3 ms·

The timing is irrelevant. It's almost certain that when Google bought Android, they'd have taken on any legal liabilities that went with it. It's possible tha

The timing is irrelevant. It's almost certain that when Google bought Android, they'd have taken on any legal liabilities that went with it. It's possible that the previous owners might have agreed to keep them but it would be very unusual for that to be the case. As for could the just pay Oracle to license the code - they could have done at the time had Oracle, or Sun as it would have been at the time, agreed but they didn't. It would seem highly unlikely given that Oracle are currently suing them that they'd be willing to enter into such a license with Google now.

gawker 16y ago
So I'm guessing Google can't claim ignorance (i.e. did not check all code line by line for copyright material) when they bought Android as a defence statement?
- Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
  Nope, that's what due diligence is for. My guess is that the only out they'd have with this is if the purchase contract specified that any legal liability might remain with the previous owners but it's unusual to find anyone who will agree to that with a sale.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Google is damned about that bit either way. The possibilities are that they did not perform proper due diligence on the code that they bought, which should have brought this to light (and a giant the size of google really should know how to do a code audit) (bad), the second possibility is that they did do proper due diligence, were aware of the provenance of this chunk of code and chose to ignore it (bad), the third is that the code got incorporated after the sale (bad). There are no 'goods' here, the central question is if this is a part that is critical. That said, I'm fairly sure that any large enough software project that has had contributions from large numbers of sources is subject to this kind of pollution, unless very strict measures are taken to avoid it.
metageek 16y ago
>The timing is irrelevant. Not entirely; it might make a difference in how hard it is for Oracle to prove willful infringement (which increases the damages. And even if it's irrelevant to the case, it's still an interesting question.
- Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
  Agree it's an interesting question but I don't see how the timing impacts proof of whether it was wilful or not. Google inherit everything the previous developer did including the intent or otherwise. It doesn't get to say "but we didn't know when we bought it", that's what due diligence and contacts are for.
  - metageek 16y ago
    (a) If Android, Inc., didn't have all the policies in place that larger companies do (e.g., code review), then it would have been easier for a naïve engineer to make the mistake. If so, it might actually not be willful. (b) The longer ago it happened, the more likely it is that any evidence of how it happened has been lost. If so, even if it was willful, Oracle might have trouble proving it.
- spiffworks 16y ago
  Unless I am mistaken, willful infringement applies to patents, whereas this only proves willful copyright infringement. Are the willful infringement clauses for copyright as well?
  - metageek 16y ago
    I think so; willful infringement triggers the triple-damages provisions.

gawker 16y ago

So I'm guessing Google can't claim ignorance (i.e. did not check all code line by line for copyright material) when they bought Android as a defence statement?

Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
Nope, that's what due diligence is for. My guess is that the only out they'd have with this is if the purchase contract specified that any legal liability might remain with the previous owners but it's unusual to find anyone who will agree to that with a sale.
jacquesm 16y ago
Google is damned about that bit either way. The possibilities are that they did not perform proper due diligence on the code that they bought, which should have brought this to light (and a giant the size of google really should know how to do a code audit) (bad), the second possibility is that they did do proper due diligence, were aware of the provenance of this chunk of code and chose to ignore it (bad), the third is that the code got incorporated after the sale (bad). There are no 'goods' here, the central question is if this is a part that is critical. That said, I'm fairly sure that any large enough software project that has had contributions from large numbers of sources is subject to this kind of pollution, unless very strict measures are taken to avoid it.

metageek 16y ago

>The timing is irrelevant. Not entirely; it might make a difference in how hard it is for Oracle to prove willful infringement (which increases the damages. And even if it's irrelevant to the case, it's still an interesting question.

Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
Agree it's an interesting question but I don't see how the timing impacts proof of whether it was wilful or not. Google inherit everything the previous developer did including the intent or otherwise. It doesn't get to say "but we didn't know when we bought it", that's what due diligence and contacts are for.
- metageek 16y ago
  (a) If Android, Inc., didn't have all the policies in place that larger companies do (e.g., code review), then it would have been easier for a naïve engineer to make the mistake. If so, it might actually not be willful. (b) The longer ago it happened, the more likely it is that any evidence of how it happened has been lost. If so, even if it was willful, Oracle might have trouble proving it.
spiffworks 16y ago
Unless I am mistaken, willful infringement applies to patents, whereas this only proves willful copyright infringement. Are the willful infringement clauses for copyright as well?
- metageek 16y ago
  I think so; willful infringement triggers the triple-damages provisions.