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

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.

SHARE:
29

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

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

Talkback

29 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Oracle is going to lose this one.

    Sun released Java under the GPL license in 2007. Anyone is free to modify and/or fork their own version if desired.

    http://www.zdnet.com/news/open-source-java-except-for-the-exceptions/152063

    http://www.zdnet.com/news/sun-picks-gpl-license-for-java-code/150246

    Since the code has been under GPL for the last 3 years, Oracle doesn't really have a case. Sad to see Ellison drag down Oracle to the pits and bury it. I will never support anything Oracle, they are not going to around much longer at this rate.
    linux for me
    • RE: Google: We didn't infringe on Java; Oracle's smoking code was rigged

      @linux for me This is very true. Google could copy as much of java as they want. Because it was gpl. And as long as they release the source (and they did) there should be no issues.
      Jimster480
    • RE: Google: We didn't infringe on Java; Oracle's smoking code was rigged

      @linux for me first Android heavily uses harmony, which was started BEFORE Java became GPL. Second changing a license for a source code from GPL to APACHE, making it like it is your own, is illegal, even with GPL.
      atari_z
  • RE: Google: We didn't infringe on Java; Oracle's smoking code was rigged

    Google apperantly thinks that adding commentary and chaning spacing/returns makes source code different.

    Programmers still know that the code is copied. There is no doubt about that.
    IE9
    • RE: Google: We didn't infringe on Java; Oracle's smoking code was rigged

      @IE9
      Indeed.
      NoAxToGrind
      • Care to look

        @NoAxToGrind If you people cared to look at the actual code below the header you would see that it is indeed different.

        Now we find out that before Oracle's creative editing it differed even more.

        Clearly Android is a huge competitive threat to these big companies and they can't find legitimate ways to control it. So they once again abuse a system which they have largely corrupted in an attempt to stop it.

        It won't work this time.
        Tim Patterson
      • For people who don't do code, it is different

        @Tim Patterson For the average person, the code will look different. For a REAL developer, the code looks refactored.

        Refactored code is code that was copied, then the name of variables changed to make it look different. But the key to see this is that the code show an exact order of definition and implementation.

        Changing a the names of variables and replacing well written for loops with dumb azz do-while loops is just refactoring. A different implementation would show differences in initialization and order of execution.
        wackoae
    • RE: Google: We didn't infringe on Java; Oracle's smoking code was rigged

      With regards to @IE9's comment, taking a look at http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/orclcode.png?tag=mantle_skin;content , just a small example of the two identically named files from java vs android, it is interesting to see the identically named, typed, initialized, and ordered, series of variables before the function, then the arguments in the exact order (though the variable names are different), and then the first lines of code appear to be very similar, except for the change in variable names.
      lwvirden
      • That is called refactoring

        @lwvirden The biggest clue is that the PRIVATE methods are the same, with the same basic signature and logical order.
        wackoae
    • RE: Google: We didn't infringe on Java; Oracle's smoking code was rigged

      @IE9 - It means that Oracle intentionally left out information, germane or not, and represented it as whole and complete. That's not just sleazy, it could be perjury, and it's more than ample reason to summarily dismiss the suit without prejudice (meaning you can't refile), whether Google violate their patents or not.

      And how do "Programmers still know that the code is copied" if they haven't seen a complete copy of the code? It's a good thing you aren't testifying, or you might be in trouble too.
      JoeBob_z
    • RE: Google: We didn't infringe on Java; Oracle's smoking code was rigged

      @IE9

      You confidently proclaim "there is no doubt" in a thread full of very reasonable doubts expressed about your claim.

      The only code that really WAS copied was TEST code. Irrelevant to Oracle's claims.
      mejohnsn
  • Google complains about headers ....

    ... because the "stolen" original was GPL. But last a I checked, Google is not allowed to change a GPL header with an Apache license.<br><br>No matter how you look at it Google got caught with their hands on the cookie jar. For crying out loud, they have TEST classes that are named exactly the same (w/ the exact same methods and sequential implementation) as test classes in the Java source code.<br><br>BTW: If Google did nothing wrong, how come they are now saying that any infringement will have to be covered by the developers?? See this link:<br><a href="http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/367811/google_third_parties_liable_java_infringement_us/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/367811/google_third_parties_liable_java_infringement_us/</a>
    wackoae
    • And this is surprising why?

      Google has a demonstrated history of unethical behavior ranging from packet sniffing open wi-fi to capturing and storing data from unsecured networks to manipulating wireless spectrum auctions to their advantage to willful copyright infringement of printed works. Why are we surprised they steal software?
      frgough
      • RE: Google: We didn't infringe on Java; Oracle's smoking code was rigged

        @frgough

        Don't know why so many people focus on the wifi sniffing incident.

        Google started off as a better search engine than Yahoo. But, in order to make money from it, they learned to scrape information from searches so as to build profiles of their users and target them for advertising. That was the first step in a long line of stealing user information in so many ways. The worst are Gmail and the flood of scripts that so many people attach to their web pages (ie google-analytics and the like).

        Naturally they have no compunction about stealing other people's IP to build more spyware such as Android and Chrome.

        Nothing from Google, since the first search engine has been original, or "not evil".
        jorjitop
      • RE: Google: We didn't infringe on Java; Oracle's smoking code was rigged

        @frgough Aren't your first two points the same point? packet sniffing open networks, storing data from open networks. You don't store the data without sniffing it first... Sheesh. No need to fluff your list, stand with what you've got.
        midenginedrift
      • RE: Google: We didn't infringe on Java; Oracle's smoking code was rigged

        @frgough

        There is nothing unethical about "packet sniffing open wi-fi". IF you broadcast it, I have the natural right to receive and demodulate it. If you forget to encrypt it that is YOUR problem.
        mejohnsn
  • oracle should drop the lawsuit

    and apologize to the FOSS community.
    They should also grant big bucks for OSS projects to clean the shameful claims!
    Linux Geek
    • Apologize for not wanting Google to steal its product?

      What are you smoking?
      Michael Alan Goff
      • RE: Google: We didn't infringe on Java; Oracle's smoking code was rigged

        @goff256 what about the fact that Oracle introduced something into a legal court case that wasnt even EXACTLY what google used? regardless of what google has done outside of the court, Oracle screwed the pooch on this, even if they are in the right, now they look dirty.
        nickdangerthirdi@...
      • I'm not the best when it comes to code

        But that line-by-line makes me think that they -might- have just copied. MAYBE.
        Michael Alan Goff