|
|
| Oracle Gets Specific -- Files Amended Complaint - Updated 4Xs: And More, More, More: Oracles Answers Google's CC |
 |
|
Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 12:07 PM EDT
|
Oracle has filed an amended complaint, presumably to fix the problems noted by Google in the first one. It has clarified its copyright infringement claims, Claim VIII. It's SCO II, at least in part, alleging that the infringed material is "Java method and class names, definitions, organization, and parameters; the structure, organization and content of Java class libraries; and the content and organization of Java’s documentation." Don't tell me it's APIs and methods and concepts again. And infringing the "organization" of Java documentation? Lordy. I've done a comparative chart for you of the copyright infringement claim in both the original complaint and the new one, so you can see the changes, but here is the new operative paragraph in full, paragraph 40 of the new complaint:
Android includes infringing class libraries and documentation. Approximately one third of Android’s Application Programmer Interface (API) packages (available at http://developer.android.com/reference/packages.html) are derivative of Oracle America’s 19 copyrighted Java API packages (available at http://download-llnw.oracle.com/javase/
1.5.0/- 20 docs/api/ and http://download-llnw.oracle.com/
javase/1.4.2/docs/api/) and corresponding documents. The infringed elements of Oracle America’s copyrighted work include Java method and class names, definitions, organization, and parameters; the structure, organization and content of Java class libraries; and the content and organization of Java’s documentation. Examples of this copying are illustrated in Exhibit I to this complaint. In at least several instances, Android computer program code also was directly copied from copyrighted Oracle America code. For example, as may be readily seen in Exhibit J, the source code in Android’s “PolicyNodeImpl.java” class is nearly identical to “PolicyNodeImpl.java” in Oracle America’s Java, not just in name, but in the source code on a line-for-line basis. So some claim of line by line copying also.
[ Update 2: However, note that, as Google has already pointed out, Sun released code under the GPL, not that Google says it used it. But if it had, as you can see, Sun released PolicyNodeImpl.java under the GPLv2 with classpath exception. So what in the world is Oracle thinking? Also, it's not Harmony either, as the Apache guys are pointing out: "Even though the code in question has an Apache license, it is not part of Harmony. PolicyNodeImpl.java is simply not a Harmony class." I'm puzzled how GPLv2 code ended up with an Apache license, but I can't explain that yet. We have a comment saying that it's not code that is distributed with phones, in any case. It's for testing units. Here it is if you want to look at it. Here's what I think happened overall. The same thing that happened in the SCO saga. When lawyers don't grok the tech, they make bizarre claims that they then can't prove, and so they fail.]
If you recall, Google pointed out that Exhibit H, the copyright registrations, made no sense, writing in its Answer: As to Oracle's copyright claim, the Complaint alleges that "Oracle America owns copyrights in the code, documentation, specifications, libraries, and other materials that comprise the Java platform" and that "Oracle America's Java-related copyrights are registered with the United States Copyright Office, including those attached as Exhibit H." Compl. ¶ 11. Exhibit H to the Complaint consists of certificates of copyright registrations obtained by Sun for two identified works, named "Java 2 Standard Edition 1.4" and "Java Standard Edition, Version 5.0" (the "Asserted Copyrights"). Compl. Ex. H. These registrations appear to relate to versions of certain Sun Java materials that were released as open-sourced software in 2006 and 2007. Oracle has not changed that exhibit that I could see. So I'm guessing that means Oracle is going to say it's open sourced but only for the desktop. Field of use. Plus Java documentation, as you can see on
this page, isn't redistributable. Conclusion? All the complaints that were directed at Sun were right. And now it's clear that using any proprietary anything is reckless. And that includes dual licensed code, because some donkey might buy it someday, and then where will you be? Stick to pure FOSS, where folks don't treat you like this.
Here it all is:
10/27/2010 - 36 - AMENDED COMPLAINT for patent and copyright infringement against Google Inc.. Filed byOracle America, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(Peters, Marc) (Filed on 10/27/2010) (Entered: 10/27/2010)
10/27/2010 - 37 - ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options Oracle America ADR Certification by Party and Counsel (Ballinger, Richard) (Filed on 10/27/2010) (Entered: 10/27/2010)
And here is the chart:
| # |
First Oracle Complaint |
Amended Oracle Complaint |
| 37. |
Oracle America hereby restates and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 15 above and incorporates them by reference.
|
Oracle America hereby restates and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 10 1 through 15 above and incorporates them by reference. |
| 38. |
The Java platform contains a substantial amount of original material (including without limitation code, specifications, documentation and other materials) that is copyrightable subject matter under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. |
As noted in paragraph 11 above, Oracle America owns copyrights in the code, 12 documentation, specifications, libraries, and other materials that comprise the Java platform. |
| 39. |
Without consent, authorization, approval, or license, Google knowingly, willingly, and unlawfully copied, prepared, published, and distributed Oracle America’s copyrighted work, portions thereof, or derivative works and continues to do so. Google’s Android infringes Oracle America’s copyrights in Java and Google is not licensed to do so. |
Google’s Android infringes Oracle America’s copyrights in the Java platform, and Google infringes Oracle’s exclusive rights under copyright by reproducing and distributing Android and inducing others to reproduce and distribute Android or the code contained within it. |
| 40. |
On information and belief, users of Android, including device manufacturers, must obtain and use copyrightable portions of the Java platform or works derived therefrom to manufacture and use functioning Android devices. Such use is not licensed. Google has thus induced, caused, and materially contributed to the infringing acts of others by encouraging, inducing, allowing and assisting others to use, copy, and distribute Oracle America’s copyrightable works, and works derived therefrom. |
Android includes infringing class libraries and documentation. Approximately one third of Android’s Application Programmer Interface (API) packages (available at http://developer.android.com/reference/packages.html) are derivative of Oracle America’s 19 copyrighted Java API packages (available at http://download-llnw.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/- 20 docs/api/ and http://download-llnw.oracle.com/javase/1.4.2/docs/api/) and corresponding documents. The infringed elements of Oracle America’s copyrighted work include Java method and class names, definitions, organization, and parameters; the structure, organization and content of Java class libraries; and the content and organization of Java’s documentation. Examples of this copying are illustrated in Exhibit I to this complaint. In at least several instances, Android computer program code also was directly copied from copyrighted Oracle America code. For example, as may be readily seen in Exhibit J, the source code in Android’s “PolicyNodeImpl.java” class is nearly identical to “PolicyNodeImpl.java” in Oracle America’s Java, not just in name, but in the source code on a line-for-line basis. |
| - | - |
41. Google has distributed Android to many companies interested in the mobile device market, including the members of the Open Handset Alliance, with the understanding and intention that those companies would distribute Android to developers and end-users, all with the purpose of encouraging and promoting the creation and execution of Android software applications. Users of Android must copy and use infringing Java class libraries, or works derived therefrom, to manufacture and use functioning Android devices, in violation of Oracle’s copyrights. Such use is not licensed. Google has thus induced, caused, and materially contributed to the infringing acts of others by encouraging, inducing, allowing and assisting others to copy and distribute infringing works. |
| - |
41. On information and belief, Google’s direct and induced infringements are and have been knowing and willful. |
42. On information and belief, Google’s direct and induced infringements are and have been knowing and willful. |
| - |
42. By this unlawful copying, use, and distribution, Google has violated Oracle America’s exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106. |
43. By this unlawful copying, use, and distribution, Google has violated Oracle America’s exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106. |
|
43. Google has realized unjust profits, gains and advantages as a proximate result of its infringement. |
44. Google has realized unjust profits, gains and advantages as a proximate result of its infringement. |
| - |
44. Google will continue to realize unjust profits, gains and advantages as a proximate result of its infringement as long as such infringement is permitted to continue. |
45. Google will continue to realize unjust profits, gains and advantages as a proximate result of its infringement as long as such infringement is permitted to continue. |
| - |
45. Oracle America is entitled to an injunction restraining Google from engaging in any further such acts in violation of the United States copyright laws. Unless Google is enjoined and prohibited from infringing Oracle America’s copyrights, inducing others to infringe Oracle America’s copyrights, and unless all infringing products and advertising materials are seized, Google will continue to intentionally infringe and induce infringement of Oracle America’s registered copyrights. |
46. Oracle America is entitled to an injunction restraining Google from engaging in any further such acts in violation of the United States copyright laws. Unless Google is enjoined and prohibited from infringing Oracle America’s copyrights, inducing others to infringe Oracle America’s copyrights, and unless all infringing products and advertising materials are seized, Google will continue to intentionally infringe and induce infringement of Oracle America’s registered copyrights. |
| - |
46. As a direct and proximate result of Google’s direct and indirect willful copyright infringement, Oracle America has suffered, and will continue to suffer, monetary loss to its business, reputation, and goodwill. Oracle America is entitled to recover from Google, in amounts to be determined at trial, the damages sustained and will sustain, and any gains, profits, and advantages obtained by Google as a result of Google’s acts of infringement and Google’s use and publication of the copied materials. |
47. As a direct and proximate result of Google’s direct and indirect willful copyright infringement, Oracle America has suffered, and will continue to suffer, monetary loss to its business, reputation, and goodwill. Oracle America is entitled to recover from Google, in amounts to be determined at trial, the damages sustained and will sustain, and any gains, profits, and advantages obtained by Google as a result of Google’s acts of infringement and Google’s use and publication of the copied materials. |
Update: More filings from Oracle. There's a motion in opposition to Google's motion to dismiss Count VIII of Oracle's Complaint (or in the alternative for a more definite statement); there's Oracle's reply to Google's answer and counterclaims, and there is an order to show cause why the pending motion to dismiss should not be denied as moot. You call this fixing the oops. Oracle
I gather realized that Google had a point about lack of specificity, so it threw out some specifics, and now it wants Google's motion to dismiss denied as moot, and probably will be. Google could file another such motion in response to Oracle's amended complaint, of course. Here is the specific that I'd like answered. If Google used Apache's Harmony, and the only reason Harmony can't get Oracle's blessing is because Oracle won't let it, then what? Google pays a sum for any past issues, and then everyone including Google switches to the GPL'd stuff? I mean, when Oracle complains about "infringed elements of Oracle America’s copyrighted work include
Java method and class names, definitions, organization, and
parameters; the structure, organization and content of Java class
libraries; and the content and organization of Java’s documentation," that's not talking about Dalvik, surely, is it? It's all Apache Harmony, no?
