37-43 Android Source Files Copied Line for Line From Java; Oracle Licks Their Lips

[phandroid]

Just when you thought Oracle didn’t have a case to sue Google for patent infringement, software patent blog FOSSPatents dug up a shocking-yet-not-so-shocking revelation: 43 source files that were written specifically for Java turn up in Android’s source code. The issue here isn’t that Google “borrowed” that source code. Nor does the new heft of [...]

More...

 

[Baldilocks]

Doesn't surprise me. Google has made their billions off of 'copying' others.

 

[IOWA]

Oh really?

What has Google copied?

Oops: No copied Java code or weapons of mass destruction found in Android | ZDNet

Already debunked.

 

[momoceio]

Oh really?

What has Google copied?

Oops: No copied Java code or weapons of mass destruction found in Android | ZDNet

Already debunked.

In the words of Sheldon Cooper.."Bazinga!"

 

[saps]

 

[LoyalServant]

Another story from APPLEGadget.

 

[Baldilocks]

Oh really?

What has Google copied?

- Search Engine
- Browser
- Phone OS
- Desktop OS
- Application Store
- The soon to be Coupon market

..... I am sure there have been more and will be more to come.

 

[LoyalServant]

- Search Engine
- Browser
- Phone OS
- Desktop OS
- Application Store
- The soon to be Coupon market

..... I am sure there have been more and will be more to come.

When did they 'copy' these things?
Who did they copy it from?

 

[Baldilocks]

I am not going to do your research for you. If you thought that Google was a first for any of these then you need to read some computer history.

 

[LoyalServant]

I am not going to do your research for you. If you thought that Google was a first for any of these then you need to read some computer history.

Nobody said they were.
But saying they 'copied' all of these things is reaching.
You can't accuse Google without accusing Apple, Microsoft and everyone else before Google existed.

 

[Baldilocks]

That wasn't part of the original post. The original post said that Google copied. Of course they copy, every does. Doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

 

[Sulfur]

In that case nearly everything is copied. That f-body in your picture is a copy of mustang using your reasoning. What a silly thing to say.

 

[Baldilocks]

In that case nearly everything is copied. That f-body in your picture is a copy of mustang using your reasoning. What a silly thing to say.

Why is it silly? All I said is that Google made it's money by copying others. That is just the truth. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[IOWA]

Why is it silly? All I said is that Google made it's money by copying others. That is just the truth. Nothing more, nothing less.

Lol if Google copied "search" how the hell did they take over the market that was OWNED by Yahoo! and AltaVista?

They didn't copy them. They built their search from the ground up. And it worked better than everyone else's. That's how they got where they are at today.

Idea's are a dime a dozen, anyone can come up with an idea. It's the execution that matters.

PhoneOs - They built the Dalvik VM from the ground up(you know, the part that actually counts), using a syntax similar to JAVA.

Just because someone has an idea first, doesn't mean a damn thing. Idea's are useless, worthless. (hence why I feel IP is such a freaking joke). The execution of an idea, well that's a different story. That's what really matters. I'm sure back in the 1800's people had ideas for weapons of mass destruction, but that didn't mean dick back then, now did it? The tablet idea has been around since the dawn of computing, yet only it's latest execution is what we all remember.

And just because two people (or companies) have the same IDEA, doesn't mean they copied each other, and it's evident in the EXECUTION of the IDEA.

I suggest YOU do YOUR research on idea vs execution.

 

[Tempusfugit]

Its ok guys, the guy who invented the wheel was copying the guy that could walk.

I do find it funny, that google, competing with MS and Apple(at least in phone land), gets accused of "copying"

 

[Baldilocks]

Sigh , its a sad house of straw youve built.
By your feeble logic ANYone using this alphabet is copying.

Google took concepts and built their very own solutions, ones that the market took to heart and made them rich for.


Really, are you going to sit there and whine about how Wonder or Holsum are just 'copying' the one first guy that made bread?

silly, that was the word some one used. Nice choice!

Your point is moot.

 

[jroc]

I knew what you were getting at when you first posted it...I shoulda posted a lol right after so ppl wouldnt take it so serious...

I thought no search engine was gonna replace Alta Vista for me. That and Excite were my favorite ones back then.

 

[Drhyde]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around where Google copied. My definition of copying is an exact replica of something, whether a tangible object, code, or method. Search engines were around for sometime before Google and therefore are ubiquitous. Google's algorithm for search results isn't out there in the public eye for a reason, so that IT isn't copied.

In fact, everything you mentioned there is ubiquitous at this point in time and therefore not a copy in direct terms. The only leg to stand on would be copying the iPhone's overall OS design which is probably true, but Google has differentiated itself so far from Apple I would say there's no longer ground to stand on with that argument either.

This weak attack here aside, Oracle really has uphill battle because even if they can prove that Google did copy them, they must then prove that the copy lost them money. Since Android is free and Google only makes money off of the ads and some of the paid programs, but not the code itself since they don't sell that, Oracle seems posed to win, but only be awarded $1. Oracle also doesn't seem to be doing anything with Java other than suing people since they're basically patent trolls nowadays.

 

[Jammy]

 

[EarlyMon]

It's not difficult. The charge was copying as in copying in a manner that violated intellectual property protection. Theft, as in copying music for profit. Imagine if you bought some CD - I dunno - The Clash. And tracks 4 thru 6 were Beatles songs - not performed by The Clash - actual copies of Beatles song, by the Beatles - and The Clash insisted that they did all of those songs themselves. Sounds silly - but in essence, the software equivalent of that is what Google was charged with here.

That's the kind of copying that was at issue in the original claim.

@Baldilocks - The original post said that Google copied, as in theft, not in some colloquial meaning that you would like to apply. The world of software licensing works the way it works, not in a manner where you get to defy the meaning of words as they are and attempt to lord over people based on age with smart remarks - that I think we've all had enough of.

I've been writing code since 1972 and that dog don't hunt here, so how about you try and learn before preaching what you don't know.

Your entire list is absolute nonsense. In fact - much of the browser on your Android phone is from Apple's webkit - used under free license, no copying required. And no, that in no way proves the point you claim to have.

Software engineers exist. They actually create things. New things. Innovative things. The mindset that there's nothing new under the sun is not a new one, it goes back for centuries. And it's fully debunked here:

http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Engineers-L-Sprague-Camp/dp/0345320298/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top