Sun CEO Explicitly Endorsed Java's Use In Android 204
An anonymous reader writes "ZDNet writes: 'If you believe Oracle's patent lawsuits against Google for its use of Java in Android, Google has stolen not just patented ideas but directly copied Java code. In short, Google is a red-handed thief and should pay Oracle over a billion in damages. There's just one little problem with this portrayal of Google as an intellectual property (IP) bandit. When Android first came out, Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz, then Java's owner, greeted the news with 'heartfelt congratulations.' Whoops.'"
Won't stop Oracle (Score:2)
As they saying goes, never let the truth get in the way of a good story!
If there's a financial gain to be made, and the judge seems to think that Oracle at least have some legitimate claim deep within their case, then this won't change much.
Re:Won't stop Oracle (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if that side of things pans out, though, it certainly makes it a bit harder to make the argument that Google was willfully infringing(which would potentially up the damages significantly), since that isn't exactly the sound of a CEO who is getting willfully-infringed upon...
Re:Won't stop Oracle (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be amazed if the CEO of Sun, the company that created and owned Java at the time didn't actually know what strain of Java or what Google had done to Java in Android.
Re: (Score:3)
It is quite relevant unless Oracle can SHOW that Schwartz was being deceived at the time. Otherwise you don't get to flip-flop and sue someone for an action you endorsed at the time.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
100% crap. MSFT was trying to co-opt the entire language by using their monopoly clout. Google just forked.
Put another way, MSFT was trying to push their changes to affect the master, upon which all future pulls would inherently be affected by what they wanted/controlled.
Google just did a pull into a separate branch. No affect to the Java master.
Re: (Score:2)
100% crap. MSFT was trying to co-opt the entire language by using their monopoly clout. Google just forked.
Dalvik is purportedly a clean-room implementation of a Java interpreter, not a fork of existing code.
Re: (Score:2)
Dalvik is not a "Java interpreter". It does not load Java .class files or work with JVM bytecode.
Re: (Score:3)
There exists a tool - IKVM - that can take a Java .class file, and spit out an equivalent .NET assembly (of course, it also provides a class library for all the missing Java classes). If you take Mono (or any other CLR implementation), and create a fork that includes said tool, then, by your argument, this would prove that Mono is a "Java interpreter"?
I've heard that some guys are doing a tool that takes Java and converts it to LLVM bitcode. Does the existence of such a tool make LLVM a JVM?
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder why Microsoft doesn't include something like it with their .NET Runtime so that you could run .NET and Java applications without having to install two pieces of software?
Maybe because Microsoft sees Java as a technology competing with .NET, and does not want to help it?
I don't know if you ever noticed, but Visual Studio, up to version 2005, had this thing called "Visual J#". This was actually a Java-to-MSIL compiler (directly from source code, not from Java bytecode). Not a fully conformant implementation of Java - mind you, it was never advertised as such, MSJVM lesson learned - but it was there; advertised as a tool to "enable easier migration from Java to .NET". It's gon
Re: (Score:2)
"Hell just change the names in the papers and the lawsuits read the same, the only difference is the fanboi love for the latter company"
Well, and apart from the minor fact that the Sun-Microsoft case was an antitrust complaint, and the Oracle-Google case is a patent/IP infringement case?
Come on, you're usually smarter than this. Microsoft wanted to kill Java because it feared it'd make it easier for software to be developed for non-Microsoft platforms and would hence harm their domination of the desktop. Go
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it reads the same then Oracle should lose.
The problem Microsoft had was that they made changes from what Sun called "Java" AND Microsoft still tried to call it Java. That they can not do.
Google is a fork. It is Java, but by a different name. Now there may still be legal problems, but they are not the same problems that Microsoft faced. Microsoft signed a contract stating that what they made was Java and was sanctioned by Sun as such. Once they went off reservation that was no longer true and Sun had the
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument would hold more weight if Oracle was actually trying to protect the purity of Java, and not just grab for money.
Sun actually had an interest in Java. Oracle doesn't, except as a milking cow. When they try to milk everyone who has ever ridden the cow, not only does my analogy fall apart, but Oracle stirs up animosity.
Re:Won't stop Oracle (Score:4, Insightful)
MSFT rips off Java and creates a "kinda sorta Java" which they will use their large base to snatch control away from Java? BOOO. Google rips off Java and creates a "kinda sorta Java" which they will use their large base to snatch control away from Java? YAAY!