Harmony was attempting to create a clean-room implementation of Java
and get it approved as being Java via the Technical Compatibility Kit
(TCK).
This includes a clean-room implementation of class libraries. However,
by definition, for it to be Java, it has to use "Java method and class
names, definitions, organization, and parameters" and implement "the
structure, organization and content of Java class libraries". What
Oracle is asserting then, in effect, I gather, is that you cannot pass the TCK without
licensing stuff from Oracle or deriving from the GPL'd OpenJDK.
Harmony is licensed under the Apache License, not the GPL.
That would be ironic, indeed. Google forced to go GPL. Hahahaha. Ironic and fine with me. Well, maybe I'm dreaming. There
are the patents clinging like barnacles to Java, too. What a mess. The additional filings:
10/28/2010 - 38 - ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Zimmer, Donald) (Filed on 10/28/2010) (Entered: 10/28/2010)
10/28/2010 - 39 - NOTICE of need for ADR Phone Conference (ADR L.R. 3-5 d) (Ballinger, Richard) (Filed on 10/28/2010) (Entered: 10/28/2010)
10/28/2010 - 40 - Memorandum in Opposition re 33 MOTION to Dismiss Count VIII of Plaintiff's Complaint or, In the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement filed byOracle America, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Ballinger, Richard) (Filed on 10/28/2010) (Entered: 10/28/2010)
10/28/2010 - 41 - ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM 32 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim Oracle America, Inc.'s Reply to Defendant Google Inc.'s Answer to Complaint for Patent and Copyright Infringement and Counterclaims byOracle America, Inc.. (Ballinger, Richard) (Filed on 10/28/2010) (Entered: 10/28/2010)
10/28/2010 - 42 - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT BE DENIED AS MOOT Show Cause Response due by 11/1/2010.. Signed by Judge Alsup on October 28, 2010. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2010) (Entered: 10/28/2010)
Here's the wording of the Order to Show Cause:
On October 4, 2010, defendant Google, Inc. moved to dismiss, or in the alternative, for a more definite statement regarding plaintiff Oracle America, Inc.’s copyright infringement claim in this Java-fueled battle over the Android platform. Just yesterday, however, a day before its opposition brief to the motion was due, plaintiff Oracle America, Inc. filed an amended complaint altering and augmenting its copyright infringement allegations. Given this development, Google is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why its pending motion to dismiss should not be denied as moot (without prejudice, of course, to Google filing a fresh Rule 12 motion targeting the claims as pleaded in plaintiff’s newly minted complaint). A response to this order is required no later than NOON ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1. "Java-fueled battle", indeeed. And Oracle is complaining about polemics?
Update 2: Carlo Daffara adds some technical info on the line-by-line claim, having done a diff:
Hm. First of all, the definition of line-for-line equality is not correct here, as the lines are different (but quite similar). I have not developed for quite some time, but I would say that it is not strange to see similarities within the API constraints. Second, while technically part of Android, the code is Apache Harmony, a reimplementation of J2SE that tried (for many, many years) to get the compliance toolkit from Sun, but never did (and now will never do).
But the relevant point is different: the PolicyNodeImpl.java that is presented comes from the OpenJDK distribution, and was as such released under the GPL+ClassPath exception (something that is not mentioned anywhere within the complaint, by the way). Here, the claims are two and different: the first is that Android (actually, Harmony) copied its API that Oracle claims is copyrighted. The second claim is that the actual source code of the PolicyNodeImpl.java file has been copied verbatim.
Let’s start with the first one: the claim that Oracle Java APIs are protected and copyrighted. On this, it seem to me that the interface definition themselves (not the actual source code) as a mere interface does not fall within the copyright provisions, unless the actual names are trademarked, and thus its implementation requires the actual copying of a protected name in a way that is deemed incompatible by its licensee (something similar was done by Autodesk, embedding a copyrighted phrase that if not included in the file prevented the application from opening it directly)....
And now, for the claim that the code is actually copied, here is in its glory the full diff (note: if you download the OpenJDK source you don’t get the file; I had to grab it from here in the Mercurial publication site, the raw file is
this one). It seem to me that this is actually a reimplementation and not a straight copy as Oracle claims – but I would like to ask my readers for their opinion. Me too. Click the link to see his diff.
Update by Carlo: He has two updates: Second important update: After quite some digging, I have finally found out that the file had the following history:
* An initial import, from a private branch to the public git repo, with this commitdiff, at Sat, 10 Jan 2009 01:50:54
* A deletion of the file and of most of the imported branch at Wed, 4 Mar 2009 02:28:14, with this commitdiff
* The branch got re-imported, with all new files, at Wed, 4 Mar 2009 03:28:47, with this commitdiff, without PolicyNodeImpl.java
So the file was present in the git repo from Jan, 10 to March, 4; after checking the test execution code, it is clear that the code itself was not included in the final build (delivered to handsets) but was part of a test harness, that (funnily) was mostly silenced during the development period due to the majority of tests failing :-) It is however clear that the code itself was distributed, as it was freely accessible online and through the git tree (and – funnily – it is still available under the same means). It was, however, not part of the Android SDK release, as Android 1.6 rel2 was released in December 2009, while rel3 was released in May, with the commit diff already applied.
Important update: I have verified that the code included in Android is actually a decompilation of an old Java 1.5 class file, and my own comparison is invalid, as it was done with a recent Java edition (that does have more changes – thus suggesting a reimplementation). Also, it seems that Harmony actually has not that code in its repo – despite the fact that in Android is part of the initial import under the “Harmony” subproject. My apologies.
Update 3: To the person in Redwood City, CA, or at least purporting to be, trying to post links to objectionable material on Groklaw, you need to stop.
Update 4: Here's what I think is the operative part of Oracle's Answer to Google's Counterclaims:
9. Answering Paragraph 5, Oracle America admits that Sun released some source code for Java SE and other editions in 2006 and 2007 subject to the terms of the GNU Public License, version 2 (“GPLv2”). Oracle America denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 5.
