New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica) [LWN.net]

Ars technica examines some evidence in the Oracle vs. Google lawsuit. "Patent reform activist Florian Mueller has published what he believes to be new evidence of copyright infringement in Google's Android software platform. He has found files in the Android code repository that have Sun copyright headers identifying them as proprietary and confidential. A close look at the actual files and accompanying documentation, however, suggest that it's not a simple case of copy and paste."

to post comments

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 21, 2011 22:58 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (50 responses)

The ArsTechnica article doesn't disprove anything that my blog presents. It just tries to downplay its relevance. That appears to be based, in no small part, on misconceptions concerning copyright law. This quote from the ArsTechnica article is very telling: "the contention that Android itself, in the form that is shipped on devices, is cribbing from J2ME" beecause I never said that (some articles commenting on my findings said so, but I didn't) and because a copyright infringement is a copyright infringement.

Taking proprietary or GPL'd code and putting it under the Apache license can result in all sorts of liability issues if third parties obtain it and build it into products (software, hardware, whatever) in reliance upon the license header.

That's a problem that doesn't go away if such a file isn't shipped in future versions. The latter is just a way to avoid even more damage.

Another thing that doesn't go away is that 7 Java classes were apparently relicensed without the permission of the copyright owner, and the header claims that those were part of an Apache project (not just an Apache license header, but it says that the Apache Foundation grants a license under the ASL etc.).

Getting back to ArsTechnica, this user comment there seems particularly reasonable: "But that lack of care is, itself, an indicator that something may (and I say may as in perhaps) be amiss in the written code-base."

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 21, 2011 23:45 UTC (Fri) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link] (21 responses)

> Taking proprietary or GPL'd code and putting it under the Apache license
> can result in all sorts of liability issues if third parties obtain it and
> build it into products (software, hardware, whatever) in reliance upon the
> license header.

As Ryan Paul writes:

> It's a handful of test cases from an unrelated and publicly available Sun
> reference implementation that got uploaded by accident to AOSP in a zip
> archive supplied by a third party

Nobody is building these test cases into a product. They were supplied by a third party and Google didn't check the license carefully enough before merging.

Google basically re-implemented Java from scratch to try to avoid trademark and patent issues. They did everything they could to make Android really open source, and not under the control of Oracle, themselves, or anyone else.

The fact that you choose to look past all of this and focus on some incredibly obscure potential license violation in some files that don't even ship on a product is-- disappointing, to say the least. A lot of companies that might be considering contributing to open source projects will see posts like yours and think "Gee, I better not get involved in that open source stuff. Lawyer-types like Florian Mueller might come after me."

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 22, 2011 0:14 UTC (Sat) by SEJeff (guest, #51588) [Link] (17 responses)

No, they took Apache Harmony and modified it until it became Dalvik. You're giving entirely too much credit. Also note that all of the "so called" (c) infringing code is completely from Google. The ASF has strongly distanced Harmony from Dalvik due to this case.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 22, 2011 0:54 UTC (Sat) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (16 responses)

Well it's not from Google either.

It's a zip file that was accidentally uploaded to Google's code repository by third parties and was not actually used by anybody for anything.

While it may point to a larger problem of Google's copyright vetting progress it's still pretty fking pathetic to get riled up about.

If this is the best that anybody can come up with then it's pretty obvious that Android code is safe copyright-wise.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 22, 2011 1:47 UTC (Sat) by SEJeff (guest, #51588) [Link]

Ok so even less damning. The only person looking silly from this is Florian. He should write for drudgereport.com.

Shock journalism FTW!

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 22, 2011 2:46 UTC (Sat) by cowsandmilk (guest, #55475) [Link] (12 responses)

you're only talking about half the files. Even the Ars Technica article discusses the other files that appear to be taken from decompiling Sun's Java.

Quoting from Ars:

A close inspection leaves little doubt that, as Mueller alleges, it is decompiler output and that it closely resembles Sun's code. However, it's worth noting that this code isn't actually shipped in Android. The offending code has comment headers indicating that it's part of Apache Harmony, but it doesn't appear to be in the upstream Harmony tree and the Apache Software Foundation has already denied any knowledge about it. It definitely doesn't look good for Google to have this stuff in the Android code repository, but it also doesn't represent the direct copying of Sun code into the shipping Android platform.

Unlike the files in the zip archive, these have had their headers modified, expressing a different license. In the Zip File, as Florian noted, those files had "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL". As this was a zip file that seems to have been unused, it is understandable how this could accidentally be uploaded and sit there. The decompiled files though were actively modified to have a header making it so they looked like they came from Apache Harmony, but, apparently, there are no signs of these files in the Apache Harmony repository. This seems to be a deliberate relicensing of files put into their repository.

Sure, these files were apparently useless test files that were later removed from the repository, but it does not change the fact that there is something fishy going on. I don't believe it should result in royalties going to Oracle for every Android handset, but the incorrect license at the top of these files is bothersome. I wouldn't want someone taking GPL test cases I wrote to verify some protocol and relicensing them, and I'm sure noone else would like that. Feel free to write a BSD program and test its implementation of some spec by using my test cases, but don't relicense my code.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 22, 2011 2:51 UTC (Sat) by cowsandmilk (guest, #55475) [Link] (11 responses)

Quickly glancing at one of Florian's documents shows what is meant. Decompilers don't stick apache licenses at the top or change the package to org.apache.harmony from sun. Should Google be blamed? I have no clue. Those files are in the repo though, and the relicensing is not "accidental".

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 22, 2011 3:55 UTC (Sat) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (10 responses)

Your still heavily misrepresenting what they are.

This post, indicated below by another poster, does a very good job explaining what they are:
http://m.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/oops-no-copied-java-code...

Ultimately what is the copyright violation with those files?

WRONG HEADERS.

Somehow code available under the GPL license got labelled with header indicating a Apache license. It's a f-ing unit test case.

Are you now going to make me point out the numerous copyright violations that Fedora, Debian, Linux kernel, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Apache, and pretty much every other major open source project had at one point or another in it's life?!!

Need I point out Openssl - GPL license conflict? Ongoing, widespread, epidemic, copyright violations that nobody seems to give a shit about... (I certainly don't) but OMG test cases with wrong license header is the sign of the ever living satan that is Google.

This is not people giving a caring about copyright violations. It's not about people sticking up for a 'honorable little guy' Oracle. It's not about being the champion for for Java in the face of a unjust aggressor. This is a witch hunt designed to make Google look bad for personal edification and personal gain. To weaken their public image in the face of a vindictive, petty, and potentially very damage PRO-SOFTWARE-PATENT lawsuit by a entity that is unfortunately playing for the wrong team. It's sick and disgusting behavior and only made worse by the waves of self righteousness pulsating out of the whole wicked affair and every online media outlet.