You should have gone with a more appropriate nick along the lines of hairyfootinmouth.
Google didn't "rip off" Java any more than C++ ripped off C, and the Dalvik VM is not competing with Oracle's Java. Oracle is claiming patent and copyright infringement. And Microsoft took Java and wanted to change it in ways that made it incompatible with the "real" Java, using their monopolistic hold on the PC operating system arena to ensure their dominance. You are comparing apples to orangutans.
Judging from the ignorance and idiocy of your post, it looks like you were simply trying to take a few jabs at Android users or looking for an excuse to use the word "fanboi" a couple times for no apparent good reason. It's also ironic that you belittle Google "fanbois" yet have a GMail address.
But IMHO being a douche is being a douche...
Pot, meet kettle.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the day, Microsoft took the Java spec, implemented it, and then added extra features on top. So apps written for a different JVM would run on MS JVM, but apps written to use the extra features of MS JVM (e.g. delegates) would not run anywhere else. And then called the result "Microsoft Java Virtual Machine". Sun rightfully took offense at that, because "Java" is their trademark, and they license its use under fairly strict terms, which specifically require that spec is implemented in full, and no la
Re: (Score:2)
But your honor, he maintains that at the time he said it he had his fingers crossed! [facebook.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Even if that side of things pans out, though, it certainly makes it a bit harder to make the argument that Google was willfully infringing
It doesn't mean that at all. Unless his statement is something like, "After a careful technical review to find Dalvik does not infringe any of our patents, I find Google's adoption of Java as their development language to wonderful for the Java and Android communities.", this is a complete fanboy story. It absolutely zero to do with anything.
Bluntly, unless they can prove such a statement was backed by some type of patent review or technical analysis, it means absolutely nothing. Nada. Zero. Now that doesn'
Re: (Score:3)
I take it you're not familiar with estoppel.
I am - which is exactly my point. Seems you're not familiar with intelligence. As I originally stated, his statement doesn't mean shit unless you're a complete fucking idiot. It can ONLY have legal implications IF they can prove he made those statements with full technical knowledge of patent and technical implications.
Considering no such assertions have been made, its complete safe to say you're talking out of your ass. Thanks for once again verifying this is slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that his statements had to do with Google using "Java" not "Dalvik". Sun's patent statement with relation to Java is quite clear that you have to have a conforming J2SE implementation or you don't get the patent grant. Some offhand statement by Scwartz doesn't nullify that.
Re:Won't stop Oracle (Score:4, Informative)
The University of Oregon has been able to show a picture of Walt Disney shaking hands with the president of UofO, and mentioning in an article how he liked the mascot (which was based on Donald Duck) to settle a lawsuit from Disney on infringement.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think it's tenuous at all. Lots of projects by lots of companies use Java; this is nothing new. Sun could praise any number of them, but it just so happens that Android / Java is high profile, so they chose to praise that one particular project. That doesn't mean they were aware and sanctioned copyright infringement on any particular piece of code. Java comes with a license, and it's not unreasonable to think that Schwartz would make a public statement of support under the assumption that Google was
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Won't stop Oracle (Score:5, Interesting)
If commentary on Groklaw [groklaw.net] concerning this very subject is any indication of probably outcome, then the case is pretty much already lost because of the doctrine of estoppel. It basically says "we were encouraged and supported in this route by the owners of Java and it became what it became in part because of that. You can't take that back now just because there are new owners." Permission to do what Google has done has already been given before Oracle took over. It seems unjust and childish somehow that it would be possible for new owners of something to step in and suddenly evict others from their intellectual property after they have been homesteading for so long.
The doctrine of estoppel defence is just one of Google's defences in this case, of course... Google will also, as much as possible, render as much of Oracle's IP useless in the process of defending their case. Oracle's arrogant aggressiveness, I hope, will result in a very humbling experience for them and give pause to anyone who wishes to assert software patents in court. The more frequently software patents are invalidated, the less likely new ones are to be approved in the future... and I pray that one fine day, they are simply dropped from the list of things that can be patented entirely.
Re:Won't stop Oracle (Score:5, Insightful)
If commentary on Groklaw concerning this very subject is any indication of probably outcome, then the case is pretty much already lost because of the doctrine of estoppel.
