied to or the OP.

 

[dguy6789]

What does this have to do with Apple? Nowhere was it mentioned by the poster you replied to or the OP.

Read a couple of the threads on this forum. It's pretty clear what his intentions are; he is not out to have any kind of intelligent discussion on anything, he is posting around the forum saying "Google is very bad lol" in different wording as much as he can.

 

[akugami]

Read a couple of the threads on this forum. It's pretty clear what his intentions are.

And there are also quite a few posters with agendas against Apple. However, that still doesn't change the fact that no one was being negative in this thread. Most of it was speculation. Neither the OP or the person you replied to (or anyone else) said anything that was fanboyish until your comment. It doesn't help matters when you further the negativity just because someone else did it in another thread.

*EDIT*

I'd like to add that I didn't realize the person dguy6789 was replying to was the same as the OP. Little bit of a brain fart on my part. Still doesn't change the fact no one was being negative until your post dguy6789.

 

[Patranus]

You must be the new resident Apple fanboy. I bet you'll even deny that Apple does exactly what this thread says Google is doing all the time.

Google claims that everything an Android was "clean roomed". This article patently refutes that claim.

This new and very big news.

BTW, I am neither "pro" or "against" certain products based on emotions.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Big news? Probably. I really don't care though. That's for the companies to work out in court.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Actually no. What this new article shows is that while Oracle is saying Google was infringing on Oracle's patents, it also seems that Google was committing copyright infringement wholesale and it looks to be willful infringement. That is not the case in most of the other disputes where it's some vague patent or other being infringed and the majority of the time it's not even willful. The major news is not that Google might be infringing on Oracle's patents, it's the wholesale lifting of code that was clearly not licensed for distribution.

Um, it clearly has a box out with the text, 'illegal use of Java'. What else do you want?

 

[A5]

Big news? Probably. I really don't care though. That's for the companies to work out in court.

I'd be shocked if this ever goes to trial. I'm guessing Google and Oracle have been in settlement negotiations for awhile now - I doubt this has any serious effect on Android from an end-user perspective (Google will probably have to rewrite some of the code and pay Oracle a bunch of money, though).

 

[akugami]

Um, it clearly has a box out with the text, 'illegal use of Java'. What else do you want?

Illegal use of java can mean a lot of things. It also isn't proven. It just means they are being sued for it. In this case, and with the new evidence, it shows willful infringement as opposed to having nothing that infringes the Java patents or infringement through negligence. There is also going to be a huge difference in terms of cash payout to Oracle when Oracle can prove willful infringement.

I still think that Google is just going to pay a lump sum to Oracle to make this go away. The net gain/loss for OEM's making Android handsets will be zero. Well, there might be a small delay on newer Android releases that might affect handset releases in the short term. Long term, it's only Google that gets hurt financially. Google has too much invested in Android at this point to not obtain the necessary licensing.

 

[Genx87]

I think copying source code directly is very unique to Google for such a large company.
I wouldn't be surprised if they copied god in many of their other products such as WebM.

If you don't think that this news is big, you need to take your head out of the sand.

Heh this happens more than you think.

 

[gsaldivar]

I think copying source code directly is very unique to Google

 

[zerocool84]

OP, this is old news. We've known about this since August.

It's no secret that Android and the Dalvik virtual machine it uses are heavily based on Java, and it looks like Oracle isn't so happy about it: the database giant (which acquired Java when it bought Sun) just announced that it's suing Google for copyright and patent infringement. The suit alleges Android violates some seven patents and contains copies of Sun's original Java code -- a damning accusation given that Google CEO Eric Schmidt once led the Java team before leaving Sun and eventually arriving in Mountain View. Oracle says Google's known about these issues for around five years now, so it's clear that whatever licensing negotiations these two were having have broken down -- we've got a feeling this case will drag on for years to come, but we'll definitely keep an eye on it.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/12/oracle-sues-google-over-java-patent-infringement-in-android/

