5 ms·

It doesn't matter whatever it's critical area or not... it's still copyright infringement.

allenp 16y ago
It does matter if it doesn't address the claims of the case. Just because I copied your magazine article doesn't prove that I also copied your novel.
- piotrSikora 16y ago
  In case you don't know copyright infringement is part of the case (Exhibit J): http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/11/copyright-part-of-oracle-vs-google.html http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/11/copyright-part-of-or... http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2010cv03561/231846/36/10.html http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/califor...
  - allenp 16y ago
    Thanks for those links. So from your perspective what matters more - the patent dispute on the virtual machine that all of Android runs on, or a copyright issue on 40-some code files? I'm not even sure how core those files are to running Android - it looks like they could easily be replaced by Google with new code.
    - piotrSikora 16y ago
      Virtual machine dispute matters more for survivability of Android, that goes without saying. However, to me, copyright infringement matters a lot more... If someone is getting free code then at least they could respect the LICENSE.
      - pygy_ 16y ago
        Hey WTF is happening here? (parent has a -4 score at the time of posting). There's no written rule about it, but negative score are best left to offensive or empty posts. Please don't downvote if you disagree. Reply or simply ignore it. In this case I think that piotr estimates poorly the weights of the different charges, even though IANAL and thus may be wrong. Diverging opinions feed the debate and prevent circlejerk.
    - rtrunck 16y ago
      Actually, each act of copyright infringement can constitute 20k in statutory damages. Depending on the use of the directly copied documents, each install of android could be an act of infringement (I'm not sure of to what the documents pertain, so this may be completely off). With 300+k activations a day, assuming all documents pertain (which may be a large assumption), that adds up to $240,000,000,000 a day. That's a lot of money.
      - jrockway 16y ago
        But these files don't run on devices and aren't even publicly available.
angdis 16y ago
From a practical point of view, it is ~43 files out of how many? I think this means that someone got lazy and just copied a bunch of files. This is something that is worthy of a slap on the wrist at worst. Unfortunately, I'm sure that now a few floors of lawyers are salivating at all the hours they're going to bill. In the end, the laywers will get a pile of money, oracle will gain some pocket change at google's expense, and the java community will be hurt the most. Doesn't Oracle have better things to do? What do they gain from this?
- kenjackson 16y ago
  This is something that is worthy of a slap on the wrist at worst. Given the breadth of the infringement (making it open source w/ OEMs shipping tens of millions of devices based on it), the damages could be substantial. What does Oracle have to gain from this? Money of course. Unless Google has a good response to this, one thing I guarantee will happen is the engineer who checked in these files is going to be looking for a new job.
  - commandar 16y ago
    >OEMs shipping tens of millions of devices based on it This is assuming it's a part of the code that actually makes it onto devices. Some of the other comments in this thread suggest they may be from a testing framework.
    - kenjackson 16y ago
      In which case the damages will likely be substanially lower :-)
    - slowpoison 16y ago
      Doesn't matter if it makes it to devices or not. The code was checked into Android repository and was available for download. In other words, the code was made available. With a different license. That is illegal.
- jedsmith 16y ago
orangecat 16y ago
It matters for determining damages, as well as how difficult it will be to replace the infringing code.

It does matter if it doesn't address the claims of the case. Just because I copied your magazine article doesn't prove that I also copied your novel.

piotrSikora 16y ago
In case you don't know copyright infringement is part of the case (Exhibit J): http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/11/copyright-part-of-oracle-vs-google.html http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/11/copyright-part-of-or... http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2010cv03561/231846/36/10.html http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/califor...
- allenp 16y ago
  Thanks for those links. So from your perspective what matters more - the patent dispute on the virtual machine that all of Android runs on, or a copyright issue on 40-some code files? I'm not even sure how core those files are to running Android - it looks like they could easily be replaced by Google with new code.
  - piotrSikora 16y ago
    Virtual machine dispute matters more for survivability of Android, that goes without saying. However, to me, copyright infringement matters a lot more... If someone is getting free code then at least they could respect the LICENSE.
    - pygy_ 16y ago
      Hey WTF is happening here? (parent has a -4 score at the time of posting). There's no written rule about it, but negative score are best left to offensive or empty posts. Please don't downvote if you disagree. Reply or simply ignore it. In this case I think that piotr estimates poorly the weights of the different charges, even though IANAL and thus may be wrong. Diverging opinions feed the debate and prevent circlejerk.
  - rtrunck 16y ago
    Actually, each act of copyright infringement can constitute 20k in statutory damages. Depending on the use of the directly copied documents, each install of android could be an act of infringement (I'm not sure of to what the documents pertain, so this may be completely off). With 300+k activations a day, assuming all documents pertain (which may be a large assumption), that adds up to $240,000,000,000 a day. That's a lot of money.
    - jrockway 16y ago
      But these files don't run on devices and aren't even publicly available.

angdis 16y ago

From a practical point of view, it is ~43 files out of how many? I think this means that someone got lazy and just copied a bunch of files. This is something that is worthy of a slap on the wrist at worst. Unfortunately, I'm sure that now a few floors of lawyers are salivating at all the hours they're going to bill. In the end, the laywers will get a pile of money, oracle will gain some pocket change at google's expense, and the java community will be hurt the most. Doesn't Oracle have better things to do? What do they gain from this?

kenjackson 16y ago
This is something that is worthy of a slap on the wrist at worst. Given the breadth of the infringement (making it open source w/ OEMs shipping tens of millions of devices based on it), the damages could be substantial. What does Oracle have to gain from this? Money of course. Unless Google has a good response to this, one thing I guarantee will happen is the engineer who checked in these files is going to be looking for a new job.
- commandar 16y ago
  >OEMs shipping tens of millions of devices based on it This is assuming it's a part of the code that actually makes it onto devices. Some of the other comments in this thread suggest they may be from a testing framework.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    In which case the damages will likely be substanially lower :-)
  - slowpoison 16y ago
    Doesn't matter if it makes it to devices or not. The code was checked into Android repository and was available for download. In other words, the code was made available. With a different license. That is illegal.
jedsmith 16y ago

orangecat 16y ago

It matters for determining damages, as well as how difficult it will be to replace the infringing code.