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 459525
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by Radio
by rhavyn on Mon 24th Jan 2011 16:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Radio"
Member since:

Yes, but as Nilay has pointed it out himself, Psystar case is not exact match. It turns sour quick, but do you really think that Google will have the same argument as Psystar did? They should be smart enough to state that it was accidental, infringing material was removed and it wasn't shipped with any product.

Totally agree, and Google's entire business model isn't predicated on copyright infringement. But see below...

So the whole lawsuit will again come down to patents.

And this is where even accidental copyright infringement hurts you in a complex lawsuit. If Oracle shows conclusive proof that, accidentally or through negligence Google is likely committing copyright infringement, it will be much harder to get aspects of Oracles lawsuit thrown out quickly. The judge is going to want to take a hard look at the evidence before trusting a company that has shown to be negligent in one aspect of intellectual property. And the long the lawsuit drags on and the worse it looks for Google, the bigger the cloud that will hang over Android.

So while I agree with everyone saying that it's not as big a deal as showing that the core of Android includes copied code, it is a big deal as far as the litigation goes, a very big deal.

Reply Parent Score: 2