Mobile
Internet is Wrong: Google Did Not Copy Java Code In Android
It looks like Internet reports that Google had actually copied Java’s code–owned now by Oracle–inside its Android operating system is incorrect. ZDNet discovered that the sensational article published recently by Engadget, which has been since picked up by numerous other tech and gadget blogs, is incorrect.
Acording to ZDNet, the first set of files in question that were examined by Engadget were part of a unit test tool:
There are two sets of files in question. The first set of 7 (PolicyNodeImpl.java, AclEntryImpl.java, AclImpl.java, GroupImpl.java, OwnerImpl.java, PermissionImpl.java, and PrincipalImpl.java) are in the unit test area of the source code tree. As any programmer will tell you, you don’t ship your unit tests with your product. Unit tests are tools used internally to ensure the quality of the software before you ship it.
The second set of files have to do with a pre-packaged audio file:
The second set of 37 files is actually zipped up into one file called MMAPI.zip and tucked away in a directory used for native code audio drivers for one particular type of chip set. Florian really had to go digging for this one. I double-checked the make files and it’s clear this file is not shipped with Android either. Somebody uploaded it by mistake and it should simply be deleted.
It looks like the community and the court will have to do more digging in regards to Oracle’s claim that Google had infringed upon its IP as Engadget’s story did not prove such claims. To find out more about ZDNet’s analysis, you can visit the blog.
Tim Hutchinson
01/22/2011 at 11:22 am
I’d like to note a correction here: The original article is not from Engadget. Engadget picked it up from the blog of Florian Mueller at https://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-evidence-supports-oracles-case.html
Also, Nilay Patel over at Engadget has made a post that talks from the point of view of a lawyer, essentially saying that unit test or not does not matter under copyright law.
Manufactured Houses
01/22/2011 at 11:39 am
The article is awesome. Thanks for the post.
Frank
01/22/2011 at 7:47 pm
thank you for being honest and posting to a well written article. Engadget tries to post more non-sense just because they don’t want acknowledge that they posted bullshit.
Google had Oracle code in their code tree, they changed the headers. No one denies this. However, Android doesn’t uses this code, no officially build does use this code. So the code, which was a public available code, was there by accident. Oracle can’t claim license fees for something which doesn’t get used, for something which is publicly available. They can force Google to pay some money for this “error”, one time, with a lot of luck and a corrupted judge, but that’s all.
Frank
01/22/2011 at 7:47 pm
thank you for being honest and posting to a well written article. Engadget tries to post more non-sense just because they don’t want acknowledge that they posted bullshit.
Google had Oracle code in their code tree, they changed the headers. No one denies this. However, Android doesn’t uses this code, no officially build does use this code. So the code, which was a public available code, was there by accident. Oracle can’t claim license fees for something which doesn’t get used, for something which is publicly available. They can force Google to pay some money for this “error”, one time, with a lot of luck and a corrupted judge, but that’s all.