10. Answering Paragraph 6, Oracle America admits that Sun published its copyrighted Java specifications and offered licenses to them under certain conditions. For example, in the case
of the Java 2 Platform, Standard Edition, Sun permitted developers to create “clean room” implementations of Sun’s Java specifications provided that they comply with all applicable license requirements, including requirements that they (i) include a complete implementation of the current version of the specification without subsetting or supersetting; (ii) implement all the interfaces and functionality of the required packages of the Java 2 Platform, Standard Edition, as defined by Sun, without subsetting or supersetting; (iii) do not add any additional packages, classes, or interfaces to the java.* or javax.* packages or their subpackages; (iv) pass all test suites relating to the most recent published version of the specification of the Java 2 Platform, Standard Edition, that are available from Sun (the Technology Compatibility Kits) six (6) months prior to any beta release of
the clean room implementation or upgrade thereto; (v) do not derive from Sun source code or binary materials; and (vi) do not include any Sun source code or binary materials without an appropriate and separate license from Sun. Google is not in compliance with these license conditions. Developers were well aware that Sun’s specification license requires compatibility testing using Sun’s TCKs, which were and are available free of charge to qualifying universities, colleges, not-for-profit organizations, and individuals (see http://java.sun.com/scholarship/). Oracle America lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the remainder of the
allegations of Paragraph 6, and, on that basis, denies them. Here are the paragraphs from Google's Answer with Counterclaims (the Counterclaims section), referenced by Oracle here, and I've marked in blue the parts that Oracle is not admitting:5. Upon information and belief, in response to the urging of open-source advocates and in the hopes of increasing the number of Java users, Sun officially announced that Java would become open-source. In 2006 and 2007, Sun released some but not all of the source code for Java SE (as well as the other editions of the Java Platform) under the terms of the GNU Public License, version 2 (“GPLv2”) open source license. This open-source aspect of Java contributed to its widespread acceptance among software developers.
6. Upon information and belief, Sun also released the specifications for Sun’s Java platform, including Sun’s Java virtual machine, under a
free-of-charge license that can be found at http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/jcopyright.html and http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jvms/second_edition/html/Copyright.doc.html, respectively. The license allows developers to create “clean room” implementations of Sun’s Java specifications. If those implementations demonstrate compatibility with the Java specification, then Sun would provide a license for any of its intellectual property needed to practice the specification, including patent rights and copyrights. One example of a “clean room” implementation of Sun’s Java is Apache Harmony, developed by the Apache Software Foundation. The only way to demonstrate compatibility with the Java specification is by meeting all of the requirements of Sun’s Technology Compatibility Kit (“TCK”) for a particular edition of Sun’s Java. Importantly, however, TCKs were only available from Sun, initially not available as open source, were provided solely at Sun’s discretion, and included several restrictions, such as additional licensing terms and fees. In essence, although developers were free to develop a competing Java virtual machine, they could not openly obtain an important component needed to freely benefit from Sun’s purported open-sourcing of Java.
So this is the argument. Oracle says Google didn't cross all it's Ts. And also it seems to be arguing that Google doesn't qualify, not being an individual, nonprofit, etc. Google answers that it used Apache Harmony, a clean room implementation, and it blames Oracle for refusing to give Apache Harmony its blessing. So. This means the picture has gotten clearer, and not so clear at the same time. We know now what the argument is about, and it's also obvious now why Oracle is upset. It feels Google didn't get an appropriate license, and maybe that it derived from Sun source code or binary materials and included Sun source code or binary materials "without an appropriate and separate license from Sun". If your patents close the door to any alternative way to achieve similar functionality, is the software patent then still legitimate? If you refuse a license to your patent, and there is no other way to achieve that functionality, then what happens? We're going to find out, I gather, with the added complication that the Apache Foundation says the allegedly copyright infringed file named by Oracle isn't part of Apache Harmony. That's what I mean by clearer and yet not so clear. The argument, in effect, goes to the question of the fairness of the patent system, I'd say. And if you look at Google's record in dealing with patent infringement litigation, you would see that they have a very good record of getting patents tossed overboard. For example, in August, Google was successful against what folks not wishing to get sued by litigious nut jobs now call "non-practicing entities", as reported by The Prior Art:
Earlier this month, Google and its lawyers at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan went to trial against Erich Spangenberg -- one of the best-known and most successful patent enforcers -- in federal district court in Marshall, Tx. At issue was an e-mail sorting patent that Spangenberg picked up on the cheap and then asserted against Google, Yahoo, AOL, Amazon, Borders, and IAC/Interactive in 2007, at the height of the East Texas patent litigation explosion. All of the defendants except Google and Yahoo settled, but it's no surprise that Google, which has a uniquely unbending attitude toward suits brought by non-practicing entities, refused to take out a license on Spangenberg's controversial patent. The company's hard line was vindicated when, after a six-day trial, a panel of 10 jurors found that the search engines run by Google and Yahoo do not infringe the asserted patent. The jury also invalidated the patent on multiple grounds.
None of the parties are saying much about the trial. The lead lawyer for Spangenberg's patent holding company, Bright Response LLC, was Marc Fenster of the Los Angeles firm Russ, August & Kabat; he didn't respond to The Prior Art's requests for comment. Google's outside lawyers at Quinn Emanuel deferred to the company, but a Google spokesperson declined to comment. The company did offer a short statement to sister publication AmLaw Litigation Daily (subscription required) immediately after trial. At that time deputy GC Tim Alger said: "This decision, as well as other recent Google patent litigation victories, validates our long-standing belief that the courts are burdened with a great number of frivolous patent lawsuits filed by speculators looking for an unjustified windfall."
If you view patents as the most holy of holies, then you are asking yourself, why would Google not just buy a Sun license and go through the whole rigamarole? They pay others for licenses, after all, and they have more money than god. Maybe they thought it through carefully and decided Sun was being unreasonable and that it was worth it to fight. Here's the Apache Foundation's Open Letter to Sun Microsystems back in 2007, complaining about Sun's refusal to grant it a license. A bit of it, to give you the idea:Since August 2006, the ASF has been attempting to secure an
acceptable license from Sun for the test kit for Java SE. This
test kit, called the "Java Compatibility Kit" or "JCK", is needed
by the Apache Harmony project to demonstrate its compatibility
with the Java SE specification, as required by Sun's specification
license. The JCK license Sun is offering imposes IP rights
restrictions through limits on the "field of use" available to
users of our software.
These restrictions are totally unacceptable to us. As I explain
below, these restrictions are contrary to the terms of the Java
Specification Participation Agreement (JSPA) - the governing rules
of the JCP - to which Sun is contractually bound to comply as a
signatory. The ASF has a proud history of support for open
software ecosystems in which commercial software can flourish.
However, Sun's JCK license protects portions of Sun's commercial
Java business at the expense of ASF's open software. It prevents
our users from using Apache software in certain fields of use.
Such implicit or explicit threats of IP-based aggression give one
actor overwhelming commercial advantages over the other
participants in the ecosystem. In an open ecosystem, it must be
the case that the necessary IP to implement a specification can be
secured independently from the specific commercial interests of
any one actor in the ecosystem, which is the basis of our
objection to your offered terms.
Your restrictions violate the basic protections of the JCP, which
ensure both that a) specification leads and expert groups produce
open specifications, and b) anyone can implement and distribute
compatible implementations of those specifications without fear of
obligation to the specification lead or members of the expert
group for any "necessary IP" needed to implement that
specification. Specifically, the JSPA requires that
1) a specification lead cannot "impose any contractual condition
or covenant that would limit or restrict the right of any
licensee to create or distribute such Independent
Implementations" (section 5.C.III)
2) a specification lead must license all necessary IP
royalty-free to any compatible implementation of a
specification (section 5.B)
Your terms are attempting to circumvent both of these
requirements.
Besides holding back the Harmony project - a community-led open
source project of the ASF since May of 2005 - this failure to
comply with your contractual obligations poses serious risk to the
credibility of the JCP as an open standards organization, and the
reputation of Java itself as an open technology. We believe that
this also threatens the general cooperative nature of the
commercial Java ecosystem, puts at risk the long-standing positive
relationship between Sun and the ASF, and probably between Sun and
the broader open source community - all of which is key to the
continued growth of Java.
Beyond the obligations of the JSPA, these limitations are also
contrary to Sun's public promise that any Sun-led specification
would be fully implementable and distributable as open source/free
software. It shouldn't have to be mentioned that "fully
implementable" includes passing the JCK, as required by the
specification license. To this end, limitations on field of use
for our users is contrary to the basic principles of open source
licensing, and therefore these limitations would prevent
distribution under any open source license, including our own.
Or maybe somebody goofed. Or maybe Google did something it shouldn't, according to the rules of the most holy of holies. We won't know for sure until discovery gets going, and there is always a possibility that this settles out and we never find out. But at least now we know what the argument is about. And if you are curious about how copyright law handles copyright infringement of structures and methods, here's Whelan v. Jaslow, which is a famous case that set out a way to know when it is infringing and when it's just the only way to accomplish a computer task.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: entre on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 12:11 PM EDT |
| For PJ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 12:22 PM EDT |
I thought Google did an independent implementation of everything in the virtual
machine, except for parts of the Harmony libraries, which are also an
independent implementation. Now Google is claiming right to used copyrighted
material because they used source derived from GLPed Java source after all?