I certainly don't want people to stop looking for copyright violations in Google's code. This is a extremely important work similar to looking for security bugs. If there is a problem it is in everybody's best interest to bring it to light as quickly as possible so it can be fixed and we can all move on with our lives.

I also wish Mr. Mueller all the success in the world and hope that this does not shrink his desire for activism or to make a impact on the world.....

But there is a little thing called 'moderation' and possibly 'integrity' that is rather important. I am as guilty of anybody as far as being biased, but this is beyond the pale. It's not just what has been said that is the problem, it's how it's been used, misrepresented, and how there is a significant number of people so gleeful over it.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 22, 2011 5:07 UTC (Sat) by cowsandmilk (guest, #55475) [Link] (6 responses)

Where did I say there was something other than wrong headers. I write GPL code. What lets people know how I expect my code to be used? The headers that state it is GPL code and point them to the license.

I honestly don't believe this was the result of anything malicious by the Android team and don't think Oracle should be suing, or should be awarded anything based on the number of Android handsets sold. (In fact, I would be surprised if Google didn't have automated checks to make sure code from OpenJDK and other-licensed Sun tests didn't make it in. And these just made it in because one case was in a zip file, and the checks didn't extract the zip, and the other case was decompiled code that differed sufficiently from the structure of the original source. The second case likely had the apache headers added by another automated process that checked for a license at the top of the file, and added the license they were using for Android if there was none.)

That said, dismissing stuff as "a f-ing unit test case" is nonsense. Writing a full set of test cases for a spec can be difficult. Finding weird edge cases and determining whether the behavior is defined or not isn't trivial. I would argue it is frequently more difficult than the programming I typically spend my time on. For many projects, the lines of test code are much larger than the lines of implementation. If I develop a set of test cases and decide to share them under the GPL, I expect them to be treated the same way as any other program I release under the GPL. I don't mind if you put my test cases in the same repo as your Apache licensed product, but they better keep the GPL headers so that some other company doesn't come along and mistakenly take the testing part of this Apache implementation and start selling a compliance-testing program without providing the source. If the file has the "WRONG HEADERS", I can't easily blame that company, they found the code in a Apache product without any indication that it was licensed differently.

The significance of the code to the intermediary Apache product is irrelevant. Things like these wrong headers (along with other cases of blatant disregard for provenance of code) were the cause of many of the copyright violations that you've alluded to being in major open source products. There was obviously a time when there were lots of weird licenses that people came up with. And people saying "oh, this is basically saying the same thing, we can put it in our project". We now live in a world where if you release a project under a common license, such as GPL, Apache, or BSD, you should be able to reasonably expect the license to be easily understood and not have your code abused.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 22, 2011 5:39 UTC (Sat) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (1 responses)

"If the file has the "WRONG HEADERS", I can't easily blame that company, they found the code in a Apache product without any indication that it was licensed differently."

It's a very safe assumption that the Android team did not find those files in the Apache Foundation's different repositories.

Safe assumptions

Posted Jan 22, 2011 14:25 UTC (Sat) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]

Is it as safe as assuming that nobody ships Android phones with a specific set of unnecessary and irrelevant test cases baked inside them?

Because you refused to accept /that/ supposition without someone meticulously examining every such phone.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 22, 2011 19:32 UTC (Sat) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (3 responses)

> That said, dismissing stuff as "a f-ing unit test case" is nonsense. Writing a full set of test cases for a spec can be difficult. Finding weird edge cases and determining whether the behavior is defined or not isn't trivial.

Yet that is exactly what is NOT going on here. You can go all hand wavy about stuff you worked on in the past and how difficult some portion of it was, but it is far from relevant.

For the unit test cases here Google could of just redownloaded them from Java 6.0 code release, keep the correct headers on them and kept using them. Legally.

> The significance of the code to the intermediary Apache product is irrelevant. Things like these wrong headers (along with other cases of blatant disregard for provenance of code)

Find something that is actually used and shipped with a product then come back.

> There was obviously a time when there were lots of weird licenses that people came up with. And people saying "oh, this is basically saying the same thing, we can put it in our project".

If 'a time' means 'currently' then that would be a correct statement.

> We now live in a world where if you release a project under a common license, such as GPL, Apache, or BSD, you should be able to reasonably expect the license to be easily understood and not have your code abused.

The world your living in is a strange one.

Let me explain something to you on how the real world works:
1) People find problem.
2) People fix problem.

Notice how there is no step 0) or step 3) called 'cause no problems to exist'.

You can continue to ignore what is being said here and continue to ignore what is being said by other people that examine the code. You can continue to ignore the fact that none of it ever actually went into any working product.

You can continue to ignore all that and continue on with your crusade to vilify a company that created one of the most important and significant open source projects of all of history. You can continue support the (illegitimate) case of Oracle, which is aiming to use software patents to destroy the ability for people to use OSS software... OSS software Oracle themselves use. Yeah sure. You know. That Oracle. The Oracle that also says it is illegal to use GPLv2 code on embedded ARM systems because of their patents.

You can continue to ignore all that. But we all know the real reason your doing so and I am finished here.

Come back when somebody actually finds something meaningful.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 23, 2011 16:20 UTC (Sun) by jmalcolm (subscriber, #8876) [Link] (2 responses)

I think that this "evidence" is all probably mountains out of mole hills but this comment, and many others, take a stance that makes no sense to me.

Why do people think that that fact that these files were not "shipped" in Android somehow makes it ok? I will give an example I left elsewhere.

Imagine you create an open-source product for which you make the source available via a Git repository that you host. Now, imagine that you put the source code to Microsoft Windows in a folder somewhere on this repository.

Assume that the Windows code is not part of your build process and is not included in any way in your shipped product. However, the MS code is available via Git to pretty much anybody that wants to come get it. Lots of people do.

Are you in any trouble? My answer: Yes! You are in a heap of trouble.

Now think again about the Google situation.

Now, it may prove that material that Google has distributed is trivial in comparison but I just do not get at all why so many people are portraying it as somehow simply ok. Who cares if it "shipped". The copyrighted materials where "distributed" and that is what matters.

Also, copyright is not patents. It does not matter if the material is "obvious" in your opinion. You might think that "Harry Potter" was a pretty simple idea. That does not give you the right to "distribute" copied Harry Potter text without permission.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 23, 2011 16:49 UTC (Sun) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

The damage from copyright infringement is calculated based on the loss for the party that has been wronged. If code simply exists in a Git server, the severity of the case is much less than if the code was actively shipped and used by millions of people. Furthermore, the functionality of the code and whether it was deliberate infringement or not also matters. I think that's the point others are making as well.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 23, 2011 17:15 UTC (Sun) by jthill (subscriber, #56558) [Link]

the source code to Microsoft Windows

a handful of test cases from an unrelated and publicly available Sun reference implementation

The reality is essentially the latter. Let the lawyers take care of it, it was some lowlife nabbing testcases and such, and it got by their sniff-test.

