5 ms·

Unfortunately this was a terrible case to have been the first of its kind (in the US). There was much more at play here than API copyright. Google didn't just c

Unfortunately this was a terrible case to have been the first of its kind (in the US). There was much more at play here than API copyright. Google didn't just copy the Java APIs, but it took the syntax as well. Oracle also presented evidence that Google had directly copied implementation of a few API functions, which Google actually admitted was true, but claimed it to be negligible. While all of these claims were examined separately, all of them combined made it much harder for any individual victory.

Oletros 11y ago
One 9 lines function, nothing more was copied. The only other thing were 7 test files that were not part of the implementation
- andrewguenther 11y ago
  Correct. But it was still copied and it still didn't help their case.
  - bitmapbrother 11y ago
    Yes, it was copied by the original author that wrote it back when he was employed at Sun. Additionally, those 9 insignificant lines were irrelevant to the case. The fact that it was even presented showed how desperate Oracle was.
- spinlock 11y ago
  So you admit that there was copying. /s But, in all seriousness, the 9 lines + 7 files are damning. It also shows that the engineers who implemented Google's project had been tainted by exposure to Java.
  - NeutronBoy 11y ago
    > But, in all seriousness, the 9 lines + 7 files are damning. It also shows that the engineers who implemented Google's project had been tainted by exposure to Java. I think that's one of the key points. How can you claim a clean-room implementation, when there are (small) portions that have been directly copied? It weakens the case for the rest of the code.
    - Oletros 11y ago
      Nobody claimed a clean room implementation because it had nothing to do with the case
    - Zigurd 11y ago
      Android uses code from Apache Harmony for many basic Java classes. If any code was copied from Java 6, it would have happened in the Harmony project. Android's use of Java also ends in the toolchain. Android never used a Java(tm) runtime, nor Java bytecode in the runtime. by the time an app hits a device, it's in Dalvik bytecode and either interpreted/JIT-compiled by the Dalvik runtime or pre-compiled to the target system ISA for the ART runtime.
  - Oletros 11y ago
    Implementation was never a problem in this case
  - dd9990 11y ago
    It's more interesting than that. The engineer who wrote those 9 lines was employed by Sun working on Java APIs before working for Google. According to his testimony it was a "fix later" copy/paste mistake he made when improving Sun's OpenJDK code while working for Google.
- cheald 11y ago
  9 lines copied by the guy who wrote the original implementation, let's not forget. This was literally a case of him saying "oh, I've done this trivial thing before, I'll just grab what I did then". This whole thing is a travesty.
Hello71 11y ago
this is true, but will always be true for every court case. by definition, cases that reach the Supreme Court are those that are the most difficult to decide; if one side would/should clearly win, then the parties would virtually always settle much earlier or even avoid court in the first place.
- andrewguenther 11y ago
  Agreed, I'm saying that if this was a case purely around API copyright-ability and not all the other hairy bits around it, it would have made for a nicer case to set precedence.
carussell 11y ago
> Google didn't just copy the Java APIs, but it took the syntax as well. I don't understand what this is supposed to mean, and I don't see anyone else asking. So could you explain?
- andrewguenther 11y ago
  Google didn't want to pay licensing fees to Oracle so they wrote their own implementation of the entire Java language. Not only did they write their own implementation of the standard library, they wrote their own compiler and virtual machine. Does that make sense? I can see how my original statement was unclear.
  - carussell 11y ago
    I'm familiar with the background of the case, I just don't understand what you mean by, "took the syntax as well". Android programs are written in Java-the-language. That fact neither enlarges nor diminishes the severity of Google's actions here.

Oletros 11y ago

One 9 lines function, nothing more was copied. The only other thing were 7 test files that were not part of the implementation

andrewguenther 11y ago
Correct. But it was still copied and it still didn't help their case.
- bitmapbrother 11y ago
  Yes, it was copied by the original author that wrote it back when he was employed at Sun. Additionally, those 9 insignificant lines were irrelevant to the case. The fact that it was even presented showed how desperate Oracle was.
spinlock 11y ago
So you admit that there was copying. /s But, in all seriousness, the 9 lines + 7 files are damning. It also shows that the engineers who implemented Google's project had been tainted by exposure to Java.
- NeutronBoy 11y ago
  > But, in all seriousness, the 9 lines + 7 files are damning. It also shows that the engineers who implemented Google's project had been tainted by exposure to Java. I think that's one of the key points. How can you claim a clean-room implementation, when there are (small) portions that have been directly copied? It weakens the case for the rest of the code.
  - Oletros 11y ago
    Nobody claimed a clean room implementation because it had nothing to do with the case
  - Zigurd 11y ago
    Android uses code from Apache Harmony for many basic Java classes. If any code was copied from Java 6, it would have happened in the Harmony project. Android's use of Java also ends in the toolchain. Android never used a Java(tm) runtime, nor Java bytecode in the runtime. by the time an app hits a device, it's in Dalvik bytecode and either interpreted/JIT-compiled by the Dalvik runtime or pre-compiled to the target system ISA for the ART runtime.
- Oletros 11y ago
  Implementation was never a problem in this case
- dd9990 11y ago
  It's more interesting than that. The engineer who wrote those 9 lines was employed by Sun working on Java APIs before working for Google. According to his testimony it was a "fix later" copy/paste mistake he made when improving Sun's OpenJDK code while working for Google.
cheald 11y ago
9 lines copied by the guy who wrote the original implementation, let's not forget. This was literally a case of him saying "oh, I've done this trivial thing before, I'll just grab what I did then". This whole thing is a travesty.

Hello71 11y ago

this is true, but will always be true for every court case. by definition, cases that reach the Supreme Court are those that are the most difficult to decide; if one side would/should clearly win, then the parties would virtually always settle much earlier or even avoid court in the first place.

andrewguenther 11y ago
Agreed, I'm saying that if this was a case purely around API copyright-ability and not all the other hairy bits around it, it would have made for a nicer case to set precedence.

carussell 11y ago

> Google didn't just copy the Java APIs, but it took the syntax as well. I don't understand what this is supposed to mean, and I don't see anyone else asking. So could you explain?

andrewguenther 11y ago
Google didn't want to pay licensing fees to Oracle so they wrote their own implementation of the entire Java language. Not only did they write their own implementation of the standard library, they wrote their own compiler and virtual machine. Does that make sense? I can see how my original statement was unclear.
- carussell 11y ago
  I'm familiar with the background of the case, I just don't understand what you mean by, "took the syntax as well". Android programs are written in Java-the-language. That fact neither enlarges nor diminishes the severity of Google's actions here.