That is interesting. If this is a valid defense then I wonder why we also find warnings on Groklaw to avoid Mono because of patent concerns. Surely the same doctrine would cover Mono even more than this case, because Microsoft have been way more enthusiastic a simple press release.
Re:Won't stop Oracle (Score:4)
Google has deep pockets and lots of lawyers to defend themselves against Oracle. And even if Google loses this lawsuit, they're able to find the $100 million or so that they need to pay Oracle down the back of the couch.
Mono doesn't have deep pockets and lots of lawyers. A patent lawsuit from Microsoft against Mono would be devastating, win or lose.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not going to happen. People keep hoping that it does to fit their old, draconian image of Microsoft.
Microsoft wants people developing in C#. It helps them. It's not like that 1% is going to even affect them. Mono is a surprisingly good platform that Linux zealots blindingly refuse to use just because it has links to Microsoft. I would be far more afraid to use any variant of Java than I would to be using any variant of .NET. And I say that as a day-to-day, primarily Java developer.
Good luck suing someo
Re: (Score:2)
The warning is there because Microsoft can still choose to screw you over for using Mono. You may have an excellent defense (maybe a more substantial one than Google's) and you may win the case, too, but unless you have your own legal teams that get paid whether they're busy or not, you're going to get bankrupted in the process, while Microsoft buys your IP at the fire sale.
Re: (Score:2)
1) everybody at the bar saw this,
2) the next day told her friends what a wonderful time you had,
3) You continue a happy relationship for 3 years
and then shortly after attending some religious revival, she can declare that you raped her 4 years ago?
And yes, my analogy is about the right one.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to work in Sweden...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Won't stop Oracle (Score:5, Interesting)
Week of wait + public telling of how great he was in bed on the internet the day after + saving a used condom for a week.
Personally I WTF:d at the condom. That thing must have smelled wonderful when she took it out at police station. Tells a lot about woman's personality that she actually saved that used condom for a week.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Won't stop Oracle (Score:5, Funny)
I personally keep my used condoms in the freezer, it is eaiser on the nose that way.
I think you're doing it wrong, they don't go on the nose.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Last year the license fee for this technology was $0.
This year the license fee for this technology is $1 Billion.
Re: (Score:2)
google developed their own thing. coincidentally it is identical to java. therefore no license fee owed.
Re: (Score:3)
How do you spell "estoppel"? (Score:2)
Is Fanfare a legal agreement? (Score:4, Interesting)
Definitely puts Oracle in an difficult position but does the current owner of a company assume the liability of "word-of-mouth" statements by a former owner? What's more, are they actually a legal binding agreement? I like Oracle about as much as I like Microsoft and Apple, but it seems to me that what it comes down to is Google would need to produce an actual legal document signed by Sun to make anything matter out of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is Fanfare a legal agreement? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not nearly as good as a real patent license, but if you encourage someone to do something and then sue them for it, they can argue "detrimental reliance", that you had suggested it was fine for them to do something and they had relied on that representation--- and therefore, even if the use turned out to be unauthorized, it might not be equitable to allow damages to be collected in that case.
Contract Law (Score:3)
When in the past I have addressed customers as a director, I have always been careful to state that either no oral comments I made would be legally bind
No, but it isn't irrelevant either (Score:3)
Statements matter in court. You can't go and say one thing, and then act in an opposite manner and expect a court to be ok with that, particularly when you are talking damages. So no, this won't make everything go away, if it would have it probably would have already gone away. But it does weaken Oracle's case.
Oracle's argument is basically that Google is evil, stole their tech, and owes them a bunch of damages because of that. Google is trying to show that isn't the case. things like this help.
Also somethi
Part of Google's defence (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So, this is not a new development and unlikely to change anything.
The Assclown vs. Google legal proceedings haven't progressed far enough for summary judgements, which is when I expect this to be used. This is something that would cause any sane legal system to stop in its tracks and dismiss the case with prejudice.
Re: (Score:2)
Never was a fan of java and would gladly abandon MySQL for PostgreSQL if it meant a decent open VM program...
