
Oops: No copied Java code or weapons of mass destruction found in Android - sigzero
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/oops-no-copied-java-code-or-weapons-of-mass-destruction-found-in-android/2162
======
grellas
A few observations from a lawyer perspective:

1\. At the risk of sounding simplistic, it is the patents, and not the
copyrights, that matter most here.

2\. Copyright infringement might provide a basis for a damage award but this,
in a worst case, could readily be absorbed by Google, even as it works around
any copyrighted code issues in future Android releases. What is more, the main
copyright claims appear to center on a bizarre technical point, at least as
framed by the court pleadings - that is, that the so-called open-sourcing done
by Sun of the Java SE specification was, in effect, illusory because no such
license was valid unless a vendor (such as ASF) could show "compatibility"
with the Java specification via test suites made available by Sun through a
license of its TCK, which in turn required that vendor to pay license fees and
to agree to restrict distribution to the desktop only. Whether that claim
stands remains to be seen but it would seem to me that Google (even if had to
pay damages) could clean up any infringing code without too much harm to its
prospects for the Android market in doing its future releases.

3\. The patent claims pose the greatest risks for Google. Should it lose here,
Google could be permanently enjoined from doing further Android distribution
and would (I assume) find it exceedingly hard to do any workarounds. In that
case, Google stands to lose potentially a vast, critical market and would
effectively have to make Oracle its strategic partner for all of the mobile
space in order to solve this problem. Very bad news indeed.

4\. The good news is that Google has a strong track record of fighting off
extortionist patent claims and has hit back hard (see, e.g., the HN discussion
on a piece entitled "Google Bowls a Googly,"
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1899156>).

I would be interested in how those who are technically knowledgeable assess
the risks to Google from the legal framework set forth above or in how you
might clarify or reframe those legal issues based on technical points that I
have missed.

~~~
eapen
For those not well versed in Cricket (the game), Googly is when a spin-bowler
bowls a ball in the reverse direction of that he usually bowls. So, if the
ball usually spins from right to left, a googly would spin from left to right
and trick a batsman and get him out. Hence the phrase "Google bowls a googly".
[This is probably better suited for reddit's TIL]

~~~
enry_straker
Not exactly.

A Googly is a type of delivery bowled by a bowler where the ball, after
pitching on the ground, turns in the opposite direction of the majority of the
balls bowled by the bowler. Thus a bowler who predominantly bowls off-spin (
ie, a ball which, after pitching on the ground, turns from left to right )
bowls one which goes from right to left.

------
mwg66
"As any programmer will tell you, you don’t ship your unit tests with your
product. Unit tests are tools used internally to ensure the quality of the
software before you ship it."

Two things.

1\. When you do Open Source - you _ship_ the source. 2\. I don't remember
copyright law being concerned with "shipping". I think "distribution" is what
counts and if it's in the git tree - that's distribution.

~~~
jacquesm
Yes, but if the final built product does not contain those elements then at
least the final product can continue to ship because it is not infringing.

The tests can then be removed and any damage claims will likely be settled
and/or workarounds will be created.

If the code is in the core of android and ends up in the product as shipped by
the various handset manufacturers then it's a completely different story.

~~~
mwg66
I'd like to see what a judge has to say about this.

I'm not convinced that there will be much distinction between the infringing
works being in the binaries or not. They are in the source tree and that is
essentially part of the build process. What's more, the source tree is
distributed to all Android manufacturers. Google are shipping the source code.

I'm sure Oracle don't see it that way.

What we should be talking about is how they got into the git tree in the first
place.

------
moondowner
To cut to the chase, the Engadget's poster isn't a developer (according to
ZDNet's poster) and he forgot to mention that the files that we're similar do
not ship with Android, they are either used for testing or debugging.

UPDATE: FlorianMueller posted comments on the ZDNet post.

~~~
blinkingled
His comment doesn't seem to amount to anything. His contention is that the
files are still there in AOSP git tree when the key point was that those are
"TESTS" which means they are likely not "shipped" with Android and so the
assumed impact if any is not anywhere near as dire as the original Engadget
post or Folrian's own blog post made it out to be.

EDIT: Ryan Paul's take - [http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2011/01/new-
alleged-...](http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2011/01/new-alleged-
evidence-of-android-infringement-isnt-a-smoking-gun.ars) . He confirms that
the files in question are non-shipping ones.

