I wish it were that simple, however Google chose to implement a small set of the
Java language in order to make it easy to be able to write programs in Java and
enable them to run on an Android device.
So they have an implementation of some Java Language constructs in their virtual
machine, which have a same/similar Structure, Selection and Organisation of
those in the J2SE It is alleged that Google copied that SSO, either directly, or
by reading it from the API Specification. (this is referred to as the 37 APIs)
Specifically, for example, if you look at the java.nio package in J2SE you will
find that it has the same Classes/Interfaces and such as the java.nio package on
Android and that the Items contained there ($TypedBuffer classes) have the same
Methods and Fields. Note, it is not the code, the VM, or even the names
themselves, just the SSO, or the 'grouping' of the names,
Similarly if you refer to to the Android developer reference material at
developer.android.com you will find those constructs are fully documented, and
if you're skimming through, it could be argued that it looks like Oracles Java
API Specification. (the API Specification, or English Language descriptions aka.
a book)
In addition to those two, which as far as I can tell are the big ticket items,
there are 9 lines of directly copied code, used multiple times, a few lines of
comments, and another 8 files. Google have admitted they copied these and assert
that they have removed them from Android.
So Oracle has a leg, definitely, the question really is whether or not Oracle
can convince the Jury/Judge that the docs were copied, and/or there is something
special about how Sun/Oracle choose to 'compile' its "not a compilation of
facts" aka the 37 APIs, and if they did, they've been damaged to to the
tune of beeeeeeeeellions.
Important notes: Please read these before hitting the reply button
This post just to be clear that Oracle and Google are in this court for a
reason and that there is something to be cleared up.
I assert nothing with the regard to the validity of those claims (at least in
this post)
I do not wish to encourage another round of, what about the GPL, it's free, you
can't copyright a language, but an API is just <pick any one of a thousand
analogies or come up with another thousand> .
I have also tried to reflect what we 'know' and at this time it is only Oracle
that have had a chance to put their case forward, and the above is an attempt to
precis those assertion.
We have not yet heard from Google on their defences and it is entirely possible
that aside from the admitted infringing, Oracle are in fact just waving around a
massive foot gun and are indeed about to blow their leg of.
Thankyou for reading.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|