Isn't that a contradiction, or what am I missing?
Or is it all about docs? The patent claims are silly (according to me), but you
can't just literally copy documentation. That's like a book. Isn't it?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 12:22 PM EDT |
| PolicyNodeImpl.java was GPL'd by Sun
here
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- amazing - Authored by: designerfx on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 12:58 PM EDT
- amazing - Authored by: Wol on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 06:31 PM EDT
- amazing - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 30 2010 @ 07:10 PM EDT
- amazing _ not so - Authored by: webster on Saturday, October 30 2010 @ 07:27 PM EDT
- amazing - Authored by: Wol on Sunday, October 31 2010 @ 05:24 PM EDT
- amazing - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 31 2010 @ 07:54 PM EDT
- Oracle Gets Specific -- Files Amended Complaint - Authored by: mattflaschen on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 01:00 PM EDT
- Oracle Gets Specific -- Files Amended Complaint - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 01:03 PM EDT
- SCOracle - new name for the company - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 08:07 PM EDT
- Oracle Gets Specific -- Files Amended Complaint - Authored by: soronlin on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 10:25 AM EDT
- Oracle Gets Specific -- Files Amended Complaint - Authored by: PJ on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 10:50 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: hans on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 12:29 PM EDT |
Chumby's are cool.
Hans[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Sleepy in Seattle - - Microsoft learns to mature - Authored by: TemporalBeing on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 02:03 PM EDT
- Would You Like Fries With That Lawsuit? - Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 02:55 PM EDT
- Newspicks - Authored by: Pogue Mahone on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 06:12 PM EDT
- Newspicks - Authored by: hans on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 07:31 PM EDT
- ODF Plugfest - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 08:18 PM EDT
- Upcomming Newspick: China has fastest supercomputer, and it Runs Linux - Authored by: Winter on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 05:29 AM EDT
- Yep, Apple Rocketed Past Microsoft In Revenue This Past Quarter By Over $4 Billion - Authored by: luvr on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 08:58 AM EDT
- Microsoft wants to leave that non-standard browser mess behind them, - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 12:49 PM EDT
- Teacher 'Fired' Over Software Plea - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 02:07 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: iraskygazer on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 12:40 PM EDT |
A question:
Do all users of the javadoc program become copyright infringers? I ask this
question because javadoc can produce java class documentation that looks like an
exact copy of the documentation produced by the original class developer.
Does this program, javadoc, promote infringement by producing identical
documentation for each execution of the program?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: artp on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 12:48 PM EDT |
Please change the Title Block.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- China claims supercomputer crown - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 01:00 PM EDT
- Nintendo reports loss as sales fall - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 01:07 PM EDT
- And now it's clear that using any proprietary anything is reckless - Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 02:43 PM EDT
- Linux in Cyrillic - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 04:18 PM EDT
- MS Office like cocaine - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 05:22 PM EDT
- Mark Zuckerberg on What Hollywood Doesn't Get About Silicon Valley - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 11:00 PM EDT
- w-m.com: webcam usage? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 04:07 AM EDT
- Java guru quits over Oracle 'disregard' - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 08:38 AM EDT
- It was Doug Lea - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 01:58 PM EDT
- Oracle v SAP - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 02:27 PM EDT
- SCOXQ October Stock Report - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 03:02 PM EDT
- Broad New Mobile App Patent - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 04:03 PM EDT
- Law profs: Senate will need to ratify anticounterfeiting treaty - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 04:30 PM EDT
- Microsoft: Our strategy with Silverlight has shifted - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 05:36 PM EDT
- Apache: Read Beyond the Headers - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 05:41 PM EDT
- The smartphone patent thicket - Authored by: kh on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 06:26 PM EDT
- UK MPs question Google over Street View data breache - Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 06:29 PM EDT
- Tube gets first wi-fi connection at Charing Cross - Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 06:35 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 01:13 PM EDT |
Isn't most of the organization of the Java documentation dictated by the Javadoc
tool, which from what I understand not only Sun used for the Java documentation
but also several Java programmers use for their code documentation?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 01:13 PM EDT |
There is something strange about this "they actually copied code"
example. If you look at the harmony source code there is no PolicyNodeImpl.java
class here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/harmony/enhanced/java/trunk/classlib/modules/securi
ty/src/test/support/common/java/org/apache/harmony/security/tests/support/cert/
But it does exist in the android class library:
http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/libcore.git;a=tree;f=support/src/test/
java/org/apache/harmony/security/tests/support/cert
Note that it is a test class, not an actual implementation class used in the
core class library, only used in the test framework.
The version from Sun/Oracle (under GPL) can be found here:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6/jdk/file/tip/src/share/classes/sun/security
/provider/certpath/
Here it is actually an implementation class really used by the core class
library.
Neither the android git history, nor the openjdk mercurial history of this file
goes back far enough to really understand where these versions originated from.
There is some vague similarity between the android version and the openjdk
version, but not really enough to know whether it was actually copied, or
created mostly identical because they were implementing/testing similar things
to be compatible.
But it seems this particular file didn't enter android through harmony.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Exactly! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 03:01 PM EDT
- Exactly! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 03:07 PM EDT
- Oracle Gets Specific -- Files Amended Complaint - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 03:29 PM EDT
- Decompiled code? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 05:45 PM EDT
- it isn't though - Authored by: jesse on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 07:55 PM EDT
- it seems - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 05:27 AM EDT
- no, it's common naming - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 04:15 AM EDT
- Decompiled code? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 05:21 AM EDT
- souce code managment and history - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 10:23 AM EDT
- Oracle Gets Specific -- Files Amended Complaint - Authored by: soronlin on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 10:43 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Yossarian on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 01:28 PM EDT |
>"Java method and class names, definitions, organization, and
>parameters; the structure, organization and content of Java
>class libraries"
Java has plenty in common with C++ and other object oriented
languages. Should not Java be held to the same standards
Oracle demands from other, by removing all those methods and
definitions from Java?
(Yes, I know that not much would remain of Java in that case.
That's my point.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 01:30 PM EDT |
.
Oracle did not oppose the motion. They hurried up and specified. They knew
they had to eventually anyway; they skipped a few steps; they eliminated the
risk of paying any fees or costs or having to refile for not specifying. No
settlement yet, so back to the mines, Sifun'umsebenzi.
OMG the Monopoly is threatening ASUS and Acer about running some patents in
Android, too! They should sort it out and maybe offer all these confusing
patents up to [g]od.
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 01:35 PM EDT |
Sun Java materials that were released as open-sourced software in
2006 and 2007
Is that sufficient? Noone denies that OpenJDK is an
open source license, but it is GPL'ed. Android's license is ASL. At least those
parts of Android, which are derived from the OpenJDK (if there are any) must be
GPL'ed as well.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 01:48 PM EDT |
| Oracle is claiming that the API is copyrighted? And that the
format of the Javadoc is copyrighted? Oh, and one
file is copied?
I mean, OK, one file copied is at least a real
issue. But it sounds like a SCO - "similar lines in both files". Um, yeah,
there sure are, BECAUSE THEY'RE DOING THE SAME THING!
If this reflects on
how valid the patents are, this is a slam dunk for Google - which isn't to say
that it won't take five years.
MSS2 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cassini2006 on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 02:42 PM EDT |
Are programming platforms becoming balkanized by O/S?
Java was the only
cross-platform programming language with any impact. Every platform has dropped
major programming languages in the last years. Microsoft is abandoning
IronPython and IronRuby. In past, they dropped support for VisualJ++ a long
time ago. Apple has announced the phase out of Java support. Linux has never
really developed a C# implementation compatible with Microsoft's.
This
leaves Microsoft programming being about .NET, C# and C++ on the Windows API.
Apple and iPhone programming is about Objective C. Linux programming has many
language choices, but none compatible with Apple or Microsoft.
What is the
cross-platform programmer to do? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Where does this leave the programming community? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 03:46 PM EDT
- FUD or ignorance - Authored by: cjk fossman on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 03:55 PM EDT
- MinGW - Authored by: Cypher3c on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 04:54 PM EDT
- Where does this leave the programming community? - Authored by: PolR on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 05:46 PM EDT
- RUBY is x-platform - well worth a look at - Authored by: dmarker on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 06:04 PM EDT
- Try Smalltalk! - Authored by: dacii on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 07:22 PM EDT
- LANGUAGE - Authored by: alisonken1 on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 01:16 AM EDT
- Qt, GTK, Perl, Python, Ruby, TCL/TK, what else do you want? - Authored by: marcosdumay on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 08:59 AM EDT
- Where does this leave the programming community? - Authored by: Yossarian on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 04:11 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 02:49 PM EDT |
From an interview with James Gosling, creator of Java. He also worked at
Oracle, when they bought Sun. So yes Google did violate patents and yes Oracle
wants a licensing deal.
http://www.basementcoders.com/transcripts/James_Gosling_Transcript.html
Moderator: What are your thoughts on the lawsuit. The whole Google thing? What
are your thoughts behind that?
