Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 28th Oct 2010 20:07 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Legal Now, this is an interesting development in the ongoing war against Android. Oracle didn't just sue Google for allegedly infringing its Java patents; it also claimed copyright infringement. Oracle has amended its complaint, and, fair is fair, they've got the code to prove it: indeed, Android contains code that appears to be copied verbatim from Java - mind you, appears. However, the code in question comes straight from Apache's Harmony project, which raises the question - would a respected and long-established cornerstone of the open source world really accept tainted code in the first place?
Thread beginning with comment 447577
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: does it matter?
by lemur2 on Fri 29th Oct 2010 02:37 UTC in reply to "RE: does it matter?"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

I think you're missing the point mate. It's not that Google is somehow less guilty because they're using Open Source... It's that they would not be the ones who breached the copyright but rather Apache foundation might be. In the event of a guilty verdict it doesn't change much I figure as the whether module is getting removed from Harmony or from Google directly doesn't really change that it would be unavailable I suppose. IANAL (Duh!) but I'm reasonably confident there would be a difference in financial and business repercussions though.


If the code is a copy, and not a re-implementation, then compensation would come down to damages and culpability.

If it was the Harmony project who copied code (rather than re-implemented it), then Google can't be held to be culpable.

It might boil down to a simple cure for Google to re-write bits of Android's code.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: does it matter?
by kristoph on Fri 29th Oct 2010 18:32 in reply to "RE[2]: does it matter?"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

You are, in fact, correct that the simple remedy is re-implementing the code in a clean room context.

You are not correct that Google is not culpable. If I publish an encyclopedia from some content I found on-line marked as 'public domain' and it is later found to be the property of another party I would, at a minimum, have to pay damages to the other party equal to some percentage of revenue I might have derived from that content.

All that said, this is just a side show for Oracle to show that Google is being disingenuous. A side show to the main event if you will.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: does it matter?
by JAlexoid on Fri 29th Oct 2010 22:54 in reply to "RE[3]: does it matter?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

You are, in fact, correct that the simple remedy is re-implementing the code in a clean room context.

You are not correct that Google is not culpable. If I publish an encyclopedia from some content I found on-line marked as 'public domain' and it is later found to be the property of another party I would, at a minimum, have to pay damages to the other party equal to some percentage of revenue I might have derived from that content.

All that said, this is just a side show for Oracle to show that Google is being disingenuous. A side show to the main event if you will.


And since Google does not sell the code in question, how can the damages be calculated?

Reply Parent Score: 2