Hasta La Gadget!

So it’s been a fun day of armchair code forensics and legal analysis on the web after Florian Mueller published a piece this morning alleging Google directly copied somewhere between 37 and 44 Java source files in Android. That’s of course a major accusation, seeing as Oracle is currently suing Google for patent and copyright infringement related to Java, and it prompted some extremely harsh technical rebuttals, like this one from ZDNet and this one from Ars Technica. The objections in short: the files in question are test files, aren’t important, probably don’t ship with Android, and everyone is making a hullabaloo over nothing.

We’ll just say this straight out: from a technical perspective, these objections are completely valid. The files in question do appear to be test files, some of them were removed, and there’s simply no way of knowing if any of them ended up in a shipping Android handset. But — and this is a big but — that’s just the technical story. From a legal perspective, it seems very likely that these files create increased copyright liability for Google, because the state of our current copyright law doesn’t make exceptions for how source code trees work, or whether or not a script pasted in a different license, or whether these files made it into handsets. The single most relevant legal question is whether or not copying and distributing these files was authorized by Oracle, and the answer clearly appears to be “nope” — even if Oracle licensed the code under the GPL. Why? Because somewhere along the line, Google took Oracle’s code, replaced the GPL language with the incompatible Apache Open Source License, and distributed the code under that license publicly. That’s all it takes — if Google violated the GPL by changing the license, it also infringed Oracle’s underlying copyright. It doesn’t matter if a Google employee, a script, a robot, or Eric Schmidt’s cat made the change — once you’ve created or distributed an unauthorized copy, you’re liable for infringement.*

Why does this matter? Because we’re hearing that Oracle is dead-set on winning this case and eventually extracting a per-handset royalty on every Android handset shipped. In that context, “those files aren’t important!” isn’t a winning or persuasive argument — and the more these little infringements add up, the worse things look for Google. Whether or not these files are a “smoking gun” isn’t the issue — it’s whether Android infringes Oracle’s patents and copyrights, since the consequences either way will be monumental and far-reaching. Ultimately, though, the only person who can resolve all of this for certain is a judge — and it’s going to take a lot more time and research to get there.

—
*They’re not directly comparable, but think about the Psystar case for a second. Even though Psystar desperately wanted to argue that Apple’s OS X license agreement was invalid, the judge never got there — he simply ruled Psystar wasn’t authorized to copy and distribute OS X, and swung the hammer. It really is that simple sometimes.

Android source code, Java, and copyright infringement: what’s going on? originally appeared on Engadget on Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:15:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |   | Email this | Comments

Florian Mueller has been killing it these past few months with his analysis of various tech patent suits on his FOSSpatents blog, and today he’s unearthed a pretty major bombshell: at least 43 Android source files that appear to have been directly copied from Java. That’s a big deal, seeing as Oracle is currently suing Google for patent and copyright infringement in Android — which isn’t a hard case to prove when you’ve got 37 Android source files marked “PROPRIETARY / CONFIDENTIAL” and “DO NOT DISTRIBUTE” by Oracle / Sun and at least six more files in Froyo and Gingerbread that appear to have been decompiled from Java 2 Standard Edition and redistributed under the Apache open source license without permission. In simple terms? Google copied Oracle’s Java code, pasted in a new license, and shipped it.

Now, we’ve long thought Google’s odd response to Oracle’s lawsuit seemingly acknowledged some infringement, so we doubt this is a surprise in Mountain View, but we’re guessing handset vendors aren’t going to be so thrilled — especially since using Android has already caused companies like HTC and Motorola to be hit with major patent lawsuits of their own. We’ll see what happens, but in the meantime you should definitely hit up Florian’s site for the full dirt — it’s some 47 pages worth of material, and it’s dense, but if you’re into this sort of thing it’s incredibly interesting.

Update: It appears things aren’t this simple, but they’re still not great. Check here for the latest.

Oops: Android contains directly copied Java code, strengthening Oracle’s case (updated) originally appeared on Engadget on Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:03:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |  FOSSpatents  | Email this | Comments

Rovi sounds friendly enough, but the company used to be called Macrovision — and the infamous DRM provider just sued Amazon’s IMDb.com last week for infringement of five TV guide patents. The patents came along with Rovi’s acquisition of Gemstar, and they cover everything from interactive program guides to purchasing products on-demand to scheduling recordings from a computer — a huge range that seems to hit everything from QVC to the Xfinity TV iPad app. That probably explains why Rovi says it has deals with everyone from Apple to Yahoo — between its TV listings products, recent purchase of a sizable video library, and the current litigation with IMDb, it appears that the company is serious about leaving its DRM-centric roots behind and moving into internet content distribution.

Rovi sues Amazon and IMDb for infringing TV guide patents originally appeared on Engadget on Thu, 13 Jan 2011 05:08:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink Techdirt  |  paidContent(PDF), paidContent  | Email this | Comments

Apple patent application suggests yet more possible gestures for iPods originally appeared on Engadget on Thu, 06 Jan 2011 03:11:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink TUAW  |  USPTO  | Email this | Comments

Left with just two weeks to explain exactly how seven of the web’s biggest properties (and three office supply chains) violated his company Interval’s patents, Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen figured out a plan — Intervals’ lawyers are drawing big, colored boxes around large swaths of the allegedly infringing websites’ real estate. In all seriousness, a lot of companies may owe Allen a lot of money if Interval truly has a case, because Interval claims to have patented no less than the ability for a website to take a user-selected piece of content and suggest other related pieces of content that might be of interest. Oh, and it’s also apparently patented pop-ups and widgets, as most anything that displays information “in an unobtrusive manner that occupies the peripheral attention of the user” is getting the same treatment. Hilariously, it appears that the co-founder of Microsoft didn’t provide his lawyers with basic scanning technology, because the PDF of the exhibits they uploaded to the court’s web site is just epically bad — check out everything they say infringes in the gallery below.

Disclaimer: We should note that AOL is among the companies being sued by Allen and Interval, and that Engadget is owned by AOL. So you know, just think about that a bunch, or something.

Paul Allen files amended complaint, points out exactly where patent infringement is hiding originally appeared on Engadget on Wed, 29 Dec 2010 14:56:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |  Complaint (PDF)  | Email this | Comments