The report was written as if they did the former, in the face of overwhelming evidence they'd done nothing of the kind. He had just combed the Android repo looking for evidence of perfidy and this was the worst he could find.

If the factual part of every issue he raised is accurate, so what? Google pays an awww-crap-we-goofed penalty and the world goes on, no significant harm done.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 22, 2011 19:07 UTC (Sat) by joey (guest, #328) [Link] (1 responses)

"Need I point out Openssl - GPL license conflict? Ongoing, widespread, epidemic, copyright violations that nobody seems to give a shit about"

Except all the people who do, a small portion of whose work to avoid it can be seen here.

grep 'with the openssl' -i */debfiles/copyright|wc -l
75

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 22, 2011 19:34 UTC (Sat) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

I certainly support fixing problems and can appreciate the work. And note the use of 'seems'. I know that some people do actually care.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 24, 2011 12:04 UTC (Mon) by sorpigal (subscriber, #36106) [Link]

>Are you now going to make me point out the numerous copyright violations that Fedora, Debian, Linux kernel, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Apache, and pretty much every other major open source project had at one point or another in it's life?!!

These things are not comparable because the projects you name are not engaged in multi-million dollar copyright and patent lawsuits. In the FOSS realm we generally assume good faith and, albeit with some flame wars, prefer to simply get mistakes corrected and move on. When Oracle is the complainant the situation is totally different--not legally, perhaps, but in all other important ways.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 22, 2011 16:51 UTC (Sat) by RogerOdle (subscriber, #60791) [Link] (1 responses)

I see a lot of analysis of the headers in particular but I do not see much legal analysis of the situation itself. I see a couple of issues that need to be addressed:

1) How did the files get onto the Google server? Was the access authorized? What is Google's legal responsibility if it was authorized? What is Google's legal responsibility if it was not authorized?

2) Assume for the sake of argument that these are materials that Google does not have a right to. Google did not put those files onto it's servers. The situation is like some stranger parking a stolen car in your driveway. You did not steal the car. How does this effect the legal situation?

3) Did Google ever access the files themselves, other than for legal reasons resulting from their discovery?

4) How is liability shared in an open source project where patches may be posted. They have to be accessed in order to vet them for legal reasons before they are accepted or rejected. Does accessing a copyrighted patch that has not been accepted yet constitute a distribution of copyrighted material? It may but I would call this unintended and therefore not a violation of law if action is taken promptly when the situation is understood.

Anyone with a server with public access storage capability needs to know what their responsibilities and liabilities are. We know there are specific laws regarding the use and accessibility of personal information. What are the responsibilities and liabilities for general file storage and retrieval? Is the file space for an open source project with public access "public property" because it is publicly accessible or "private property"? How does that effect the situation?

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 23, 2011 16:26 UTC (Sun) by jmalcolm (subscriber, #8876) [Link]

Excellent questions. Thank you. I would love to see some investigation and debate around these issues.

More Mueller

Posted Jan 22, 2011 9:52 UTC (Sat) by brianomahoney (guest, #6206) [Link] (1 responses)

As I said after the last Mueller piece, he has a complete right to blog and to get published, he does not have the tright to turn LWN comments into a never ending trollish I said, he said mess.

I for one am fed up with that, others please stop feeding Mueller, perhaps he will go away.

More Mueller

Posted Jan 24, 2011 15:50 UTC (Mon) by RogerOdle (subscriber, #60791) [Link]

Nobody has a complete right to blog. You can not cause harm to someone by lying about them, that is libel. Talking about things that you do not understand and presenting them as facts is a form of lying. This is true even in the rare cases when you might by correct because at the time you made your statement, you did not know if it was true or not. Spreading rumours is evil and should not be done.

What is Florian Mueller doing and why is he doing it? He is not a party to the Google case and can not speak authoritatively on any facts. Is he a lawyer? I think a lawyer would be more careful to check facts before spewing. The bigger question is why did the major news outlets report his accusations without fact checking themselves? They have at least as much responsibility as the blogger.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 22, 2011 23:39 UTC (Sat) by yumyumyum (guest, #72522) [Link]

Never ever try to discuss with Florian Muller. It is a waste of your time. He works for MSFT to spread these rumours. Don't expect his lies to be based on own research and facts. His job is to smear Android and Linux but he is not good at it. He is a lobbyist, he is no lawyer.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 22, 2011 0:48 UTC (Sat) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] (1 responses)

What Ars is pointing out is that, although Florian has found problematic code on the Android site, he hasn't shown that this code is in Android products; evidently the most incriminating-looking copying is test code that isn't part of the shipping product. Someone stripped a license off of some files and put an Apache license on those files instead, but we can't tell from the evidence presented whether that someone works for Google, or whether the code originated somewhere else (Ars points to SONiVOX as a possible surce).

Another issue Ars points out is the use of decompiler output. "Look, it's clearly copied, even the indentation is the same!". The decompiler chooses the implementation, and for small functions, the function's spec might mean that there's an obvious way of writing it.

That doesn't mean that Google didn't cheat; I don't know enough to say.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 22, 2011 11:58 UTC (Sat) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

And given the comments above - that it was uploaded by a third party - I feel that one possible explanation is *deliberate* *skullduggery*.

Namely that said anonymous third party put them on Google's servers with the explicit intention of "finding" them later on ... !!!

Cheers,
Wol

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 22, 2011 0:56 UTC (Sat) by kripkenstein (guest, #43281) [Link] (1 responses)

> Taking proprietary or GPL'd code and putting it under the Apache license can result in all sorts of liability issues if third parties obtain it and build it into products (software, hardware, whatever) in reliance upon the license header.

Doing that could result in massive liability. But, that is not what happened - Google did not put this code under the Apache license:

1. Google did not delete original copyright and licensing texts and replace them with the Apache license.

2. Google does not release Android under the Apache license, simply because that is impossible - a massive part of Android, the Linux kernel, is not Apache licensed. Many other parts are likewise not Apache licensed, and Google has never claimed every file in Android is Apache licensed. What Google has done, is release much of its new code in Android - like Dalvik - under the Apache license, but not even all of Google code in Android has that license (Google modifications to the kernel, for example, are GPLed). So there is no legitimate cause to assume that all files in Android are Apache licensed, as Google never claimed as much.

> a copyright infringement is a copyright infringement.

There are very different kinds. Copyright infringement that causes direct and grievous harm - say, by hacking into a company's servers, copying their code, and using that to copy their business, leading to direct losses - would have far more of an argument for an injunction or monetary compensation, than mistakenly copying a file in a way that does not lead to actual harm.

