admin2
01-25-2011, 03:01 AM
Experts are divided over whether code in Android does copy that in Oracle's Java, as alleged in a lawsuit filed last summer. One prominent IPR expert believes there are elements in Android that are "identical" to those in Java., though others disagree. As long as the doubts persist, there will be damaging question marks over whether Google has left its licensees open to patent suits - which will be important in its current bid to establish its WebM open source video codec as an alternative to H.264, as supported by Apple and others.
Microsoft has already made play out of its claims that it protects its customers from any legal action related to Windows, because of its tight control and its huge patent holdings. So, aside from the politics between Oracle and Google, the lawsuit raises a broader issue, related to IPR protection in open platforms, that the latter will have to address.
Last summer, Oracle filed a suit against Google, alleging patent and copyright infringement and that Google "knowingly, directly and repeatedly infringed Oracle's Java-related intellectual property" in the development and distribution of Android.
In an influential post on his FOSS blog (http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-evidence-supports-oracles-case.html), Florian Mueller, an expert on intellectual property law and open source code, wrote that "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". Oracle has officially only published one example of line-by-line copying of its code but Mueller found six more files with a "pattern of direct copying." Those files are part of Froyo (Android 2.2) and Gingerbread (Android 2.3).
In addition, he found a "significant number" of files in the Android code base that are clearly marked as belonging to Sun, reports ZDnet. He wrote: "I have identified 37 files marked as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" by Sun and a copyright notice file that says: "DO NOT DISTRIBUTE!" Those files appear to relate to the Mobile Media API of the Sun Java Wireless Toolkit. Unless Google obtained a license to that code (which is unlikely given the content and tone of those warnings), this constitutes another breach.
However, Ed Burnette at ZDnet examined the same code cited by Mueller and came to a different conclusion (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/oops-no-copied-java-code-or-weapons-of-mass-destruction-found-in-android/2162). He says that the files in question did not ship with Android but are test code, while another set of files had been uploaded to the Android code repository but did not actually ship with commercial devices.
To view above original post in RethinkWireless, Click here (http://www.rethink-wireless.com/2011/01/24/android-copy-java-code-expert.htm).
Microsoft has already made play out of its claims that it protects its customers from any legal action related to Windows, because of its tight control and its huge patent holdings. So, aside from the politics between Oracle and Google, the lawsuit raises a broader issue, related to IPR protection in open platforms, that the latter will have to address.
Last summer, Oracle filed a suit against Google, alleging patent and copyright infringement and that Google "knowingly, directly and repeatedly infringed Oracle's Java-related intellectual property" in the development and distribution of Android.
In an influential post on his FOSS blog (http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-evidence-supports-oracles-case.html), Florian Mueller, an expert on intellectual property law and open source code, wrote that "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". Oracle has officially only published one example of line-by-line copying of its code but Mueller found six more files with a "pattern of direct copying." Those files are part of Froyo (Android 2.2) and Gingerbread (Android 2.3).
In addition, he found a "significant number" of files in the Android code base that are clearly marked as belonging to Sun, reports ZDnet. He wrote: "I have identified 37 files marked as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" by Sun and a copyright notice file that says: "DO NOT DISTRIBUTE!" Those files appear to relate to the Mobile Media API of the Sun Java Wireless Toolkit. Unless Google obtained a license to that code (which is unlikely given the content and tone of those warnings), this constitutes another breach.
However, Ed Burnette at ZDnet examined the same code cited by Mueller and came to a different conclusion (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/oops-no-copied-java-code-or-weapons-of-mass-destruction-found-in-android/2162). He says that the files in question did not ship with Android but are test code, while another set of files had been uploaded to the Android code repository but did not actually ship with commercial devices.
To view above original post in RethinkWireless, Click here (http://www.rethink-wireless.com/2011/01/24/android-copy-java-code-expert.htm).