James Gosling: It's all about money. There's nothing else in there. At Sun we'd
done an analysis and yeah, there's a bunch of patents violated here.
Moderator:Is it because of the encroachment on something like ME, JavaME (mobile
edition) because now ME doesn't really look that attractive with Android?
James Gosling: It was just other patents being involved and that legal guys do
these evaluations all the time, and we've been through a lot of patent cases and
we really, really, really, really hated litigation. It's a waste of time, it's
really expensive, it's a PR nightmare when the other side is the universe's
lovechild it's an especially large PR nightmare. (27:00) So the Google guys are
being a little weird, but they're also being a little good, so add up the
balance, but the Oracle guys want a licensing opportunity.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 09:40 PM EDT |
from the Java SDK license ...
<blockquote>
Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to limit either party's right to
independently develop or distribute software that is functionally similar to the
other party's products, so long as proprietary information of the other party is
not included in such software.
</blockquote>
This kind of clause might cause real problems for Oracle if it is trying to
argue copying of methods and concepts.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 09:52 PM EDT |
It seems to me that we have a new trend emerging: companies built atop open
source who die and get bought out by business weasels that try to monetize the
corpse of that company.
SCO/Caldera was once a decent, if unsuccessful, company under Ransom Love. Now
we have Sun. I wonder who will be next? Even if we trust somebody 100% today,
they could suffer a hostile takeover tomorrow and all of their copyrights and
such could end up in the hands of greedy lawyers.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm going to start calling companies like
this 'IP Zombies'. The image of someone's corpse being turned into an unholy
mockery controlled by some fiend in order to seek out and eat the brains of the
living seems fitting.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 12:56 AM EDT |
| There is some interesting discussion on reddit that
the harmony source file
matches almost identically to what comes out of the
java decompiler
called JAD
if you run oracle's class file from 1.5.0 through it. Here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ak on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 01:57 AM EDT |
The OpenJDK version of PolicyNodeImpl.java contains a comment
"the 4 fields
specified by RFC 3280".
RFC 3280 is
an Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF) standard. The
official name is "Internet
X.509 Public Key Infrastructure-
Certificate and Certificate Revocation
List
(CRL) Profile".
In other words: some similarities in the code can be
explained by a standard.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 03:20 AM EDT |
It's Google's FAULT for using JAVA without licensing it.
It's simply Google's fault.
Google should have used FOSS, not Oracle's proprietary IP - particularly if it
did
not want to license it in the first place.
Now it is in a lot of hot water.
My guess is that Google will have to PAY Oracle millions.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 03:58 AM EDT |
I also have to disagree. I have seen MS many times coming second, and even
worst, plagiarizing/bullying/buying off successful competitors into oblivion and
destroying/rapping their technologies.
It is not true either that there may not be foresight within MS: they saw UNIX
as the solution in the 80s, saw the importance of the browser, etc... But time
and over again, their greed has led them to ignore, subvert or delay these
potential advantages for short sighted gain.
To be true this is not MS-only: most big companies tend to do the same at some
point. If you can, it is most cost-effective to continue making a profit from an
already developed technology than to invest in new things that compete with what
you already have (see IBM in the 80s or Apple in the 90s).
Some companies mature and learn at some point that they have no choice but to
innovate continuously (as Google is doing) or at least reach a compromise
between innovation an RoI. That is where MS fails, they are too much tilted
towards RoI and even though they may do innovate, they refrain from exploit it,
often until it is too late, or only as a way to troll/extort others and prevent
competition.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 04:03 AM EDT |
I wondered about that (mentioned in comments on
http://lwn.net/Articles/404260/). It would indeed seem possible to generate a
dalvik version whose java-ish bits derive from GPLjava. Here are the issues that
occur to me:
- google wants to remain non-GPL
- the usefulness of the switch depends on the strength of the implicit GPL2
patent licence, which I believe is untested
Thus, a GPL-protected version would probably only be attractive if Oracle win
and seriously threaten OEMs using dalvik. However, assuming that the implicit
licence does have some teeth, such a move would seem to remove most of Oracle's
java patents from the equation. (Oracle might find itself in the amusing
position of having to argue that patents it had claimed read on Java in fact
read on GPLdalvik but not GPLjava, to avoid the implicit licence).
And of course it would be a brilliant thing for FOSS.
On a separate question. What if part of the current dalvik is shown to be
derived from GPLjava? That already seems to be a possibility here. Presumably
that means that GPL can be enforced on the whole of dalvik? There might be some
interesting follow-ups to this suit.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TiddlyPom on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 07:55 AM EDT |
What I would like to know is what Oracle wants to gain from this lawsuit - I
presume they want a revenue stream from Android?
JavaME is NOT suitable for modern smart phones based on Android, iOS or WM7 so
this will not force suppliers to use that. Ultimately that was why they decided
to use Apache Harmony and their own register based VM - it worked much better on
smart phones!
Attacking Dalvik is plain stupid.
There are LOTS of VMs and prior art to invalidate any claims that Oracle might
have - including Python, Ruby, Perl (Parrot), BASIC, PHP and vast numbers of
other interpreted languages as well. Oracle - Dalvik is NOT Java or indeed
specifically a JVM - it is a VM which runs its own byte code.
That means that they must by attacking Apache Harmony (which has existed for
ages in various forms) or more specifically Google's use of it - so why not
state that from the beginning?
That leaves the following choices for Google:
1) Stick things out and stand up to Oracle. It is certainly possible that they
could win at this and is a preferred outcome IMHO. Dalvik (I think) is quite
safe so the major fighting will be over the use of Apache Harmony I think.
2) License standard Java in some way for commercial use on Android - I presume
that is what Oracle wants Google to do so that they can gain a revenue stream.
Oracle must know that Google cannot afford (either money-wise or license-wise)
for that to happen as it would destroy a major competitive advantage of Android
over iOS and WM7.
3) Move over to using the OpenJDK. Being GPL licensed, I would suspect that
there is sweet naff all that Oracle could do about this - but the ClassPath
exception would mean that all applications published under Android would HAVE to
be GPL licensed. That would be GREAT but many commercial vendors would not want
to support Android anymore I suspect. Oracle is probably banking on this not
happening.
4) Move over to another language such as Python or Ruby. Google should have
done this in the first place I think. The hard part would be to write a compiler
that compiles Ruby or Python to Dalvik byte code. Tricky but not impossible.
Although it sounds horrendous, it would also not be impossible to write some
sort of parser that reads Android Java files and generates (say) equivalent Ruby
files but would take a while. A better alternative might be to just run the
CPython or CRuby VMs natively on the phone but would require a re-writing of the
whole Android platform.
5) Use some other language (such as Google Go) which is easier to target at
Dalvik/Android. Again, existing code could be ported using a code translator.
Why, oh, why are you doing this Oracle!
Convincing more people to use Java hurts your major competitor, Microsoft which
is surely more beneficial to you than kicking your current supporters.
You are really hurting the long term future of Java and will turn the open
source community away from Java in the long term. Personally I have abandoned
Java for Python, PHP and Ruby a long time ago. Rewriting an equivalent to
Eclipse would be hard but not impossible and the FOSS community would no doubt
do it.
A quick heads up guys.
Oracle is TRYING to control the open source world with its actions of holding
OpenOffice and MySQL and its current actions against Google with Java. Python,
Perl and Ruby are complete community projects and quite safe from Oracle BUT PHP
(in the form of Zend) COULD be purchased by Oracle and then subverted. Oracle
has already stated thatPHP is already a preferred web technology.
I suspect though that PHP would just be forked (as with SkySQL and LibreOffice)
as the code is GPL based. I would also suggest making an official fork of
VirtualBox to take that out of Oracle's hands.
---
Microsoft Software is expensive, bloated, bug-ridden and unnecessary.
