| Google is accused of direct copying. The provenance of the code doesn't
matter.
It doesn't matter if they copied from Oracle directly or copied from a
third party who copied from Oracle, it is still Google doing the copying so it
is direct. Copying from a third party would only make a difference if the third
party had a valid license that would enable them to pass rights on to Google.
Everyone agrees that Harmony did not have such a license from Sun/Oracle.
The indirect copying claims were about Google getting other people to
infringe Oracle's copyright. Those are the claims that got dropped without
prejudice. Assuming Oracle has a valid case (ha ha) and assuming Google did get
the APIs from Harmony then Harmony could be sued for both direct copying and for
indirect copying via Google. Likewise folks downstream from Google, such as
manufacturers, who make copies of Android could be sued for direct copying even
though they are getting the code from Google and not directly from Oracle. If
Google didn't have deep pockets and if Oracle was intent on suing then they
could have gone after the manufacturers directly.
I think "direct" and
"indirect" don't refer to who you got the code from; the refer to who is doing
the copying. If you are doing the copying then it is direct. If you get others
to copy also then you are also liable for indirect copying.
IIRC there
was a court document from Oracle in a recent article that dealt with the Sun
--> Harmony --> Google thing. I think it was just a sentence near the end
of the document.
---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are
more contexts than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
