Linked by OSGuy on Fri 21st Jan 2011 22:22 UTC
Google "Sometimes the sheer wrongness of what is posted on the web leaves us speechless. Especially when it's picked up and repeated as gospel by otherwise reputable sites like Engadget. 'Google copied Oracle's Java code, pasted in a new license, and shipped it', they reported this morning. Sorry, but that just isn't true."
Permalink for comment 459398
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Radio
by umccullough on Sat 22nd Jan 2011 01:03 UTC in reply to "Comment by Radio"
umccullough
Member since:
2006-01-26

Alas, there is a difference between technical and legal implications of the case, well summed up by a level-headed engadget:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/21/android-source-code-java-and-cop...

Google can remove the infriging files at once and Android will still run fine, but Oracle is going to win the case.


But, Oracle still has to prove they willfully intended to violate the copyright... (which could definitely still happen)...

Pardon my comparison to real, tangible property, but it's sorta like discovering someone has stolen goods in their car, which they claim they didn't know were there, never saw before, and have never used - but would gladly give them back to the rightful owner now that they know about it.

Ultimately, someone is responsible for wrongdoing, but it can be fuzzy. In this case, "possession" is a pretty powerful circumstance, and will be the major point that Oracle uses to prove Google's alleged wrongdoing - but there are always gray areas. In the case of the "stolen goods" - perhaps someone else threw them into an open car window and the owner didn't notice when they got back to the car... How might that play out in court?

Reply Parent Score: 2