Oracle says Google directly copied Java code: Here's the line-by-line comparison
Summary: Oracle amended its Java complaint against Google over Android patent infringement and provided line-by-line comparisons in its exhibits.
Oracle amended its Java complaint against Google over Android patent infringement and provided line-by-line comparisons in its exhibits.
In its tweaked complaint, Oracle ups the ante against Google, who has called the lawsuit baseless. Oracle, which first sued Google over Android in August, said:
In at least several instances, Android computer program code also was directly copied from copyrighted Oracle America code. For example, as may be readily seen in Exhibit J, the source code in Android’s “PolicyNodeImpl.java” class is nearly identical to “PolicyNodeImpl.java” in Oracle America’s Java, not just in name, but in the source code on a line-for-line basis.
Indeed, if you look at those exhibits the lines of code are identical.
The amended complaint and Oracle's key exhibits are embedded below via Scribd. Judge for yourself.
The complaint:
And the key exhibits:
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback
out of my depth here but...
oh and side note. interesting to see this case wake up again. Oracle sure is going gung ho on their lawsuit bit.
RE: Oracle says Google directly copied Java code: Here's the line-by-line comparison
I don't think Oracle had any real choice here - they have to protect their IP. I don't actually like it, but I can see that if Google's Dalvik becomes more popular than JRE then Oracle's investment in Java is compromised.
If this is true that Google just used Oracle's code then I can't see Google being able to defend that. I'm sure deep in the Googleplex some engineers are probably scrambling to create clean re-implementations of the affected code - maybe this won't go anywhere.
I don't think Google can afford to lose this, though it does make you wonder why Google didn't buy Sun Microsystems when they could... ?
RE: Oracle says Google directly copied Java code: Here's the line-by-line comparison
Ultimately, this hurts Oracle. But it doesn't matter to Oracle. They are safely off in their own little bubble and it seems acceptable to them to completely disregard everyone except people shoving cash into their furnace. Oracle is probably mighty upset that Sun released Java under GPL before selling the company and they are likely trying to reign it back under their control even if it means they drive away every single non-paid user. My experience is that Oracle has zero consideration for non-paying customers (e.g. even someone who bought something dreadfully expensive from them and failed to maintain expensive and unnecessary contracts) and is very, very controlling of its customers (unfortunately, I am now one of those customers and have felt the impact of other decisions they've made that has hurt Sun customers).
RE: Oracle says Google directly copied Java code: Here's the line-by-line comparison
This shows you need some basic education on open source licensing. Sun (previous owner of Java) opened up Java to anyone who wanted to use it, for FREE, as long as they published any improvements and changes. IF they made no changes, they were still able to use it FOR FREE.
Understand?
So, Google copying the code was REQUIRED. You have to copy first before use, you have to copy first before making any changes.
ORACLE, the new owner of Sun, does not like that Sun open sourced Java. How are they going to make money off it? Well.... the horse has left the barn.
But, if Oracle can spread enough FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) about using Java for free, they can extort money out of companies to PAY to use Java, even though they don't have to.
Microsoft has used this tactic to make some Linux companies pay for Windows license. Just In Case. It's insurance against being sued.
There are a couple of exceptions in Sun's open source license and ORACLE, the new owner, is pursuing that angle -- trying to prove that even though Java is open source, that Google's use falls under the monetary licensing plan.
But your comments that Google can't defend copying OPEN SOURCE java code is laughable. It's supposed to be copied.
RE: Oracle says Google directly copied Java code: Here's the line-by-line comparison
RE: Oracle says Google directly copied Java code: Here's the line-by-line comparison
RE: Oracle says Google directly copied Java code: Here's the line-by-line comparison
RE: Oracle says Google directly copied Java code: Here's the line-by-line comparison
The code is not the same...
If you look closely at the example you can see that it was not simply "copied". Yes, they use the same variable names but there is a lot of difference in the code.
Oracle, go and F*** yourself!!! This is all nonsense.
@prof123
Do you think Google should be able to simply steal others work? This goes for Apple, MS or any large company. Not knowing the licensing of the specific files (but knowing Oracle knows IP law 100 times better than Google...) there is no way this is a clean room implementation.
RE: Oracle says Google directly copied Java code: Here's the line-by-line comparison
I disagree with Oracle about the patents since it would be impossible to have open source if someone accused you of violating the patents for using the open source contains. Enforcing the patents makes open source meaningless.
RE: Oracle says Google directly copied Java code: Here's the line-by-line comparison
This is an obvious decompiling of Oracle code. That's why field names are kept, that's why parameter and variable names are generated, loops and conditionals transformed, private constant always inlined (but declaration nevertheless kept) and some gratuituous return statements appear where a human programmer would be very unlikely to use them.
Refactored
That said, the original code is under a GPL license... who would think that above copying if the intent was another open source project?
RE: Oracle says Google directly copied Java code: Here's the line-by-line comparison
"Community source", not open source
RE: Oracle says Google directly copied Java code: Here's the line-by-line comparison
Sun actually open sourced Java years ago, so yes they can change the code for their own use. As long as they give it back to the community.
No...
RE: Oracle says Google directly copied Java code: Here's the line-by-line comparison
Which is a 100% contradiction to the GPL v2, which the code was simultaneously licensed under...so which one counts?
RE: Oracle says Google directly copied Java code: Here's the line-by-line comparison
1. It meets the Java standard set by Sun.
2. That you use the Sun Java Run Time.
Google meets nether of those standards.
Google will say that hey we are not actually using Java, that they are just allowing people to write in Java and then convert it to run in Dalvik. But with this evidence it looks as if Google is using more Java then they let on.
RE: Oracle says Google directly copied Java code: Here's the line-by-line comparison
At least Microsoft's implementation allowed Sun's Java implementation to run, it defined incompatible extensions (a deliberate ploy to fracture Java in those early days).
Google's implementation utterly incompatible, Oracle's (formally Sun's) implementation of Java doesn't run, and code produced for Dalvik doesn't run on a bona fide JRE. Why anyone is surprised Oracle have taken exception I cannot understand. Sun took Microsoft to court to protect Java. Oracle have to take Google to court to protect Java now.
It seems so simple.