Use Open Source Software instead.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 07:58 AM EDT |
Since they were so kind as to say where the documentation could be found, I
wondered what sort of licence they were offering. I only, fairly, reproduce the
first couple of paragraphs for internal, educational purposes. It is all
Copyright 2003 Sun Microsystems, Inc. NOTICE; LIMITED LICENSE GRANTS
Oracle and/or its affiliates. ("Sun") hereby grants you a fully-paid,
non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide, limited license (without the right
to sublicense), under the Sun's applicable intellectual property rights to view,
download, use and reproduce the Specification only for the purpose of internal
evaluation, which shall be understood to include developing applications
intended to run on an implementation of the Specification provided that such
applications do not themselves implement any portion(s) of the
Specification.
Sun also grants you a perpetual, non-exclusive,
worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free, limited license (without the right to
sublicense) under any applicable copyrights or patent rights it may have in the
Specification to create and/or distribute an Independent Implementation of the
Specification that: (i) fully implements the Spec(s) including all its required
interfaces and functionality; (ii) does not modify, subset, superset or
otherwise extend the Licensor Name Space, or include any public or protected
packages, classes, Java interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor Name
Space other than those required/authorized by the Specification or
Specifications being implemented; and (iii) passes the TCK (including satisfying
the requirements of the applicable TCK Users Guide) for such Specification. The
foregoing license is expressly conditioned on your not acting outside its scope.
No license is granted hereunder for any other purpose.
IIRC it is
permissible to add all sorts of limiting terms to a copyright licence (as seen
in EULAs) that go way beyond the act of copying.
I assume that extends
to the right to employ the specification to make something. That second
paragraph seems to say that you can only use the specification to make an
independent implementation of the specification that does not stray from the
official implementation.
The Dalvik dx tool, presumably, implements the
specification so that it can translate from the Java class file to the Dalvik,
.dex class file. This fits the restriction of 'internal evaluation'. However, it
does not fit 'applications intended to run on an implementation of the
Specification' because Dalvik does not implement all the core classes in Java
according to descriptions I have read.
The first paragraph deals with
what you are allowed to do with the documentation. You are allowed to view it
(how thoughtful!) as long as you only inwardly digest the text. If Dalvik
provides copies of the specification documentation to Dalvik developers then
this is not permitted under paragraph one and they should, instead, be directed
to the Oracle USA site to get their own copyright licence.
My guess is
that the Harmony documentation is not the Sun documentation. I also guess that
the Harmony clean-room implementation complies with paragraph two. If Dalvik
developers are directed to Harmony documentation, then the Sun Licence does not
apply.
Of course, if the Harmony project laddered and obfuscated the
Sun text, then the Harmony project would have violated the Sun copyright
according to the SCO theory. They would have been inciting Android to misuse the
Harmony documentation.
Perhaps that is what Oracle are maintaining when
they assert that, Approximately one third of Android’s Application
Programmer Interface (API) packages (available at
http://developer.android.com/reference/packages.html) are derivative of Oracle
America’s 19 copyrighted Java API packages
Perhaps PJ's
observations suggest just how much derivamication and copyficating
infringimissability is at issue, here. "Java method and class names,
definitions, organization, and parameters; the structure, organization and
content of Java class libraries; and the content and organization of Java’s
documentation." Don't tell me it's APIs and methods and concepts again. And
infringing the "organization" of Java documentation? Lordy.
PJ
seems quite scornful of Oracle USA's definition of what sort of derivation from
copyright material constitutes copyright infringement. It's hard not to share
that scorn. My crystal ball forecasts much tap-dancing, bench pounding and
handwaving in your future. She's right, isn't she? 'This filing smells like
Boies Schiller to me, their style.'
This case is being heard in the
court of the Northern District of California. I thought that copyrights were a
federal matter. Is that actually a federal court? I don't know about patents and
federal courts. The question arose because I was thinking of the tests in the
Gates Rubber case. I wondered, depending on the federal court circuit, if the
Abstraction, Filtration and Comparision test will be found relevant. PJ
mentioned the APIs and these are some of the things that get filtered
out.
However, there is another issue raised by this which is even more
central to the complaint. An EULA on software is a licence to use the software
(hey, don't glaze over just yet!). This documentation is not the software. It is
the specification of the software. If one writes a recipe for pizza in a book,
is one entitled to issue a copyright licence for the information in the book
which prevents you using the recipe for the base and to add your own topping?
What is it about Oracle USA's recipe for a program environment that permits
licencing that is more restrictive than copyright law?---
Regards
Ian Al
SCOG, what ever happened to them? Whatever, it was less than they deserve. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 08:54 AM EDT |
Perhaps this should have gone it OT, I'm not sure. With all of the concerns
over OpenJDK and JCP, it seems to me that if Microsoft would come forward and
address the concerns regarding Mono (perhaps Moonlight too) it could put itself
in a strategically beneficial place.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jez_f on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 09:57 AM EDT |
As a direct and proximate result of Google’s direct and indirect
willful copyright infringement, Oracle America has suffered, and will continue
to suffer, monetary loss to its business...
What and how. I
don't understand what losses Oracle can get from Android?
Are they
saying that Android killed Java ME?
What money does Google make directly from
distributing android?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Devil's advocate - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 10:31 AM EDT
- None! - Authored by: TiddlyPom on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 11:05 AM EDT
- What lossess? - Authored by: hAckz0r on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 12:25 PM EDT
- These losses - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 12:37 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 01:33 PM EDT |
| The "OpenJDK defense" is incorrect, because the code is not a
reimplementation, but a direct copy. Furthermore, the origin of the code does
not come from OpenJDK. Please see this discussion for more details, but to be
brief:
Running JAD on
PolicyNodeImpl.class in JDK 1.5 results in output that is identical to
Google's version (including all the weird variable names like "flag1", "flag2"
etc, strangely written for-loops, use of string literals instead of named
constants even where the latter is first declared etc) except for indentation
& whitespace. There is no reasonable way in which one could manually write
the same exact code from scratch, so copying code is a given
now.
Furthermore, last I checked, JDK 1.5 predates OpenJDK, and was not
distributed under GPL or other similar FOSS license. So Google is clearly in the
wrong here by all accounts. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mvs_tomm on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 02:29 PM EDT |
Doesn't a copyright have to be on something more substantial than "method
and class names"? Can the title of a book be copyrighted?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 02:37 PM EDT |
| Just possibly a spambot on someone's badly maintained Windoze PC. Some of my
friends had pr0n posted on their Facebook pages because of that a while
back. But it is very clear that the anonymous trolls and shills are also out
in force today. I guess that PJ's reporting, and/or some of the well-informed
comments, are too close to the truth for some people. Just like what used to
happen immediately before every setback for SCO in court. Could it mean that
Oracle's legal position is a bit flaky? As this involves Oracle, I can't help
but wonder if the infamous Cindamuse, with her alleged connection to Larry
Ellison, is involved, the same one who tried twice to have the OpenIndiana
article deleted from Wikipedia. I note that she does not seem to be married to
Jimmy Wales today. Must be feeling lonely...... PJ will of course only reveal
as much as is compatible with the security of Groklaw, i.e. usually not very
much, which is exactly as it should be. But the trolls, whoever they are, are
rather annoying. They look silly too. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 03:25 PM EDT |
It's SCO II, at least in part, alleging that the infringed material is
"Java method and class names, definitions, organization, and parameters; the
structure, organization and content of Java class libraries; and the content and
organization of Java’s documentation." Don't tell me it's APIs and methods and
concepts again.
"Methods and concepts" as used by SCO in its
complaint meant the same as they do in ordinary use.
"Method" in Java,
however (as in many other object-oriented languages) has a precise technical
meaning. It's a 'term of art', if you like. It's to do with exactly how APIs
relate to classes. A lot of the work in object-oriented design goes into this,
probably most of the work, in fact. IANAL so I don't know what the legal
threshold for infringement is, but if anything at all short of copying
everything is regarded as infringing, this should be.
Note, I'm not
expressing any opinion as to the overall merits of either side's case, as to
whether patent law is good or bad, or as to whether copyright law is good or
bad. I'm merely pointing out that there is no material resemblance between
Oracle's complaint and SCO's. It is not SCO's 'methods and concepts'
again. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 03:35 PM EDT |
This copyright claim seems like stalling to me. They don't seem to want the case
to end sooner. I doubt they can get anything out of their copyright claim if
this is the best example of copying.
If the code is indeed generated by a decompiler from a Sun JDK binary. What
would be interesting is to see if any other code might match if one compare the
rest of JDK (decompiled).
Another interesting point would be if this particular file/code is found
anywhere else (both the JDK and Android version)?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Decompiled - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 06:07 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 04:55 PM EDT |
| The EU must be surprised.
The Commission ...
examined ... the ... impact of Oracle's acquisition of ... Java
...
They forgot mobile devices?
