|
|
|
| Authored by: Guil Rarey on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 10:13 PM EDT |
If the original Sun RangeCheck was written by Bloch, then re-used in 2 other
contexts, and given the utilitarian nature of the code -- while this may be
technically infringing, it would be very hard to convince anyone that it wasn't
de minimis.
---
If the only way you can value something is with money, you have no idea what
it's worth. If you try to make money by making money, you won't. You might con
so[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BitOBear on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 10:48 PM EDT |
Herm... isn't OpenJDK GPL?
If so, wasn't the fact that Android got it from OpenJDK make the OpenJDK the
"source" as far as Android is concerned?
This still has statutory status problems.
Was donor-guy being paid by Google to make this donation to OpenJDK as a
directed order (as opposed to, say, me working for Microsoft [I don't] and
donating something to OpenJDK in my spare time).
I know Google gives (or used to give anyway) one paid day a week for employees
to use on non-Google projects. Google's alleged benefit is that it keeps their
teams smart, flexible, and interested in their field, so its like intellectual
health insurance.
Donor Guy was "working for Google" at the time, but was he working on
Google's direct behest when he performed the act?
The fact that Android is GPL and OpenJDK is GPL would seem to "wash
Google's hands" with respect to infringement -unless- Google ordered Donor
Guy to put the Sun stuff from project-one back into project-two.
Google had no way of knowing that what Sun distributed in OpenJDK was not
something they -wanted- to distribute, and that Sun didn't check their OpenJDK
for "contamination" isn't a Google burden at all.
Google has no legal duty to re-check Sun's due diligence on their own open
sourcing mistakes.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BitOBear on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 11:41 PM EDT |
As near as I can tell, what you say is correct about the order of events.
This leaves Sun/Oracle with unclean hands for releasing rangeCheck() inside the
OpenJDK. It is in OpenJDK for exactly the same reasons as it is in Apache
Harmony and Android. And when I say -exactly- I mean it -exactly-.
Sun benefited first from releasing rangeCheck() as they did, since that's where
Harmony got it, and that in tern is how it got into Android.
Sun knew, or should have known, that rangeCheck() was identical in the Java
runtime and OpenJDK because they are the party who had both elements, they
controlled both bodies of code, they knew the same person put the code into both
larger bodies of code, etc.
As near as I can tell, Google didn't become aware of this chain of fact until
far too late to raise it as an affirmative defense at trial. This chain of fact
was embedded in the various depositions.
Sun is actually the "copying entity" in this sequence. Sun copied the
code into OpenJDK and published it. All subsequent possessors of the code used
it in accordance with the license(s) under which they received the code. Sun
also received the first and best benefit by including the copied code in OpenJDK
because the release of same prevented Java's impending market share losses for
being all closed source etc. (e.g. it appeased Sun's customers to release the
OpenJDK).
Sun's unclean act was predicate to Harmony and Android and their licensed use of
rangeCheck().[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
