Oracle yesterday morning kicked off its Java patent and copyright lawsuit against Google and its Android mobile operating system with a 91-page slide deck at the trial.
CNET News has posted a 14-page sample from Oracle’s slideshow alleging how Google copied Java in its Android mobile operating system.
Check it out here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “62Sparkplug” for the heads up.]
Related articles:
Android may be big loser in Oracle-Google patent trial – April 16, 2012
No settlement: Oracle and Google will go to trial on April 16th – April 2, 2012
Google’s Android has generated just $550 million since 2008, but billions from Apple iPhone, figures suggest – March 30, 2012
Google proposes Android revenue for Oracle; Oracle rebuffs offer as too low; trial starts April 16th – March 28, 2012
Google loses bid to exclude incriminating email from Oracle patent infringement trial – February 6, 2012
Oracle contradicts Google on damages, vows to fight hard for injunction against Android – September 23, 2011
Oracle seeks injunction against Android distribution as an ‘incompatible clone of Java’ – September 22, 2011
Google engineer admits to ‘strong indication that it is likely’ that he copied Sun code into Android – September 7, 2011
It will be very interesting to watch this lawsuit unfold. The slides from Oracle are designed to portray Google in the worst possible light, and they do a pretty good job.
From these slideshows, it gives the impression that there was an attempted and botched cover up. If proven I would imagine it’s going to be very expensive for Google. I don’t know if Google is guilty or not, but if they are guilty of IP theft, I would hope that they get the book thrown at them. I find it difficult to believe that a cash rich company like Google tried to avoid paying for a license when (in these slides it gives the impression) they appeared to know that they required one.
You obviously haven’t been paying attention to this lawsuit. There are internal emails from Google saying that they did not want to pay the license fees for Java and that they should just use it without paying. Basically that is Google admitting theft. Google tried to have those emails thrown out but the judge would not do that.
Don’t worry I’ve been paying attention alright, I just don’t want to say anything that makes me personally liable for defamation, just in case the evidence is incorrect in any way, re-read my post and see that that I’ve carefully covered my back 😉
“defamation”?!? Are you from the UK? I know there, the bar for slander and defamation is ridiculously low, but here, it’s more likely to be protected under Free Speech.
I don’t think this case is clear at all and I think both companies screwed up picking java for different reasons.
In regards to Oracle, one thing that I see no mention of, is that starting in 2006 Sun started open sourcing Java under the GPL. I’ve never seen Oracle mention this in a single document (naturally as it may work against them and undermine some of their big ‘you stole our code’ arguments). I also love the slide that says Sun “Warned” oracle about lawsuits. LOL. In truth Larry Ellison was looking at Sun’s Technology with the idea of suing at least google from the start. Sun hung suing other companies and making money off of them through litigation as a carrot to keep Oracle from pushing back on the price of Sun itself.
It appears that google at least going into 2006 was doing active discussions on licensing Java. Either the code they are using is GPL, or they needed a license from Sun. If they needed a license from Sun and had not obtained one by the time that Android shipped then they took a very risky gamble in my opinion. Never mind picking Java to begin with is risky , esp now that a parasite organization like Oracle owns it. Google should have nailed down the licensing they needed before shipping and depending on how this case plays out it may end up costing them big.
I don’t mean to sound accusatory as I’m not well-read on the matter, but do you have evidence that Sun started open-sourcing Java? Maybe the reason you don’t see any mention of it is because they didn’t really open-source it.
Sure the proof is all over the web.
You have multiple open source Java dev kits out there, including the OpenJDK that Oracle themselves support: http://openjdk.java.net/
Apache Harmony (where google got the vast majority of their Java pieces for Android) was a java language implementation for use in Apache. Interestingly the apache foundation had issues with getting a TCK license from Sun which Sun addressed in 2007 when they released a specific license for the TCK for use in GPL projects.
See: http://openjdk.java.net/legal/openjdk-tck-license.pdf
Larry Ellison himself in court stated that Java is open source, but he went on to say that being open source does not mean you can do whatever you want with it, which is correct, however he is trying to redefine how open source is licensed in a court of law.
Oracle’s claim is that the Java API is a different component which requires its own license regardless of the GPL. To me if they win on those grounds it will be a major issue and undermine existing open source licenses on almost every project out there. If they win on the API front you could argue that Apple’s webkit is a product of theft! It is crazy to say the least!
http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/it-business/3352006/google-claims-it-had-full-support-of-sun-when-building-android/
The more I read about this mess and I have to admit that I’m starting to come around to Google’s side in this. If Sun hadn’t of released a GPL licensed version of Java I’d say the case is clean cut, but they did release a GPL version and claiming the API is a different component with its own licensing requirements goes against the spirit of the GPL and undermines open source in general imho.