... It found that
Oracle's ability to deny its competitors access to important IP rights would be
limited ...
Perhaps Google should implement MySQL with a new
pluggable storage engine on Android :-)
Oracle will refrain from threatening legal action
against any third party that chooses to implement MySQL's Pluggable Storage
Engine architecture without
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Yossarian on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 05:56 PM EDT |
| I'll sue Shrek [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 06:36 PM EDT |
Oracle's latest filing demonstrates to Google that they've been doing
their
homework before initiating this action, and that Google has to be
prepared for
a fight if it wants to continue. By releasing only one specific
example of
possible copyright infringement, Oracle forces Google to guess
what else they
might know, but haven't revealed, and creates extra work for
Google to go back
over everything and verify that there haven't been other
shortcuts taken in the
Android development process.
The PolicyNodeImpl.java example cited by
Oracle does indicate that at
least one Google employee may have cut some
corners on the way to getting
Android out the door. There's pretty convincing
circumstantial evidence that
the code was not adopted from Apache Harmony, but
was added to Android
by a Google developer after decompiling from a class
library found in a Sun
JDK release.
As was pointed out in previous
comments, the class appears to be used
in Android only for testing purposes.
It's location in the Android source tree
corresponds to a similar location in
the Harmony source tree, but the Android
directory contains 3 additional files
compared to the Harmony version.
Android:
/support/src/test/org/apache/harmony/security/tests/support/cert/
Harmony:
.../classlib/modules/security/src/test/support/
common/java/org/apache/harmony/
security/tests/support/cert/
Comparing the pattern of source files with
those apparently added by
Google shows some clear differences. The
Harmony-derived files all contain
an author name, which is in keeping with
Apache's attention to documenting
the provenance of any code submitted to the
project. The Android-only ones
listed here do not. Two of the Android files,
MyFailingCertificate.java and
MyFailingCertPath.java, do not contain a header
stating a license to use. The
PolicyNodeImpl.java file listing includes
this:
1 /*r
2 * Licensed to the Apache Software
Foundation (ASF) under one or
morer
3 * contributor license
agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed
withr
4 * this work for
additional information regarding copyright
ownership.r
5 * The ASF
licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version
2.0r
6 *
(the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
withr
7
* the License. You may obtain a copy of the License atr
8 *r
9 * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0r
10 *r
This is problematic for Google, because the file claims to be
licensed to
the Apache Software Foundation under one or more contributor
license
agreements, yet this file does not appear to have been part of an
Apache
project. It also differs from other Apache derived files in that it
contains
escape sequences that indicate the source was created on a Windows
system
which uses CR-LF as a line terminator, rather than the LF that Linux and
Unix
systems typically use.
Other people have mentioned strong signs
that indicate the source was
derived from a decompiled binary form found in a
Sun-released .jar file.
While not completely conclusive, the circumstantial
evidence seems to make it
extremely likely that this is indeed the case. Just
to add one more piece to the
puzzle, I'll point out that one particular method
implementation is illustrative
of why the source seems derived from a
decompiled binary. The Sun version
of the class has a method called prune, with
one section as follows:
251: while
(it.hasNext()) {
252: PolicyNodeImpl
node = it.next();
253:
node.prune(depth);
254: // now that we've called prune on
the child, see if
we
should
255: // remove it from the
tree
256: if ((node.mChildren.size() == 0) &&
(depth >
mDepth +
1))
257: it.remove();
258:
}
The corresponding Android implementation has
this:
143 do {r
144
if(!iterator.hasNext()) break;r
145 PolicyNodeImpl
policynodeimpl =
(PolicyNodeImpl)iterator.next();r
146
policynodeimpl.prune(i);r
147
if(policynodeimpl.mChildren.size() == 0 && i >
mDepth +
1)r
148 iterator.remove();r
149 }
while(true);r
The Android version shows a functionally
equivalent way to express a
while block, but uses a form that most programmers
would find awkward. It
reflects the style a compiler might represent a while
block for efficiency
reasons, and which a decompiler would produce when run on
compiled
code.
What does this mean for Google? As far as copyright
infringement goes,
this is a relatively minor issue. Google was wrong to
transform a GPL-license
into an Apache license for this code. The person who
did it did it willfully,
because the license header claiming to be a
contribution to an Apache project
had to be added after the act of decompiling
the code from the Sun source.
But given all that, the implications seem small.
The GPL code was released
with
a classpath
exception. The code does not appear to be used in actually running
Android, but was part of a series of automated tests for compliance with Sun
specifications. It likely was not distributed as part of the Android runtime
environment, but was distributed as part of the complete source tree of the
Android project. It technically appears to be a violation of the GPL license,
but
a violation that can be easily remedied by either replacing the Apache
license
with a GPL+classpath exception license, or simply removing the code
from
the source tree distribution (since it is not essential in any way to
Android
operations).
The greater impact to Google is that Oracle has
successfully raised some
doubts as to how careful Google has been in policing
its own source code. If
one person cut corners by improperly appropriating code
from other sources,
were there others? Even if the answer is no, Google is now
put on the
defensive to show that it's true. That's more work to do, in a case
that already
promises to involve a massive effort as two behemoths in the
industry face off
against one another in court.
--bystander1313 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbb on Friday, October 29 2010 @ 06:45 PM EDT |
| I use Gentoo. YMMV on other systems.
I got the rt.jar file from
sun-jre-bin-1.6.0.22. I simple unzipped it and found the PolicyNodeImpl.class
file (in the sun/security/provider/certpath directory).
I decompiled it using
jad (from the jad-bin package). $ jad -ff -nonlb
PolicyNodeImpl.class
I downloaded the Android version from here. I will
post the actual diff I got in a reply to this message.
---
[X] Ignore DRM Restrictions [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 30 2010 @ 08:59 PM EDT |
Without knowing anything about how android works, this file would seem to be
quite unimportant, and hardly worth suing over. From its location it appears to
be part of a test suite google had for the security stuff in apache harmony- is
it even used in android? Is it distributed as part of android? Even if the worst
is true for google and they come out with their hands up and say 'sorry, an
intern copied this file by mistake'- then they delete it, or re-write it, and
perhaps pay a fee for damages to oracle- but it's surely worth next to nothing
in real terms for either company, since its not part of any core functionality
(any functionality at all?), and can be easily re-implemented (in perhaps only
one way, since it appears to be based on a well-defined standard).
For the other allegations google would seem to have some reasonable defences.
But even if google have to pay up for this file, is it even worth the price of a
lawyers lunch?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, October 31 2010 @ 05:54 AM EDT |
December 19, 2007
Apache, Sun still in disharmony over Harmony
The open-source
Java project moves forward with the announced availability of Harmony 5.0
Milestone 4, but disagreement remains over compliance testing
By Paul Krill |
InfoWorld
http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/apache-sun-still-in
-disharmony-over-harmony-146
Quote:
We knew when we
chose the GPL and the free software model for Java technology that we couldn't
satisfy everyone's desires. This is the case for the Apache Harmony Project at
the Apache Software Foundation," Green said.
"Sun has offered Apache Harmony a
license to use the JCK (Java Compatibility Kit) and the Java Compatible logo at
no charge once their implementation passes the tests, and we're even offering
free support to help Apache run the JCK. But because the Apache code is not
governed by the GPL and does not require code-sharing by any entity using or
modifying Harmony, the terms of this license are the same terms under which Sun
licenses the JCK to commercial entities that build their own independent
implementations of the Java SE platform," Green said.
"As was made clear in
their open letter to Sun, [Apache] is not satisfied with these terms," Green
said.
"Unlike the GPL, the Apache open source license does not require
innovation to remain in the open. Java technology governed by the Apache license
could be altered by any organization -- commercial or non-profit -- and rendered
both incompatible and inaccessible to the community. The trust and value of
"Write Once Run Anywhere" could not be upheld," said
Green."
Interesting...---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, October 31 2010 @ 06:37 AM EDT |
Well they at least have a chance as there is a lot of wiggle room in the various
promises and agreements.
This just got a lot more interesting.
Particularly the interplay betwixt the GPL an the Apache licence.
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, November 01 2010 @ 04:31 AM EDT |
We all do it, even me. We think that software can be copyrighted because of what
it does, rather than what it is.
Nobody gets their briefs in a twist because someone paraphrases a paragraph in a
book.
We have got all hot and bothered because a few lines of software can be
translated into something that will run on an implementation of an approximation
of an abstract math idea called the Universal Turing Machine.
I want to repeat elements of PoIR's previous work because there are still
doubters out there. That makes it too large for this comment and so I give it in
a child comment.