Not much differently than MS (Score:2)
Amongst our weaponry are... (Score:3)
Estoppel by deed (often regarded as technical or formal estoppels)—Where rules of evidence prevent a litigant from denying the truth of what was said or done
Estoppel by silence—Estoppel that prevents a person from asserting something when he had the right and opportunity to do so earlier, and such silence put another person at a disadvantage.
Laches—estoppel in equity by delay. Laches has been considered both a reliance-based estoppel, and a sui generis estoppel.
With apologies to Cardinal Fang.
Sigh. Enough already (Score:2)
That's clearly bullshit, because ideas aren't patentable. Implementations of ideas, i.e. inventions, are. Expressions of ideas, e.g. novels, artwork aren't - but they can be copyrighted.
Not the whole story (Score:5, Interesting)
It's unfortunate that Schwartz's blog is gone, and that ZDNet didn't drill down a little more carefully to check dates on things. I was working with Sun on the java.net site at the time, through a contract with O'Reilly. As I recall, the story is actually somewhat worse. The rumor mill reported that Android would be using Java, and Schwartz went off half-cocked and praised Google for the "Java/Linux platform". Writing for java.net [java.net], I said "But I didn't end up putting this on the front page, because I just couldn't source the Java angle well enough (no offense, Jonathan, but you did say ZFS would be on Leopard...)." (that's the current editor's headshot on the page, not me, BTW).
Not too much later, Google laid out the details of Android, including the Dalvik VM, which meant that Google was only using Java the language (which it didn't have to license) and not Java the VM (which it would have had to). What I heard through the back channel was that Sun was pissed, believing it had been stabbed in the back. This made for a very awkward scene at Sun's mobile-focused "ME Developer Days" a few months later in January 2008: the Sun people had clearly been told to not talk about Android or acknowledge it in any way, which led of a few awkward moments of dancing around the elephant in the room. The first night of the conference, the Java Posse stopped by for dinner, and upon seeing Dick Wall (who at that time worked at Google), the first thing I said to him was "man, are they pissed at you guys."
Relevant dates and links:
Anyways, assuming my recollection of events and this timeline is accurate, Schwartz's blog should not be taken as an indication that Sun knew about and approved what Google was doing with Android. What it does prove is what a lot of people knew then but wouldn't say: Schwartz was a clueless loud-mouthed buffoon who happily fiddled away on his blog as SUNW burned.
Re: (Score:2)
These two, kind of, contradict each other. But maybe Schwartz knew more than Google was willing to disclose.
While a congratulatory blog post is embarrassing.. (Score:2)
Does Goggle have a written document giving them explicit permission to use the patents in question? I mean the thoughts of an old CEO may be enlightening about how Sun's CEO felt about Android at the time, but it means nothing since we are talking about a different CEO of a different company. If only Google had some sort of licensing agreement in place to indemnify themselves.
The only damning evidence I see is that Google probably should have presented an offer to Sun's board (and stockholders) to purchase
Paid service agreement for SunFire updates (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In Google's estopel defense, here's the obligatory (Score:2)
Never underestimate the power of the Schwartz!
Ah, sweet justice! (Score:2)
It's so nice to see that after the pony-tailed idiot (Scwartz) destroyed Sun, he's showing up to mess with Oracle.
Honestly, Oracle should have kept him on. They deserve each other.
Re: (Score:2)
The article states that Sun was supporting Android with development tools in NetBeans.
Where are they then?
At the top of Oracle's "Can this project and hide it for ever" list made when they brought Sun.
Really? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I must be imagining things, then. Because I could have sworn that there are Android projects in my NetBeans projects folder. Ho hum.
That's interesting, especially if they are samples provided by Oracle
Re: (Score:3)
... and privately Sun notified Google they would need to license it.
Citation needed. As far as I know Sun did not ask for any licensing until they were brought by Oracle, which was much later than the statement of congratulations. This is why the article says the principle of estoppel (you can't imply that something can be used for free then charge) might apply.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, twice can't just be a typo. "Brought" is not the same word as "bought".
I gave up on trying to correct the internet a few years ago, and even on Slashdot for a while. But seriously, if you're using words like "estoppel", you should know the difference between bought and brought.
Yes, I'm not in a good mood today.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, twice can't just be a typo. "Brought" is not the same word as "bought".
I gave up on trying to correct the internet a few years ago, and even on Slashdot for a while. But seriously, if you're using words like "estoppel", you should know the difference between bought and brought.