* Google has never claimed Android was Java. The Dalvik runtime does not produce Java compatible bytecode. Only Java the language is implemented at the top level.
* The emails about google obtaining a ‘license’ from what I can see where all made before the 2007 GPL release from Sun.
* Google debated a TCK license, which they would not even need unless they wanted to advertise that Android was Java compatible (it is not and they have been clear about that). Even if they had decided to obtain a TCK license, things changed in 2007 when sun released a specific TCK license for GPL projects. See link above
Even if java is open source, the license agreement is very restrictive. Whatever Google is saying and what you are referring to is clearly not the same as reading the licensing agreement and each copyright.
From,
OpenJDK FAQ
Published: December 18th, 2010
“How do I know which license applies to a given source code file in OpenJDK?”
“Each source code file is individually licensed – look for the copyright header with the license information.”
Oracle License for Java SE 6 Update 31
“2. LICENSE TO USE. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement including, but not limited to, the Java Technology Restrictions of the Supplemental License Terms, Oracle grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license without license fees to reproduce and use internally the Software complete and unmodified for the sole purpose of running Programs. THE LICENSE SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION 2 DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE COMMERCIAL FEATURES. YOUR RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO THE COMMERCIAL FEATURES ARE AS SET FORTH IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL TERMS ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL LICENSES FOR DEVELOPERS AND PUBLISHERS.”
All the licensing stuff related to this case is mostly unknown to me and therefore, I am trying to find what is relevant but nowhere can I find that Java can be used freely without license restrictions.
“Open Standards” does not equal “free to commercialize without written license agreements”
In Android they used code from the Apache Harmony project, which from everything I’ve read conformed to Sun’s licensing terms, sun even went out of their way to offer a license for the TCK, which is the technology compat kit to software derived from the main java branch.
Android in the end does not need to be TCK compliant since Android does not have a java VM or even claim to to run Java Bytecode.
I’ll be watching the trial with a lot of interest myself. My fear is that an Oracle win could set a bad precedent in the industry.
I’m not a legal expert by any means. I’ve got years of development experience and some of the arguments Oracle is using are scary to me.
“Open Standards” does not equal “free to commercialize without written license agreements”
CORRECT. Free to use but not to distribute.
Parasite company?!! Really? Then what the hell is Google?
I’ve never dealt with Google directly so I can’t comment on their tactics but I have dealt with Oracle licensing and yes they are a parasite.
On the same level as Microsoft, in fact they remind me a lot of Microsoft. Overly complex solutions, screwball nonstandard ways of doing things and sky high licensing fees that never end.
If the two merged you wouldn’t be able to tell because they both operate in the same manners to such an extent.
They each have a core product and spend the a lot of their time buying up the competition using money from their cash cow and usually the result is a crappier product in the end, or they just leave the competing ‘acquisition’ in a frozen state until they decide to ‘end support’
There is a reason all of the real talent at Sun ran for the door when Oracle bought the company!
You know, you’re correct about Oracle and its licensing. I’m fighting with them right now about licensing on virtual servers where they want a fee for each socket, whether the application will actually use that part of the server or not. They want to raise our fees by a factor of 10. So yes, in that regard Oracle is something of a parasite.
On the other hand, Google is just plain evil. They have literally stolen their core technology, and they’ve been caught stealing personal for resale. Oracle is merely gouging. Google is a sneak thief.
I agree with you.
I don’t think that Google is some saint. I think Android is a good Linux OS but anyone who has used iOS and Android can easily see that the core of their UI ideas came from iOS.
I think there should be some kind of punishment brought down on them, I just see that in this specific case Google should win. If they lose it could undermine the GPL license imho. That would be bad for the industry and consumers.
Take a look at Oracle’s full 91 page slide deck and you will see a detailed discussion of GPL including internal Google memos by Andy Rubin stating his understanding that “The problem with GPL in embedded systems is that it’s viral, and there is no way (for example) OEMs or Carriers to differentiate by adding proprietary works…Sun choose GPL for this exact reason so that companies would need to come back to them and take a direct license and pay royalties”. Andy Rubin’s words, not mine.
How does Samsung acquire Android on its handsets?
How does Acer acquire preinstalled Windows 8 on its Tablets?
By arranging and agreements. Not through free downloads or OEM purchases. Something is very wrong.
Google has allowed Samsung to tweet the interface of Android yet is the OS developer who is allowing distributions of its OS freely. However, Google does not have any right to use the code in the manner that they are. Java might be open-source but it is not created to be (altered or distributed) without prior agreement from Oracle.
The tag line of the future: “The New Google, a division of Oracle”
Goggle is in it now. They think they are so big, so powerful that they can do an MS and get away with it.