3 ms·

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. Copy

by grellas 16y ago

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 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.

jacquesm 16y ago
If this is all there is (and we're definitely not sure about that yet) then google does have some egg on its face, but only a little bit. As far as I can see at this moment none of this code ever made it in to the actual distribution that is used to operate the android devices, it is but a series of tests to ensure that compiled code functions correctly. Still, these tests shouldn't have been in that tree and google will have to remove them and possibly will end up settling for the damages, though what those damages are will be very tough to argue. How does one quantify the damage of having these tests copied? In programmer hours required to re-create the code? So, I agree with you that the copyrights are not the issue and even if a lot more code surfaces that google does not have a right to redistribute and it did end up in the android kernel they have the resources to work around it and to absorb the damages. If the patent claims will stick and google will be prohibited from further distribution there will be an immediate and hard to resolve issue. A case like that could drag on for a very long time and it would be next to impossible to stop infringing on a patent that is specified vaguely enough to require such litigation in the first place. I'm probably slightly evil for hoping that this case actually will revolve around the patent and will prove once and for all how bad the patent system really is and that software patents do little to nothing to encourage innovation and actually do a lot of harm. If there is one party that has the resources to fight such a battle successfully it is google. The big winner in a fight like that would be Apple with the Apple system being untainted by any of these claims and presumably unencumbered by these particular patents. Of course Apple has its own patent issues to contend with (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/dec/16/nokia-apple-patent http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/dec/16/nokia-apple...), on the whole it looks as though the mobile world is an all out battle ground for patent lawyers.
eapen 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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.

by grellas 16y ago

jacquesm 16y ago

If this is all there is (and we're definitely not sure about that yet) then google does have some egg on its face, but only a little bit. As far as I can see at this moment none of this code ever made it in to the actual distribution that is used to operate the android devices, it is but a series of tests to ensure that compiled code functions correctly. Still, these tests shouldn't have been in that tree and google will have to remove them and possibly will end up settling for the damages, though what those damages are will be very tough to argue. How does one quantify the damage of having these tests copied? In programmer hours required to re-create the code? So, I agree with you that the copyrights are not the issue and even if a lot more code surfaces that google does not have a right to redistribute and it did end up in the android kernel they have the resources to work around it and to absorb the damages. If the patent claims will stick and google will be prohibited from further distribution there will be an immediate and hard to resolve issue. A case like that could drag on for a very long time and it would be next to impossible to stop infringing on a patent that is specified vaguely enough to require such litigation in the first place. I'm probably slightly evil for hoping that this case actually will revolve around the patent and will prove once and for all how bad the patent system really is and that software patents do little to nothing to encourage innovation and actually do a lot of harm. If there is one party that has the resources to fight such a battle successfully it is google. The big winner in a fight like that would be Apple with the Apple system being untainted by any of these claims and presumably unencumbered by these particular patents. Of course Apple has its own patent issues to contend with (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/dec/16/nokia-apple-patent http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/dec/16/nokia-apple...), on the whole it looks as though the mobile world is an all out battle ground for patent lawyers.

eapen 16y ago

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 16y ago
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.