Of course what Google did (assuming the facts are correct) is illegal and wrong - copying those files was copyright infringement. And if it *does* lead to actual harm, in some unexpected way, it may be greatly liable. For that reason companies try to avoid such mistakes. However, this is still very different from intentional copyright infringement that does cause actual harm. The liability in these files seems very minor.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 23, 2011 16:29 UTC (Sun) by jmalcolm (subscriber, #8876) [Link]

Great comment.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 22, 2011 1:02 UTC (Sat) by boog (subscriber, #30882) [Link] (7 responses)

According to Ed Brunette's article, these particular files were never shipped in Android and could very plausibly have arisen from an innocent mistake by a third party. They represent a tiny, tiny fraction of the Android code base and are of no importance whatsoever. Apparently they have already been removed from the distribution. But Florian's blog breathlessly leads the reader to assume the find is significant:

...while evidence is mounting that different components of the Android mobile operating system may indeed violate copyrights of Sun Microsystems, a company Oracle acquired a year ago.

The thrust of this sentence says that shipping systems violated Oracle copyrights (cf Florian's denial above that he meant anything like that). That's either misleading or an error. He can admit the latter or leave us to deduce the former and speculate on his motivations. Truth - or more sophistry? (I'm trying hard not to trigger our Editor's flame detectors.)

To hurt Google seriously, Oracle need to establish a right to an essential Android component. A few copyrighted files, even if shipped, are unlikely to suffice, since Google would simply reimplement them in some way and pay any fines out of future profits.

Of course, the patent issue is more dangerous. Regarding that, I'll repeat here my hope that Google will be able to get Dalvik into the OIN definition of a "Linux system" (where it would seem a good fit). In that way they could obtain a licence to Oracle's patents, since they are also an OIN licencee. Even better from a copyleft viewpoint would be if Google decided to reimplement Dalvik by deriving it from the GPL Java. I suspect that vendors might look a bit more favourably on a GPL version with the Oracle wolf prowling around outside.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 22, 2011 4:32 UTC (Sat) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (6 responses)

I stand by the claim that "different components [...] of the [OS] may" -- that's not the same as saying "200K devices are activated every day that...".

Those who say no device maker ever built them into a product don't have any evidence. The only evidence would be if they performed clearance for every Android device out there and even for non-Android products, since that code (security stuff in the decompiled files) could, especially where there's a permissive copyright header, have been built into more or less (or even completely) unrelated things if anyone relied on the header.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 22, 2011 9:04 UTC (Sat) by boog (subscriber, #30882) [Link]

I'm pretty sure that the burden of proof will be on Oracle to show that the code shipped!

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 22, 2011 16:57 UTC (Sat) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link] (3 responses)

> Those who say no device maker ever built them into a product don't have any evidence.

I hate to sound insulting, but do you have any idea how insane you sound? This is exactly the same type of argument used by supporters of the paranormal, supernatural, and conspiracy theorists... "You can't definitively PROVE 100% for certain that bigfoot isn't real, so you have to assume he might be!" You need to step back and look at your (lack of) reasoning here, and get a grip on reality... You can't just make up scenarios and accusations in your head, and demand everyone assume they're true, or put the burden on them to disprove them; it's up to YOU to present proof of your own claims first before making them!

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 22, 2011 23:45 UTC (Sat) by yumyumyum (guest, #72522) [Link] (2 responses)

Florian Muller is an attack dog lobbyist. Don't take this guy serious. He has no credibility at all. He repeats his lies and will always have the last word. Just ask him who pays his anti-Linux slurs. It's MSFT!

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 24, 2011 10:29 UTC (Mon) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link] (1 responses)

It's the second time in this thread that you call Mr. Müller a Microsoft shill. Apart from being an obvious _ad hominem_, you include no supporting evidence for your accusations.

On the other hand, have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florian_M%C3%BCller. You will discover he's well known for starting the No Software Patents campaign.

Mr. Müller is well knonw and has a reputation. Can you say the same?

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 24, 2011 18:42 UTC (Mon) by gnufreex (guest, #70396) [Link]

He is a lobbyist and he was hired to start that campaign. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florian_M%C3%BCller#Campaign...

That is what lobbyist do - argue for money. Now he is hired by someone else. Is it Microsoft? He wont tell. Refuses to deny. But he was asked many times. Looking what he does, I say it is pretty obvious that he supporting Microsoft agenda. It doesn't matter who is paying, maybe Gates Foundation, or Microsfot directly. Or maybe he is not paid after all, maybe is some compensation or what not. That all doesn't matter. What matters is that he is pushing Microsoft agenda, and nobody (who is looking closely what he does) can deny that.

That he-was-involved-in-NoSwPats-so-he-is-a-saint defence won't fool anyone who closely tracked what he is doing and saying. He can only fool ignorant folks and shock journalists.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 24, 2011 12:15 UTC (Mon) by sorpigal (subscriber, #36106) [Link]

Spoken like a lawyer. I say this in an attempt to be complementary. It's not important how much this matters, what's important is how much it can be made to sound bad in a court of law.

What commentators need to ask themselves is "If I were an Oracle lawyer, how would I use this to make Google look as guilty (and damaging) as possible?" and then "If I were a Google lawyer, what defense could I use to make this sound *legally* irrelevant?" I'm betting that the Google lawyer doesn't rest on "You can't PROVE that our illegal copying resulted in your copyrighted material on any actual Android devices."

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 23, 2011 22:28 UTC (Sun) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link] (3 responses)

I read your blog post, and I wonder why you would take such an interest in aiding one side in public.

"I have discovered additional material that Oracle might present to the court"

I simply can't figure out why you would choose to get involved into something like that, either way. At best, this seems to be "open" community vs. "open" community, as in Java vs. Android. At worst, you are working to undermine Google, for reasons that are unclear to me.

In any event, I fail to see how any good might come from such a post. "In case you believe I can be of help by drawing attention to such problems on this blog, ..." (yes, in other contexts, I understand that part) ... well, is that your point?

I just wish you had stuck with No software patents, that, at least, was a worthwhile cause. This here? Just weird.

"If you are or become aware of copyright or patent issues that expose developers and users of open source software (Android or other key projects) to a major risk, please talk to the developers so they resolve any such issues at their earliest opportunity" ... one would think you might have taken your own advice to heart ....

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 23, 2011 22:32 UTC (Sun) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (1 responses)

The likelihood that Oracle needed my blog post to find out about those files is extremely low, and in practical terms, non-existent.

When you have a dispute like Oracle vs. Google, you'll see both parties spending MANY millions of dollars, and beyond a huge number of experts they'll use commercial-grade forensic software to identify possible infringements.

In its amended complaint, Oracle said that the file in Exhibit J was just one example of "several" instances of "direct copying". Since the files I found were in an adjacent directory to the one Oracle presented, I really rule out the possibility that they didn't know about those decompiled files.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 23, 2011 22:46 UTC (Sun) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

> The likelihood that Oracle needed my blog post to find out about those files is extremely low, and in practical terms, non-existent.

