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 459423
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Radio
by glarepate on Sat 22nd Jan 2011 22:13 UTC in reply to "Comment by Radio"
glarepate
Member since:
2006-01-04

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 [sic] files at once and Android will still run fine, but Oracle is going to win the case.



Do you remember the Caldera/SCO Group claims that being in possession of copyright infringing materials made the possessor liable for copyright infringement? Do you also recall that that's not how the law works?

The perpetrator of the infringement is liable, not the possessor, unless they are identical, of course. Even if the programmer is a Google employee Google is not liable for the infringement unless someone in Google's management team authorized and directed it. And then that person (or persons) is guilty of conspiracy to infringe and the infringer is the only one guilty of actual infringement.

This is different from patent infringement where anyone who uses the patented functionality without a license infringes and is therefore liable.

Mr. Patel isn't the only person who had trouble getting the details right in stuff like this.

Reply Parent Score: 4