Yes, I'm not in a good mood today.
I'm slightly dyslexic. I know when to use cut and paste (for words like estoppel), but other words catch me out, particularly homophones - which bought and brought are in my non-rhotic accent.
And yes I coppied and pasted "homophone"
Re: (Score:2)
And yes I coppied and pasted "homophone"
<like>
Re: (Score:2)
And yes I coppied and pasted "homophone"
<like>
At least he didn't accidentally type "homophobe".
Re: (Score:2)
No they aren't. The rhotic/non-rhotic distinction applies to an r following a vowel, not before it.
Re: (Score:2)
No they aren't. The rhotic/non-rhotic distinction applies to an r following a vowel, not before it.
Meybe its my idiolect then. I do understand the difference between the concepts of "to buy" and "to bring" though.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, twice can't just be a typo. "Brought" is not the same word as "bought".
I gave up on trying to correct the internet a few years ago, and even on Slashdot for a while. But seriously, if you're using words like "estoppel", you should know the difference between bought and brought.
Yes, I'm not in a good mood today.
I'm slightly dyslexic. I know when to use cut and paste (for words like estoppel), but other words catch me out, particularly homophones - which bought and brought are in my non-rhotic accent.
And yes I coppied and pasted "homophone"
from where? and how did you get there without typing the word?
Re: (Score:2)
You can type misspelled words into Google, and it will suggest what it thinks you mean. He might have done that:
Google search: http://www.google.com/search?&q=homofone [google.com]
The top item is "Did you mean homophone"?
Re: (Score:3)
... and privately Sun notified Google they would need to license it.
Citation needed. As far as I know Sun did not ask for any licensing until they were brought by Oracle, which was much later than the statement of congratulations. This is why the article says the principle of estoppel (you can't imply that something can be used for free then charge) might apply.
How about an article [slashdot.org]? Or Google's own lawyers saying that Sun offered to license Java to Google for $100 million, which is now part of the court record for the very case we're discussing, admitted as point of fact by the defendants attorneys?
Re: (Score:2)
Schwartz offered a public "congratulations" and privately Sun notified Google they would need to license it.
You'd think the article would mention that if it were true, so: "Citation needed..."
Re: (Score:2)
Because paying off patent trolls is distasteful - but it can be cheaper, quicker and easier than fighting them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You make no sense. Android is a much more open platform than Oracle-owned Java will ever be.
Re: (Score:2)
You make no sense. Android is a much more open platform than Oracle-owned Java will ever be.
Except when the company refuses to give us the source code [arstechnica.com].
With JavaSE, I can get the source code to the current Java version at any time, under the GPLv2 license from the Mercurial repository on the OpenJDK site [java.net]. It's JavaME that's the problem there, because it's intentionally being withheld.
(JavaEE is being ignored here, as it's just a set of standards that has about 10 different implementations, half of which are open source).
Re: (Score:2)
He hopes Oracle hurts them so they fight. It's like the principle of adding an adjuvant to a vaccine - you irritate the immune system enough to notice the antigens you introduced. Then it constructs a viable defence and makes sure they never come back.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, your post was rather convoluted. I tried to make sense of it briefly, but then assumed that it was just trolling due to all the "Go Oracle!" stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
i'd love it if google buys ALL patents that exist. then it would just hold 'em and buy up any new patents too.
Re: (Score:2)
It's nice when a company values principles over money. It's nice when someone stands up to the bully.
Like you say, they're probably in the right legally.
Thumbs up to Google. They're one of the few mega-companies that I still respect, and whose products I still want to use.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps. On the other hand, the company they're betting isn't Google. It's all the companies selling Android devices that will have to basically start from scratch if there is an injunction....
Re: (Score:2)
Is it wise to cave, though?
Bearing in mind that a number of handset manufacturers are already paying a significant chunk to Microsoft for infringing Microsoft's patents, if Google were obliged to charge handset makers a "patent license fee" for every device they ship (which I can well see being the only practical way of recouping this sort of cost), Android suddenly looks like a very expensive platform.
Re: (Score:2)
...but I'm surprised that Google seems to be in 'bet the company' litigation over this... $100million bucks for billions in return seems like a small price to pay.
You're right. Patent litigation almost always ends up with some kind of royalties settlement.