You obviously don't understand the significance of you blog post(s) in this whole thing. You are creating a perception that:

1. Oracle has a real contribution to claim in Android.
2. Android users/distributors/developers should be fearful.
3. People against software patents are supporting a patent aggressor.

None of the above things are trivial. The are also untrue.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 23, 2011 22:40 UTC (Sun) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

In addition to the answer I just gave, I want to make it very clear that I disagree with Oracle on some issues (such as "open standards"). When Oracle sued Google, I tweeted a link to an Oracle statement from the early 1990's about why software should not be patentable. Also, I fought hard against their acquisition of MySQL.

If it were up to me, not even one of those virtual machine patents would ever have been granted to them. I just try to figure out who's likely to win. I want to understand that, and I want to help people get that information, regardless of personal preferences or popularity considerations.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 24, 2011 2:28 UTC (Mon) by designerfx (guest, #72536) [Link] (11 responses)

this is GPL'd code.

How do we resolve GPL violations again?

please let me remind you Florian - I'll give you a hint, it doesn't require a lawsuit.

Google finds something that it is doing that is in GPL violation, so they remove it, and thus the violation. No lawsuit required.

Meanwhile, the code in question, has already been removed. Thus, the article does indeed completely disprove your blog. Likewise, the GPL violation has been removed.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 24, 2011 2:57 UTC (Mon) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link] (2 responses)

'we' is a rather broad statement. _you_ may not want to take it to court. I certainly wouldn't pursue a court case once Google took corrective action to come into compliance with GPL licensing. Other individual independent open source developers may not feel a lawsuit is still in order once such a violation is addressed in an amicable manner. And I doubt the FSF would take it as far as seeking monetary damages in court either.

But Oracle as a corporate entity may still feel its worth the effort to take this case to court in an effort to win monetary damages from Google. That's the big difference here. This is a corporate entity looking for monetary damages from another corporate entity. The common understood ethics of how GPL violations are meant to be handled inside our very gentlemanly hacker subculture do not apply to large corporate entities. Legal manoeuvring for entities like Oracle is a bloodsport. A bloodsport where the combatants bleed green...the green of $$.

It really doesn't matter if you or I think this is a violation that can be or should be addresses with monetary damage award(such as a per handset royalty.) All that matters is if a judge (I don't think the size of a damage award like this is a jury issue) agrees with Oracle when they make the argument in a court of law. And your nor I, nor most of the assembled lords of geekery here at lwn can say with confidence that when this goes before a judge that they'd come to a conclusion about damages that we find reasonable. But make no mistake, Oracle is definitely going to take the strongest case it can and drag Google into court over copyright violations.

-jef

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 24, 2011 3:14 UTC (Mon) by designerfx (guest, #72536) [Link]

oracle hasn't specified anything in the court case yet. once they do in court, then google has supposed a violation to analyze and/or to cure, and we have something.

until then, there is no proof of an actual violation. Speculations from FM, from anyone included or not, the court case still hasn't actually gone anywhere with the case yet.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 24, 2011 3:19 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

> But make no mistake, Oracle is definitely going to take the strongest case it can and drag Google into court over copyright violations.

Absolutely. Oracle are after lost market here. While old Sun was busy proclaiming how every device on earth and its dog ran Java, Google have done one better on them and now it looks like every device and its dog is going to run Android. Sun's ugly step-dad, Oracle, didn't like that bright Google kid stealing their hard earned monopoly, so, they complained to uncle Sam about it to get some cash.

Innovation in action, eh? :-(

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 24, 2011 7:41 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (7 responses)

You are completely wrong on all counts.

Your claim that it's "GPL'd code" is only partially accurate. Some of the code I identified was never GPL'd. Other is under a permissive license that does, however, have requirements that weren't met. And some of the code is still proprietary.

At least a large part if not all of the code was *obtained* by the Android team on non-GPL terms.

Even though a GPL violation is ideally resolved with an amicable arrangement (source code release etc.), an illegal relicensing from GPL to Apache can have legal consequences beyond just an obligation to accept copyleft in going forward. An infringement is an infringement under the law.

And the code has not been "removed". My follow-up blog post explains this. It was removed only from the source tree for *future* versions. It's still( or still was when I blogged) in the source trees of Android 2.2 (Froyo) and 2.3 (Gingerbread). It's also in the source availability packages of major Android devices such as Galaxy Tab, Droid X, Ally, Optimus. So much for "removal".

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 24, 2011 13:23 UTC (Mon) by designerfx (guest, #72536) [Link] (6 responses)

the code has been removed and it is not being used.

so your comment is moot before it starts.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 24, 2011 13:32 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (5 responses)

It's wrong to say it's been removed. It's still online on the Android source website (Froyo and Gingerbread builds, which are the two most important ones at this stage); it's still online on Motorola's, LG's and Samsung's websites, which are pretty important manufacturers; and who knows where else it is.

"Not being used" -- ask the OEMs who distribute it as part of their official source release packages for devices like the Galaxy Tab, Droid X, Ally, Optimus.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 24, 2011 18:30 UTC (Mon) by designerfx (guest, #72536) [Link] (4 responses)

you are 100% wrong here.

available means you need to look at the people who are using it in the distribution. Google is not responsible for that.

you can put out code for anything, including GPL infringing stuff, but that doesn't mean you are a: inducing infringement (unless proven in court), or b: that you're liable for what *others* do with it.

maybe you don't understand. it's on the device, but it's not being used. Additionally, the headers were simply wrong, and you refused to acknowledge that (and still fail to).

It's being removed from future distribution, and that's the end of google's responsibility. It's up to samsung, or whoever, to remove if it it even matters, or just let it not be included when they move gingerbread downstream, which will happen by default.

thus, you are making a nonexistent issue which is completely moot, sound like an issue, when it is not.

meanwhile, how much of this has been validated by any court?

Let me provide you the amount: zero.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 24, 2011 18:36 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (1 responses)

Let me focus on just one of the things you said: inducing infringement.

Taking code that's under a proprietary license or under the GPL and relicensing it illegally under Apache and publishing the relicensed version for the world to download and use could certainly result in situations (if people download the code and use it in reliance upon the false headers) that would raise liability issues.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 24, 2011 21:34 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

I thought it was now ACCEPTED FACT that Google DIDN'T do that!

Some anonymous coward put it onto Google's servers. It was AC that did what you're claiming.

There's a damn good chance that NOBODY at Google was even aware the stuff was there until you pointed it out to them ... (so they should be thanking you for bringing it to their notice!-)

Cheers,
Wol

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 24, 2011 20:33 UTC (Mon) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link] (1 responses)

I think your interpretation as to what constitutes "inducing infringement" is overly optimistic. I believe past examples of court rulings involving contributor infringement of a website operator as something as innocent as linking to infringing code sitting on another server says, to me at least, that taking a hopeful view that a court of law will make an informed judgement that makes sense in the context of internet cultural norms is not a rational way to approach any potential copyright infringement lawsuit. It's a great way to get your ass handed to you when the company bringing the lawsuit does their dog and pony show in front of the judge and you aren't prepared to strongly push back against their arguments with comprehensive arguments of your own.

