Google: We didn't infringe on Java; Oracle's smoking code was rigged

Summary:Google's reply to Oracle's amended complaint in the Java infringement suit is a barnburner and the search giant isn't going quietly. Remember that Java vs. Android code comparison line by line? Google says Oracle redacted parts to look better.

Google's reply to Oracle's amended complaint in the Java infringement suit is a barnburner and the search giant isn't going quietly. Remember that Java vs. Android code comparison line by line? Google says Oracle redacted parts to look better.

Groklaw has the Google response and the key parts.

Among them:

Google further denies that the document attached to Oracle's Amended Complaint as Exhibit J contains a true and correct copy of a class file from either Android or "Oracle America's Java." Google states further that Oracle has redacted or deleted from the materials shown in Exhibit J both expressive material and copyright headers that appear in the actual materials, which are significant elements and features of the files in question.

In other words, Google says Oracle did some creative editing on its Exhibit J to look better.

Google also says:

  • "Google does not infringe, has not infringed (directly, contributorily, or by inducement) and is not liable for infringement of any valid and enforceable claim of U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE38,104 (“the ‘104 reissue patent”), and U.S. Patent Nos. 5,966,702 (“the ‘702 patent”), 6,061,520 (“the ‘520 patent”), 6,125,447 (“the ‘447 patent”), 6,192,476 (“the ‘476 patent”), 6,910,205 (“the ‘205 patent”), and 7,426,720 (“the ‘720 patent”) (collectively “the Patents-in-Suit”)."
  • Oracle's patents are unenforceable since a claim wasn't filed within two years of the patent being granted.
  • "The Android Platform, including the Android operating system, the Android Software Development Kit and the Dalvik Virtual Machine, was created independently and without reference to any works protected by the Asserted Copyrights."
  • And third parties could have infringed and Google isn't liable for that.

Google response to Oracle amended complaint

Also: Oracle says Google directly copied Java code: Here's the line-by-line comparison

Topics: Open Source, Google, Legal, Oracle

About

Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and SmartPlanet as well as Editorial Director of ZDNet's sister site TechRepublic. He was most recently Executive Editor of News and Blogs at ZDNet. Prior to that he was executive news editor at eWeek and news editor at Baseline. He also served as the East Coast news editor and finance editor at CN... Full Bio

zdnet_core.socialButton.googleLabel Contact Disclosure

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Related Stories

The best of ZDNet, delivered

You have been successfully signed up. To sign up for more newsletters or to manage your account, visit the Newsletter Subscription Center.
Subscription failed.