Here's Google's Response:

It's been just over a month and a half since Oracle first sued Google for infringing various Java-related patents in Android, and the big G's just filed its official response to the lawsuit after calling it "baseless." For the most part, it's a pretty standard answer to a patent complaint: Google says Android doesn't infringe any of Oracle's patents, and even if it does, those patents are invalid and / or unenforceable for a variety of reasons anyway, so, you know, shove it. That's basically all Google -- or any patent defendant -- needs to say in the answer, and if that was it, we'd just note it and move on with our lives. But we were struck by the factual background section, which reads to us like Google's geared up for war: it basically accuses Sun and Oracle of not playing fair when it comes to Java's open-source license situation and directly implies that parts of Android are based on code that might require a patent license. It's a little wonky, but let's break it down:

• Google uses a subset of the Apache Harmony Java implementation in Android.
• Sun open-sourced Java Standard Edition under the GPL in 2006 and 2007, but didn't include a patent or copyright license with the code. In order to get that license, developers have to demonstrate compatibility with the Java specification.
• The only way to demonstrate compatibility with the Java specification is to use Sun's Technology Compatibility Kit, or TCK, and Sun / Oracle and Apache have been bickering about the license for the Java TCK, or JCK, for years. (That's putting it lightly, actually. It's been more like a war.)
• The only license Sun ever offered Apache for the JCK included significant "field of use" restrictions, including a restriction on mobile phones.
• Because of these restrictions, Apache's never taken a JCK license to test Harmony.
• Oracle used to be on Apache's side in demanding Sun loosen up the JCK licensing restrictions, but that changed as soon as it bought Sun out.
• Google thinks this is very bad, and that Oracle and Sun are just big bullies who don't want Java to be open, even though being open is super amazing.

That's where Google stops, right at the part where unchecked corporate greed threatens to destroy a open-source project and your heart swells with sympathy. It's a good place to stop! But the logical and unstated endpoint to this narrative isn't quite as good:

• Because Apache doesn't have a license to test Harmony with the JCK, it doesn't have a license for Sun's Java patents and copyrights either.
• Part of the reason Apache wants a JCK license is to assure its users they have the necessary IP rights.
• Google knew all this and used parts of Harmony in Android anyway.

Now, none of this matters if the court agrees with Google that Android doesn't infringe any of the seven patents in the suit or that they're invalid. But Google has to win all seven claims for that strategy to work -- losing even one of the claims opens the door to huge willful infringement damages since the Apache / Sun dispute has been so public. We'd also say this basically means Oracle will never grant Apache the JCK license it wants, since Google's put it at the center of the dispute. Yes, it's going to be messy while this gets sorted out, but when all's said and done we'd guess the state of Java on mobile will be very, very different -- and whether that's good or bad is very much up in the air.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/05/google-responds-to-oracles-android-patent-lawsuit-we-break-it/

Also OP you do realize Apple, just like pretty much every other wireless manufacturer is in current litigation for patent infringement? I don't know why you keep thinking Apple doesn't do stuff like this or that when we already have had threads on this and other stuff that Apple has done stuff like this. It is not unique to any wireless handset maker. I'm sure if you want, I or someone else could pull up their articles. Of course this is bad but being naive again and thinking Apple doesn't do this is, that's just being ignorant. Or maybe you're just like those mothers of gang members that never think their children could ever do something wrong. You need to keep making sure you get your facts straight before making blatant false accusations about certain companies.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Why does it matter what Apple does? Everytime Apple gets sued there's a thread about it here. IS your defense for Google the fact that Apple does it?

Goddamn fanboys. It's fine to have resident Android fanboys here posting every glorious news about Android and then standing up there arms wide open shouting "OPEN OS" but the minute someone does for negative news, the Apple bashing begins?

akugami is the one cool headed person. Yes, there are lawsuits about patent infringements left and right. Copyrights are a different thing. And so what if this is news from long time ago? It's on Engadget today.