This isn't settled law at all and it really comes down to the proclivities of the particular judge presiding over the case and how knowledgeable they are about the technology, the cultural norms and current best practises in the context of the copyright violation being presented. It's simply not prudent to offhandedly discard these copyright violations as inconsequential. If Oracle builds a case that includes these violations as examples, Google will have to be prepared to show with specificity that these violations caused non-material harm to Oracle and that they have been proactive in correcting them as a means to limit any judgement award a judge may give to Oracle. Even then Google may not be able to get out of paying for Oracle's legal fees if the court decided there are violations of a non-material nature.

It would absolutely suck for everyone if Oracle was able to convince a judge that they deserve a payout for violations of this nature. But you can't just assume that's how a court case will go the way that seems sane to the rest of us.

-jef

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 25, 2011 4:17 UTC (Tue) by designerfx (guest, #72536) [Link]

unless a court declares this case as inducing infringement it is nothing but speculation and fud trying to claim that there's a potential risk here.

we are not lawyers, and we do not know.

yet is florian implying that it's a risk?

he sure did.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 22, 2011 0:00 UTC (Sat) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link] (4 responses)

ZDNet also has an article on this:
http://m.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/oops-no-copied-java-code...

> Sometimes the sheer wrongness of what is posted on the web leaves us speechless. Especially when its picked up and repeated as gospel by otherwise reputable sites [...] It all started with an article written by Florian Mueller, who by the way is neither a lawyer nor a developer although he plays one on TV. I downloaded and examined all the files he wrote about, and my analysis as an expert developer comes to a completely different conclusion than Mr. Mueller.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 22, 2011 4:38 UTC (Sat) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (3 responses)

You just quoted things that are ad hominem -- that's what you elected to quote, and you may ask yourself how that reflects upon you. Yes, I remember you and your affiliation with Red Hat, and we've had discussions here before, but you could have used better judgment for which parts to quote. You picked the worst passage of a generally very poorly-crafted article.

Ed Burnette claims he's an "expert developer" but, as I explained in another reply, his "analysis" does not constitute a complete clearance of all Android-based devices as well as other products out there. Why would no developer ever have seen those permissively-licensed Java classes -- which are not at all specific to unit testing from a functionality point of view -- and have built them into something, Android or otherwise? To be sure it never happened, every single software out there would have to be analyzed and cleared. Burnette just says it's not in the standard build file. Quite a strange take on the degree of flexibility that is actually a major strength of open source.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 23, 2011 0:18 UTC (Sun) by yumyumyum (guest, #72522) [Link]

You invoke ad hominem slurs all the time!

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 23, 2011 1:21 UTC (Sun) by jthill (subscriber, #56558) [Link]

You, who put false claims in the FSFE's mouth to accuse them of dishonesty, who characterize declining to license an OS on someone else's platform as "patent warfare" and "bully"ing, who refers to Groklaw as "Groklie", have the gall to upbraid anyone for ad hominem?

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 28, 2011 16:57 UTC (Fri) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link]

Well, you reap what you sow. Since you are making personal attacks all the time, people attack you as well.

Actually, I don't care what you publish on your blog -- but could you please do us all a favor, step down your language, and focus your discussion on lwn.net? E.g., start with not promoting your blog in *every* story concerning patents or Groklaw. We know by now that you think you are a know-it-all in this area.

This ain't Slashdot, just for your information.

What did Oracle do to make Android?

Posted Jan 22, 2011 1:48 UTC (Sat) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] (9 responses)

Essentially nothing. And yet, they'd like a cut of the sales.

Well, if they so wanted to be a player in mobile OS market, they could have made Solaris/Java a platform for mobiles. They would have had way more control over the final outcome then Google have with Android OS. But no, they instead waited for Android to become a success and then asked for a cut. How nice.

PS. For a person that claims to support FOSS, Florian is doing a decent amount of damage these days.

What did Oracle do to make Android?

Posted Jan 22, 2011 4:46 UTC (Sat) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (4 responses)

How am I "doing ... damage" when I point out things that are out there for the world to find and analyze them from my point of view?

So far I haven't seen even just one of my blog statements proven wrong by ArsTechnica or Ed Burnette or anyone else. I will analyze everything carefully next week and see if there are things that require rectification -- so far that's not the case. What those other comments do is dispute the significance of my findings rather than disprove.

I'm not responsible for what others concluded from my blog post. I can only be held responsible for what I say and write. I have a clear conscience about that.

Finally, some may remember I fought hard against Oracle's acquisition of Sun because of MySQL, so I neither believe Oracle is generally a good guy company nor do I believe that if the rights they ultimately acquired (legally, even though against my opposition) can be infringed by anyone because they're just a bad guy type of organization. I look at the issues one by one. But your post is about the overall credits/merits those companies have for open source, and that's not a consideration for me when something goes wrong. If a company makes valuable contributions to open source, hand them some awards for it, but don't put them above the law.

What did Oracle do to make Android?

Posted Jan 22, 2011 6:47 UTC (Sat) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] (3 responses)

By blowing things out of proportion. Google have deep pockets and lots of resources. They can reimplement anything in dispute and pay any fines. In the meantime Oracle still have nothing to sell in the mobile market.

This is about envy and monopoly (I am still waiting for an internal report of Larry tossing chairs around the office ;-). Helping Oracle by providing free resources for them isn't exactly a favour to FOSS.

What did Oracle do to make Android?

Posted Jan 22, 2011 8:37 UTC (Sat) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (2 responses)

On the one hand, you say it's not a favor to FOSS to provide free resources to Oracle -- and other other hand you point to Google's deep pockets and resources, although those of Oracle are comparable.

I assume Oracle has already done a lot of work to identify copyright infringements throughout the Android codebase, possibly also in other Google projects. I'm not helping Oracle. I just want to understand from the outside which of the two parties is more likely to win. The things I found are a strong indication Oracle's complaint is so far more credible than Google's defense. What the consequences of a given infringement will be is another question. I didn't talk about that one in my post.

What did Oracle do to make Android?

Posted Jan 22, 2011 14:18 UTC (Sat) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

Just in case I wasn't clear, Oracle are the agressor here. This is not how someone that supposedly licenses Java as open source is supposed to behave. They could have simply asked Google to remove/reimplement any infringing code and that would be that. Instead, they dropped nuclear weapons on Google.

They do not deserve anything, especially not you making their case for them through your blog.

Let's not forget that a lot of people have real choice when it comes to smartphones, tablets and other devices due to Google's efforts. It is only by wild imagination that Oracle had any meaningful contribution there. It is as simple as that.