The punch line is that a paragraph of source code is a paragraph of creative
expression that has value because it can be converted to run on a computer. It
is also math. I discuss how much math has to be copied from a copyright piece
before copyright is infringed.
---
Regards
Ian Al
SCOG, what ever happened to them? Whatever, it was less than they deserve.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, November 01 2010 @ 03:20 PM EDT |
It seems Sun was trying to prevent a repeat of the Microsoft Java debacle. I can
certainly understand why.
However if Sun released the Java specification with specific conditions, then it
seems Java is incomparable with the GPL and Apache License.
If that's the case I wonder why Sun didn't tell Apache that their license
apparently allowed someone to violate the conditions under which Sun released
the specification, or Maybe they did.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cdaffara on Tuesday, November 02 2010 @ 08:49 AM EDT |
Some updates on my initial analysis; the file has the
following history:
- An initial import, from a private branch to the public git
repo, with this commitdiff, at Sat, 10 Jan 2009 01:50:54
- A deletion of the file and of most of the imported branch
at Wed, 4 Mar 2009 02:28:14, with this commitdiff
- The branch got re-imported, with all new files, at Wed, 4
Mar 2009 03:28:47, with this commitdiff, without
PolicyNodeImpl.java
So the file was present in the git repo from Jan, 10 to
March, 4; after checking the test execution code, it is
clear that the code itself was not included in the final
build (delivered to handsets) but was part of a test
harness, that (funnily) was mostly silenced during the
development period due to the majority of tests failing.
It is however clear that the code itself was distributed, as
it was freely accessible online and through the git tree
(and – funnily – it is still available under the same
means). It was, however, not part of the Android SDK
release, as Android 1.6 rel2 was released in December 2009,
while rel3 was released in May, with the commit diff already
applied.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2010 @ 10:22 AM EDT |
As this detailed analysis of PolicyNodeImpl members points
out, private members are not part of an API and neither the Oracle or
Google code follows the ordering conventions commonly seen with multiple
definitions.
The code does look like it was copied. Can Google simply move
things around to create enough 'difference' for the work to be considered
distinct? Can copyright be claimed on any ordering of member definitions?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 03 2010 @ 05:56 PM EDT |
>Oracle has not changed that exhibit that I could see. So I'm guessing that
means Oracle is going to say it's open sourced but only for the desktop. Field
of use.<
Copyright law contains no exclusive right to "use" a copyright -- this
isn't patent law. "Using" a copyrighted work on a desktop machine
doesn't violate any sec. 106 exclusive right. See:
"An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it
conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright
statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at 154-155.";
SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).
See also:
"The Copyright Act of 1909, 35 Stat. 1075, as amended, 17 U.S.C. § 1 et
seq., [Footnote 2] gives to a copyright holder a monopoly limited to specified
"exclusive" rights in his copyrighted works. [Footnote 3] As the Court
explained in Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists, supra:
'The Copyright Act does not give a copyright holder control over all uses of his
copyrighted work. Instead, § 1 of the Act enumerates several 'rights' that are
made 'exclusive' to the holder of the copyright. If a person, without
authorization from the copyright holder, puts a copyrighted work to a use within
the scope of one of these 'exclusive rights,' he infringes the copyright. If he
puts the work to a use not enumerated in § 1, he does not infringe.'
Accordingly, if an unlicensed use of a copyrighted work does not conflict with
an "exclusive" right conferred by the statute, it is no infringement
of the holder's rights. No license is required by the Copyright Act, for
example, to sing a copyrighted lyric in the shower." ;Twentieth Century
Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151 (1975).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, November 04 2010 @ 05:48 AM EDT |
Someone suggested that, because software is math, that may invalidate software
patents. That seems worth following up!
The full complement of
instructions to which a processor in a computer
(including a virtual processor
like the Java one) will respond are all
mathematical operations. The processor
with its associated components is a
physical implementation of an approximation
of the Turing idea of an abstract
machine to do mathematical
operations.
It is referred to as the
Universal Turing Machine and it
was developed as a math concept long before
general purpose computers were
implemented.
A software program is
written in a Turing complete
language. It is an abstract mathematical algorithm.
When compiled into machine
code, it is mathematically translated into a series
of instructions that can
cause the processor to carry out specific mathematical
operations. The syntax
and semantics of the source code depend on which actual
language used, but it
must compile to machine code to be useful and the only way
to do that and get an
exact result is if the source code is a mathematical
expression.
That
means that source code is not math-like or capable of
doing math or made by
using math tools and principles, but is
math.
It is the math
running on the Turing machine that is so useful. However, the source code is so
much more than math. It contains creative expression. One cannot take the math
out of the source code to isolate the creative expression any more than one can
take the facts out of a news report and isolate the copyrightable element.
However, the creative expression part is not relevant to patents: it is what the
math does in conjunction with the Turing math machine that is
relevant.
The only reason Groklaw cares about software patents is
because folk try to damage our free and open software with patent attacks. The
angle I approach in this comment is how our software might
infringe.
Let's say that the source code is accused of reaching all the
claims in a software patent and is therefore infringing. The patentable part of
the software is all math. It must be run using the Turing math machine to
infringe by actioning the method or process, being the machine or transforming
the matter. If the plaintiff accuses the software of reaching all the patent
claims when run on the Turing machine then the patent claims are met with
nothing but the math in the software. The patent is invalid under the law for
just this reason.
We know that a valid patent will do something beyond
the Turing math machine implementation. It may be that the math in the program
is but one step in a whole process or one part of a whole method. In that case,
the software, when running, only reaches some of the claims in the patent. The
software does not infringe. Only the person running the software with all the
other process steps or parts of the method is infringing. The software cannot be
an inducement to infringe because it only induces a part of the process or
method and that cannot be protected by patent, independent of the whole process
or method.
If the patent is a machine patent then we know that the
source code does not infringe the patent. Microsoft v.
AT&T,
...§271(f) is inapplicable to the export of design
tools--blueprints, schematics, templates, and prototypes--all of which may
provide the information required to construct and combine overseas the
components of inventions patented under United States law.
But the
extra step [to encode software's instructions onto a medium that can be read by
a computer] is what renders the software a usable, combinable part of a
computer; easy or not, the copy-producing step is essential.
Here, as
we have repeatedly noted, the copies of Windows actually installed on the
foreign computers were not themselves supplied from the United
States.
Infringement occurs only when Windows is installed on a
computer, thereby rendering it capable of performing as the patented speech
processor.
Leaving aside, for a moment, that software is not a
component in a machine, we need to consider why the Supreme Court was making
this tortuous argument. If you manufacture a key component which is central to
making an infringing machine then selling that component may be considered
inciting the manufacture of the whole infringing machine.
The Supremes
can be paraphrased by a non-lawyer as saying,
Source code is a
template and not the component
The executable has the potential to be
the component of an infringing machine
It only becomes an infringing
component when the executable is copied to the actual physical media that is to
be installed in the infringing machine
The infringing machine is created
when the software component is installed in the machine.
Please note
that the Supremes show no indication that they understand that source code is
(usually) compiled into executable code. They consider that electronic
transmission of the executable code is the blueprint and not the source code.
However, we know that the source code is not usually the executable and so we
can apply their definitions.
We can come to the following conclusions
for software machine patents:
For a software patent, all of the inventive
content is in the software and, specifically, is in the math component of the
source code. There is nothing of the invention in an infringing machine which is
outside of the software. A software patent is, by definition, an attempt to
patent just math.
Even if it was not, the source code does not infringe the
patent: it is merely the blueprint.
The executable does not, of itself,
constitute an infringing component.
Only when the executable is copied to
the machine readable media that will be used to install the software in the
infringing machine does it have the potential of becoming an infringing
component.
Only when the executable is installed in a computer is an
infringing machine created. Please note that this also includes downloading and
installing the executable.
Looking at the patents in the Oracle v.
Google case, is there anything that requires more than math being actioned by a
Universal Turing machine? I don't know the detail, but they all look like ways
of doing math, to me. They are all about programming methods. Even the one that
refers to security is referring to securing the running of the math against
malicious math modifications which will change the results.
The
question of damages arises. For open and free software, how many infringing
machines have been made? What is the level of damages caused by each infringing
machine and how is that damaged caused?
No doubt a court case would
have to cover all these points. For a non-lawyer, it seems self evident that a
software patent claims can only be reached by the math part of software. A
software patent is, by definition, a patent on the math, no matter what form of
patent it is; process, method, machine or transformation.---
Regards
Ian Al
SCOG, what ever happened to them? Whatever, it was less than they deserve. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
