...was "both striking and telling", because Android is open source and its code is available for anyone to see.
Pamela Jones, author of the Groklaw intellectual property blog, wrote in a blog post on Tuesday that, unless Oracle "fills in the blanks", the judge could well dismiss that claim.
"The idea in the law is that you have to tell what your claim is, so the other side has a chance to defend itself," Jones wrote. "If you recall, SCO was sanctioned for not telling what it claimed IBM did wrong, so that later when it wanted to add materials, it was not allowed to. The magistrate judge said they were like a store detective grabbing someone leaving the store, claiming they stole something, but not saying what, instead handing the person a catalog and telling them: 'What you stole is in the catalog somewhere, so you find it. You know what you took'."
Jones also highlighted Google's assertion that it "does not receive any payment, fee, royalty or other remuneration for its contributions to the Android Platform", characterising that claim as "a detail that matters in any copyright infringement litigation".
Oracle responded to Google's filing by reiterating its central claims. "In developing Android, Google chose to use Java code without obtaining a licence. Additionally, it modified the technology so it is not compliant with Java's central design principle to 'write once and run anywhere'. Google's infringement and fragmentation of Java code not only damages Oracle, it clearly harms consumers, developers and device manufacturers," the company said in a statement sent to ZDNet UK's sister site CNET News.
The motion to dismiss Count VIII is scheduled for an 18 November hearing.
Oracle's Google suit is not the only Android-litigation that is currently in play. On Friday, Microsoft sued Motorola for patent infringement related to the use of Android in its handsets, and in March Apple sued HTC for patent infringement in its Android and Windows Mobile phones. HTC has since counter-sued Apple.