 

[zerocool84]

Why does it matter what Apple does? Everytime Apple gets sued there's a thread about it here. IS your defense for Google the fact that Apple does it?

Goddamn fanboys. It's fine to have resident Android fanboys here posting every glorious news about Android and then standing up there arms wide open shouting "OPEN OS" but the minute someone does for negative news, the Apple bashing begins?

akugami is the one cool headed person. Yes, there are lawsuits about patent infringements left and right. Copyrights are a different thing. And so what if this is news from long time ago? It's on Engadget today.

He keeps going on that it's unique to Google yet again which we know it is not. That's the only thing people care about. If someone posted an article and said, "In Typical Apple fashion", it's trolling just the same. If he just posted the news it'd be fine but he has to throw in his 2 cents which he knows is trying to start a flame war when we know every wireless company does stuff like this. "I think copying source code directly is very unique to Google for such a large company. I wouldn't be surprised if they copied god in many of their other products such as WebM." Yea.............

 

[akugami]

OP, this is old news. We've known about this since August.



http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/12/oracle-sues-google-over-java-patent-infringement-in-android/

Here's Google's Response:



http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/05/google-responds-to-oracles-android-patent-lawsuit-we-break-it/

Also OP you do realize Apple, just like pretty much every other wireless manufacturer is in current litigation for patent infringement? I don't know why you keep thinking Apple doesn't do stuff like this or that when we already have had threads on this and other stuff that Apple has done stuff like this. It is not unique to any wireless handset maker. I'm sure if you want, I or someone else could pull up their articles. Of course this is bad but being naive again and thinking Apple doesn't do this is, that's just being ignorant. Or maybe you're just like those mothers of gang members that never think their children could ever do something wrong. You need to keep making sure you get your facts straight before making blatant false accusations about certain companies.

Oracle suing Google is not new news. What is new news is proof of the actual infringement by Google in the FOSS Patent blog article the Engadget article links to. That shows that Google has copied java code wholesale that was clearly marked as not for redistribution. And incidently, the FOSS Patent blog article is dated Jan. 21, 2011.

There are a lot of patent infringement claims and most of them gets settled out of court, usually by both parties cross licensing patents. In this case Oracle seems to have Google by the balls. Oracle clearly has evidence of Google infringing their copyrights on top of the patent claims.

Again, I believe Google will pay a huge lump sum to make this go away because they are so heavily invested in Android. Google is using Android as a vehicle for their other services which ties into their real business of selling more ads. I know Apple's wet dream would be for this to negatively affect Android handsets but I really don't think it will.

 

[Patranus]

He keeps going on that it's unique to Google yet again which we know it is not. That's the only thing people care about. If someone posted an article and said, "In Typical Apple fashion", it's trolling just the same. If he just posted the news it'd be fine but he has to throw in his 2 cents which he knows is trying to start a flame war when we know every wireless company does stuff like this. "I think copying source code directly is very unique to Google for such a large company. I wouldn't be surprised if they copied god in many of their other products such as WebM." Yea.............

Why is Apple even being brought up in this thread?
I didn't mention Apple in the OP.
Apple is irrelevant to this conversation.

Secondly, a patent violation is a lot different than copying source code directly.
One could be violated unintentionally while the copying of source code is an intentional act.

Thirdly, aren't I required to post commentary on an article when posted?

 

[beni9n]

The OP turns out to be false.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/...ons-of-mass-destruction-found-in-android/2162
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/...f-android-infringement-isnt-a-smoking-gun.ars

 

[gsaldivar]

Why is Apple even being brought up in this thread? I didn't mention Apple in the OP. Apple is irrelevant to this conversation.

You are the one that asserted that Google was unique with this type of infringement.

Yet when others refute that and provide examples from Apple, a direct competitor to Google, somehow that's irrelevant?