When it goes to court, usually it just means the defendant believes that the patent owner is demanding much more than the patent is worth. As weaknesses of the patent claim become exposed during trial, some of the monetary risk gets transferred from the defendant onto the claimant. As soon as one of the parties feels that the risk is not worth it anymore, they take the current settlement offer.
In this case, we
Re: (Score:2)
Google is in the software industry. If you are involved in the software industry or you're a customer of the software industry, then software patents are a parasitic drag on your business. This shit is a threat to everyone.
Even Oracle programmers themselves could be unwittingly violating a hundred patents every day, and all it takes is for someone to notice, and decide to not settle for cross-licensing. Pretending this isn't a complete scourge on society seems short-sighted, but maybe Oracle doesn't see
$3,141,592.65 (Score:2)
Until Oracle puts an irrational number on the table, I think g.co will keep up the good fight.
Re: (Score:3)
All true computer users who are awesome like me prefer programs writtin in LISP because these progems tend to be toring complete and therefore moreuseful mand robust intheir architechters than scripting languigis like JaVa!!!
And if you code like you type, You will sound like you have a lisp.
Re: (Score:2)
Then use Clojure! I'm sure it can compile to Dalvik too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That's why he used OR instead of XOR. ;)
Re:Fuck Oracle! (Score:4, Informative)
No, they killed Open Solaris.
Despite all the things Oracle has done wrong, dropping Open Solaris was probably a good idea. Unless they had some big idea on how to make using Open Solaris less painful than stabbing oneself repeatedly with sharp objects, which I doubt they did. I'm using Open Solaris for a ZFS / Samba file server, but even if I wanted to do almost the same thing again I'd pick almost any other OS. It's a pain to admin, doesn't make sense, and is just downright unpleasant to work with. Only reason I've not abandoned it is the file server is actually working properly for now at least. From a performance standpoint, it's actually doing a fairly good job, I just never want to touch it again.
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to stay away from Solaris 11 then...
Re: (Score:3)
I'm just curious, what is your opinion on AIX compared to Solaris?
In my experience, AIX makes Solaris look like user-friendly land.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wait, nevermind, I just noticed that you said Open Solaris. Oops :)
Re: (Score:3)
OpenSolaris was still Solaris... not too different from Solaris 10 with a GNU userland. Comparisons are still valid as far as administration goes.
Re: (Score:3)
HP-UX. Your argument is invalid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Google, which sells its users' eyes (and other personal info) to advertisers, or Oracle, who doesn't sell anything without an humongous price tag?
Cite? I've never seen any evidence -- or even any serious claim -- that Google sells user info to advertisers. Eyeballs, certainly, data, no.
Re:Dalvik VM - clean-room? (Score:4, Informative)
Well there was two issues initially.
First of all, the source file contents/code has nothing to do with patents. A patent with regards to software covers the function of the software, not the code itself. There is no alternate way to describe a function to sidestep a patent. Oracle initially submitted 132 patent claims, and Google brought hundreds of prior art references to counter these. The judge whittled the number of claims down to 3 and allowed Google 8 prior art references, so as to have a more reasonable number of trial claims. Clean room implementation won't sidestep patent infringement. The only outcome is whether, or not, these 3 patent claims are in fact valid. Also Google could potentially get a ruling that this was "willfull" infringement meaning the damages would be increased just by Google knowingly infringing upon said patents.
So the other issue was copyright infringement. The story is that some unit tests to verify whether some given code is compliant/compatible with the Java standard, were accidentally committed to the public Android repository. Sun rightfully had a restrictive copyright on this code, so there is really no question about infringement on this issue. It really doesn't even matter that the code never shipped to a production Android device. Its a clear-cut case of unauthorized re-distribution of copyrighted material. Google couldn't get out of this one, and will pay a minor damages fee. I think the maximum is $30,000 if it was unintentional, or $150,000 if it was willful infringement. Really, this thing happens all the time. Especially within Open Source, infringing parties are given a chance to correct such mishaps before it ever sees a court room. Most of the time this kind of thing is dealt with in an amicable manner, because it rarely is intentional by the infringing party or damaging to the copyright holder.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it's a clean-room implementation, would that make them safe from claims of patent infringement? It ought to work for copyright, but I think they'd have to start proving that the techniques were unpatentable, or something.