Also remember how Oracle took ASF for a ride when it comes to Java. They are mean spirited indeed.

PS. Apologies to any Oracle employees that are reading this. None of the above is directed at you.

What did Oracle do to make Android?

Posted Jan 23, 2011 14:03 UTC (Sun) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link]

I respectfully ask that you disclose any conflicts of interest.

FM damage

Posted Jan 22, 2011 9:15 UTC (Sat) by boog (subscriber, #30882) [Link] (2 responses)

PS. For a person that claims to support FOSS, Florian is doing a decent amount of damage these days.

I quite agree. Even the tiniest facts and events are twisted out of all proprotion to appear as damaging as possible to Google, FSF, OIN and as favourable as possible to Microsoft, Oracle and patent agressors. Why? One would hazard a guess that FM is either psychologically fascinated by the power of patents and corporate money or is guided by expectation of a reward for this stance. PJ at Grokwlaw has stated that no clear information on FM's funding can be obtained.

FM damage

Posted Jan 22, 2011 12:02 UTC (Sat) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

Florian has NEVER been a FLOSS person.

He was a useful ally in the anti-patent wars.

Unfortunately (to put it nicely), he seems to have decided "we can't win, so we might as well join them", and changed sides :-(

Cheers,
Wol

FM damage

Posted Jan 22, 2011 23:49 UTC (Sat) by yumyumyum (guest, #72522) [Link]

FM works for MSFT and smears all the good guys like FSF, Groklaw, OFE... Only FOX news is worse than Florian Muller. That guy has no credibility at all.

What did Oracle do to make Android?

Posted Jan 22, 2011 10:39 UTC (Sat) by gnufreex (guest, #70396) [Link]

>PS. For a person that claims to support FOSS, Florian is doing a decent amount of damage these days.

Hm... Where he claimed that? I must have missed it. I read his blog regularly and I got impression that he just supports litigation and racketeering (which he calls "cooperative use of patents") *against* FLOSS. Hence FOSSpatents. Going through just recent posts, he celebrates Apple's "win" against Nokia (which is in fact just merge of cases), claims that Google is to weak to protect Android, celebrates that EU won't investigate Novell-CPTN deal (although he was against Oracle buying Sun, I guess that was problem for Microsoft and this isn't), and then comes this latest piece of FUD. But I don't have time to read every his comedy piece, so I could have missed it :-)

So please, share. I need a laugh.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 22, 2011 4:54 UTC (Sat) by AndreE (guest, #60148) [Link]

Holy Christ is it ever possible to mention the see the words "Florian" and "Mueller" in tandem on LWN without a link appearing somewhere to "fosspatents.blogspot.bloodyannoying.com"

A publishers ambition

Posted Jan 22, 2011 11:06 UTC (Sat) by exadon (guest, #5324) [Link] (2 responses)

Sure, Florian did a lot of damage here. But probably not because of malice, rather because his ambition for fame. He found something and wanted to become famous for it. But when he writes the truth, that he found some very minor glitches, this would be largely ignored. As would be appropriate here, because, well, this is a minor glitch. But Florian as a publisher doesn't like being ignored so he made this a groundbreaking discovery. And sacrificed his credibility, in trade of some questionable fame.

A publishers ambition

Posted Jan 22, 2011 14:55 UTC (Sat) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link] (1 responses)

I think he should join forces with Mr. Enderle, both have about the same amount of credibility.

A publishers ambition

Posted Jan 24, 2011 18:13 UTC (Mon) by gnufreex (guest, #70396) [Link]

Way ahead of you:

http://twitter.com/#!/Enderle/status/29570006572339200

http://twitter.com/#!/Enderle/status/18411203550248960

http://twitter.com/#!/FOSSpatents/status/18413112034074624

http://twitter.com/#!/Enderle/status/18413705687465984

They seem like natural buddies.

Am I the only one?

Posted Jan 22, 2011 11:24 UTC (Sat) by brianomahoney (guest, #6206) [Link] (2 responses)

Who finds this all 'over the top' nonsense.

That SCO v Novell could run, as it has is a huge inditement of the US legal system in practice, BUT it tells us that Oracle v Google will last at least 10 years, and may go the Supreme Court.

Since the actual damages to Oracle, if any, are tiny, and are going to be very very hard to quantify this at best a lawyer's bonanza and worst FUD.

Google is not an RIAA John Doe, and will fight all the way on both fact and damages.

I, for one would prefer to read a clear case from PJ at Grocklaw than Herrn Mueller's polemics.

Handset makers have already done due dilligence on Android and are unlikely to be disuaded now, especially into the rapacious arms of Oracle, Symbian or Microsoft which are sitting on already failed or expensive products.

The real need, givern the numerous and convoluted law suites in the mobile space, is three reforms

(a) Legal costs in 'cause' ie looser pays both sides.

(b) Effective sanctions and a firm timetable in all civil actions eg 14 days for claim 2 defense 2 reply 2 inter-locutory hearing ... discovery and preparation for trial. Amended process only at the cost of the amender, and only then with the leave of the court.

See the jurisdictional game in SONY v Hotz

Reason, and one post only from Herrn Mueller(per thread).

Am I the only one?

Posted Jan 24, 2011 21:44 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

Loser pays all costs is VERY unfair. Simple example ...

someone accidentally commits a violation. They get taken to court, and the plaintiff insists on a verdict, confident that the poor guy who made a mistake is going to pick up the entire tab ...

You want something more like the UK system. There is a presumption that loser pays, but

(a) costs must be reasonable - if you pay for a Rolls Royce suit, you can only bill the other party for the Skoda version, and

(b) if the defendant tries to settle out of court, the plaintiff is advised to weigh VERY CAREFULLY whether to accept. If they refuse, and then get LESS from the jury, they will probably get saddled with the loser's costs!

Go to Lord Archer on Wikipedia for an example of the winner being bankrupted by costs ...

Cheers,
Wol

Am I the only one? ... Costs in Cause

Posted Jan 24, 2011 23:08 UTC (Mon) by brianomahoney (guest, #6206) [Link]

That is exactly right Wol, the costs are 'taxed' by the court.

And to continue an action after a reasonable offer to settle is vexatious.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 23, 2011 0:12 UTC (Sun) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] (5 responses)

Can we please have a story filtering feature? I'd love to never see anything involving Florian Mueller again. It seems that everything he has produced has ranged from highly questionable sensationalism to dead wrong.

I personally would enjoy LWN a lot more without this stuff. Thanks.

Sadly it's important stuff...