~~~
moondowner
Ryan's post is good, he explains things more thoroughly.

Very important: "It's not clear how the zip file got included in the AOSP, but
it's obvious that it wasn't intended to be there and isn't actually used by
Android in any capacity."

------
stcredzero
_Sadly, while sensational articles like Engadget’s and Mueller’s will get
splashed all over the web and lavished with thousands of views and hundreds of
comments, the boring truth will rate no such attention._

I think this speaks to the poor quality of tech journalism. A part of the
problem are _poorly informed consumers._

~~~
Semiapies
It might, if it wasn't actually a problem in all forms of journalism. The
bleeding lede wins, and most of the people who come across an incorrect story
won't even hear about the correction.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Indeed. Ever notice how when you read something in the news on a subject you
are very familiar with the piece is often misleading and filled with
inaccuracies? Ever wonder how that works out for every other news story?

~~~
Semiapies
The one bright point is with that terrible, fast-updating internet journalism,
people can at least try to get out that a story is plain _wrong_ within a few
hours, as opposed to days, weeks, or months later (when few people care much
about the story).

------
c2
Also interesting how the original oops submission had close to 100 comments
whereas this one has less then 50.

I am guilty of this too - being drawn to inflammatory headlines - but to be
honest, the truth is much less interesting in this case.

~~~
Semiapies
It's been up-voted more, however.

On the plus side, the story got here only 4 hours after the original one.

~~~
jessriedel
> It's been up-voted more, however.

Exactly. The headline "Surprising Event Happens" is bound to draw more
discussion than it's mere overturning.... _unless_ the discussion becomes
about the meta issue of journalism.

------
Jacob4u2
Florian continues to comment on the post, posts this link for confirmation of
the source files still being in Android source

[http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/libcore.git;a=tree...](http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/libcore.git;a=tree;f=support/src/test/java/org/apache/harmony/security/tests/support/acl;h=569f09ad5547efdf94fc000cc5a4e7ffa0764c63;hb=refs/heads/froyo-
plus-aosp)

~~~
yuhong
Clue: Go up to the support directory and click the HEAD link and notice the
difference.

~~~
orangecat
Nice. Specific commit:
[http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/libcore.git;a=comm...](http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/libcore.git;a=commitdiff;h=a13e4f2c06c4673a1d6fe52409432ccc576c2fe3)

~~~
yuhong
Note however that deleting the files don't suddenly make the copyright
infringement claims invalid.

~~~
orangecat
Sure, but it appears that there was no intent and that the actual damages from
the infringement are roughly $0. It may result in a small penalty, but it's in
no way a threat to Android's future.

~~~
kingkilr
Yup, statutory damages for copyright infringement suck for individuals, but
for someone like Google they're not awful (AFAIR it's something like $7,500 or
$150,000 depending on something per count).

~~~
nohat
True, but if they did ship something tainted, then that could be a very large
count.

------
joe_the_user
Considering Florian Mueller has too breathless-and-dubious anti-Google pieces
here in the last two days and given my survey of his site (no problem with
handing Novell's patents to Microsoft, etc, etc), calling him a pro-patent
Shill actually seems fitting.

~~~
thomasz
W T F!?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florian_M%C3%BCller>

~~~
Kylekramer
Florian's whole shtick comes from supposed free software cred. But he does
have a somewhat spotty history when it comes to supporting Microsoft and
spreading FUD about GNU/Linux. It is a tough call what his true motives are,
but things aren't always what they seem.

~~~
kenjackson
I think he is a strong advocate of getting rid of SW patents. But I think he
thinks companies like IBM hide behind the GPL for somethings to get community
favor and then use their patents in other endeavors (like Hercules).

I'm speculating, but I think he views the problem as being patents, and thinks
the effort around the GPL to be a distraction and one that fundamentally
doesn't solve the patent issue. Again, only speculating, but I think he'd like
to see a real patent nuclear attack which will push the industry to move to
get rid of patents.

------
trustfundbaby
Just serves to reinforce the point made here
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2128038>

------
shareme
and how many clueless entities down voted all of us stating that the article
this morning was not the full story?

Proof positive that even among HN readers the crowd is a bit less than
intelligent

------
EthanEtienne
Unit tests still is code used for dev., this time copied code from Java?