Posted Jan 23, 2011 14:18 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

The problem with MF is the fact that he pushes his "news" to non-geek press so we can not just ignore him. We can ignore his comments (this is great feature to have and it is implremented on LWN), but we can not ignore MF-pushed articles in mainstream press! I don't know if he pushes Microsoft agenda for low reason called "money" or for some higher reason, but the fact of the matter: he does it regularly and quite efficiently. Thus we should keep attention on what he's doing... To filter him out is as dangerous as to filter out Oracle-related or Microsoft-related news in general: few people likes most of these news, but we can not just ignore them.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 23, 2011 16:52 UTC (Sun) by jmalcolm (subscriber, #8876) [Link] (2 responses)

This might get me in trouble but I feel in this case the problem is more us than him.

Regardless of what you feel about Florian or his article, I am sad to see that LWN is not above a series of person attacks in the comments. There will always be people around that try to bait us. We should get better at managing them.

I would have liked to have seen responses along the lines of "ok, this is technically correct (and we should recognize that) but let's talk about how much it matters. Probably not much.". It seems much of the commentary is more concerned with insisting Florian is wrong than with establishing the facts and containing his hyperbole.

Florian should not be so successful in getting us so riled up and certainly should not cause us to oppose him with questionable stances of our own. We should be faster at getting back to facts when we feel he is wrong. We should not simply tell people to ignore him when he is correct.

In this case, I feel he is probably largely correct about something that likely does not matter as much as he implies. We should respond as such.

New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)

Posted Jan 23, 2011 22:01 UTC (Sun) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

> I would have liked to have seen responses along the lines of "ok, this is technically correct (and we should recognize that) but let's talk about how much it matters. Probably not much.". It seems much of the commentary is more concerned with insisting Florian is wrong than with establishing the facts and containing his hyperbole.

I can only speak for myself, of course. I find it really annoying that a person that is supposedly against software patents (I won't say pro-FOSS any more) would go all out helping a party that is using software patents against another, while both pieces of software in question are open source. The damage caused by him blowing things out of proportion (the files in question will certainly neither make nor brake Android/Google) and thus creating an exaggerated perception of the problem is just mind boggling. I would think someone that runs a blog like his would understand that. But this answer shows that this is not the case at all:

> "I'm not helping Oracle. I just want to understand from the outside which of the two parties is more likely to win. The things I found are a strong indication Oracle's complaint is so far more credible than Google's defense."

Seriously, looks like we are now back in the la-la land where it is OK to present far fetched arguments (e.g. that Oracle actually contributed to success of Android) in order to shut down a product that has made a real difference when it comes to competition and choice. What Florian is doing with his blog there is nothing but creation of fear, uncertainty and doubt for current and potential Android users/developers/distributors etc.

FM

Posted Jan 24, 2011 23:17 UTC (Mon) by brianomahoney (guest, #6206) [Link]

As I said before, Frequently Muttonheaded produces endless noise and last-word blather. His analysis is worthless, and worse boring.

He is usually wrong.

If you want to read REAL analysis go to Grocklaw.

Discussions with FM

Posted Jan 23, 2011 17:20 UTC (Sun) by boog (subscriber, #30882) [Link]

Having taken part in long tit-for-tat discussions with FM, I feel that the discussion has helped clarify my own ideas and has just about stayed civil, even if was very long-winded. That's partly because he has a, um, tendency to shift the goalposts rather than admit he's wrong, as is becoming spectacularly apparent in this case (another benefit of the discussions). I think FM will find that credibility is a hard substance to recover once you've lost it.

That said, I do like the comment above "respectfully" asking FM to declare any potential conflicts of interest. Understated and to the point.

Follow-up post: Source availability packages of Galaxy Tab, Droid X, Ally etc. contain Oracle code

Posted Jan 24, 2011 0:05 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (5 responses)

I have done my follow-up post: "Android device makers distribute Oracle code online (Motorola, Samsung, LG)"

That post contains links to the source availability packages of various popular Android-based devices containing Oracle/Sun code.

I also addressed ZDNet's Ed Burnette's and Ars Technica's "rebuttals" of strawmen.

Follow-up post: Source availability packages of Galaxy Tab, Droid X, Ally etc. contain Oracle code

Posted Jan 24, 2011 0:29 UTC (Mon) by boog (subscriber, #30882) [Link]

I'll spare you all the effort of reading through it. In it, Florian says:

I haven't been able to check whether the relevant code is also shipped with the devices themselves.

And of course that the previous blog posting was 100% true and not at all misleading.

Follow-up post: Source availability packages of Galaxy Tab, Droid X, Ally etc. contain Oracle code

Posted Jan 24, 2011 1:02 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

So, you still maintain that you are not helping a patent aggressor, right?

Peanuts.

Posted Jan 24, 2011 8:32 UTC (Mon) by exadon (guest, #5324) [Link] (2 responses)

Maybe you are right. Maybe Google made a small mistake. So what? The mistake will be corrected. And maybe they even pay a small fee, as appropriate for the dimension of their mistake. In any case it's a very small issue, not worth any publicity.

Peanuts.

Posted Jan 24, 2011 8:35 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (1 responses)

"Peanuts" is your assumption. That remains to be seen. If Oracle wins the patent part, it will have more impact than the copyright part, and my blog acknowledges that fact anyway.

But the copyright part also got lots of publicity, and I've now increased hugely the amount of material that the general public can look at to get an idea of what's going on.

A reporter's job

Posted Jan 24, 2011 19:59 UTC (Mon) by jthill (subscriber, #56558) [Link]

Oracle's public assertions have been blanket. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. If they'd said

We believe and allege these are multiple intentional copyright violations. So far it looks like it might be one 3rd-party bundle that doesn't actually get used in the phones and one Google employee getting lazy. Going on what we see now that could be it, but even at that they deserve a good hard slap for their own lack of oversight. It could turn out to be as bad as what we're alleging re their use of our patents. That's what we have discovery for.

everyone would have fallen to the floor in astonishment and started serving up "Miracle on 34th Street" analogies.

But that's about what it does look like now, and reporters are obligated to discuss context and proportion with the facts when that seems to be missing from the public debate. The people who are not so obligated have an accepted role in society, but what they say should not be passed off as reporting. See for instance the recent cross_fuzz mess on ars.

Groklaw put an article up this morning that may be intersting

Posted Jan 24, 2011 3:43 UTC (Mon) by jthill (subscriber, #56558) [Link]

PJ has this to say:

But what if every word Mueller wrote was accurate? Let's analyze the situation that way. What if the files he wrote about were not supposed to be used, did ship, and were copied by Google? What would it prove?

and, rather disheartentingly,

Because, my friends, I gather this is SCO II, the attacks on Android. It is Linux, after all, at its core, and the same M.O. that we endured in SCO I -- the bold claims to the media of copyright infringement, analysts popping up to "confirm" the claims, etc. -- are starting up again. Remember all the wild claims by SCO about how IBM was doomed, how they had a mountain of evidence already? Remember all the headlines? All the analysts supporting SCO's claims? Notice anything familiar now that everyone is going after Google? All right. SCO II. We'll have to go through again.

She thinks stumbles pegged it too.