The Register® — Biting the hand that feeds IT

Feeds

Agentless Backup is Not a Myth

'Android? Google didn't build that'

With its Wednesday filing, Google also took aim at Oracle's claims of patent infringement. Mountain View now says Oracle's patents are invalid because "one or more claims are directed to abstract ideas or other non-statutory subject matter." The Supreme Court has said that one way to test the validity of patent is to ask if it's tied to a specific machine, and Google says that in this case, at least one Oracle patent is not. Oracle is asserting seven patents in the case.

What's more, Google accuses Oracle – and Sun before it – of "misusing" its patents. "Oracle and its predecessor Sun have attempted to impermissibly expand the scope of the Patents-in-Suit by requiring licensees to license items not covered by Oracle’s alleged intellectual property in order to receive a license to Oracle’s alleged intellectual property," Google's filing reads.

Rather than license Java from Oracle, Google built its own VM, Dalvik. And this too is part of the Google defence. "Dalvik bytecode is distinct and different from Java bytecode," Google says. "The Dalvik VM is not a Java VM."

This is true. Oracle acknowledges that Dalvik is not Java and, in fact, uses this as part of its PR attack on Mountain View. "In developing Android, Google chose to use Java code without obtaining a licence," Oracle said in a statement sent to the press last month. "Additionally, it modified the technology so it is not compliant with Java's central design principle to 'write once and run anywhere'. Google's infringement and fragmentation of Java code not only damages Oracle, it clearly harms consumers, developers and device manufacturers."

This too is true. Both sides have valid points to argue, which is part of what makes the case so intriguing.

But Mountain View is also playing the Android's-not-ours card. Google says that if Android does infringe on Oracle's copyrights, Google isn't liable. If Android infringes on Oracle's code, Mountain View says, the liability lies with the third parties who use Android. "Any use in the Android Platform of any protected elements of the works that are the subject of the Asserted Copyrights was made by third parties without the knowledge of Google, and Google is not liable for such use," Google's filing reads.

Google also claims that Android isn't developed by Google. It's developed by the Open Handset Alliance. "Android was released in 2007 by a group of seventy-eight technology and mobile companies known as the Open Handset Alliance ('OHA') who have come together to accelerate innovation in mobile devices and offer consumers a richer, less expensive, and better mobile experience," the filing reads. "Other than the Harmony libraries, the Android platform – including, without limitation, the Dalvik VM – was independently developed by the OHA."

Which is another reason this case is so intriguing. It has comedic value. ®

Regcast training : Hyper-V 3.0, VM high availability and disaster recovery

Rule No 1 of the Software Club is

Rule No 1 of the Software Club is that you never ever offload responsibility to customers on a product you support or develop.

If you do, that customer will never come again. Oracle has just managed to achieve the goal of its lawsuit even before the lawyers have started their arguments. All it needs is to take this PR, get the BIG RED HIGHLIGHTER and send it to every handset manufacturing company out there.

Oh, well, I guess I will stick to Nokia then. It may be designed by a matrix talkitechecture product committee, it is UE may be utter crap, it may be anything but innovative, but its ecosystem - sofware, accessories, etc will be there in 2 years time.

16
0
Anonymous Coward

Commitment to partners?

@Google: "Any use [] of any protected elements [] was made by third parties..."

Wow - way to backstab your business partners! There goes the "do no evil" - Google is shaping up nicely as another Microsoft.

13
5

A big boy did it and ran away

Some really excellent arguments from Google there, I particularly like the one where they state that the code doesn't look quite as similar if you leave the copyright headers on.

But remember kids, it's OK to be an IP thief if you open source.

4
0

More from The Register

Bjarne Again: Hallelujah for C++
Plus: Now officially OK to admit you never used STL algorithms
Interwebs taunt Sir Jony over Apple eye candy makeover
Hey Ive, Ive... add more unicorns, willya?
SCO vs. IBM battle resumes over ownership of Unix
Zombie lawsuit back and wants to suck the brains out of Linux
Apple: iOS7 dayglo Barbie makeover is UNFINISHED - report
Plus: You don't like the icons? Blame marketing
Red Hat to ditch MySQL for MariaDB in RHEL 7
So long, Oracle! Don't let the door hit you on the way out
Shy? Socially inadequate? Fiddling with your phone could help
App 'tells the brutal truth' about social inadequates' chatup lines
Java EE 7 melds HTML5 with enterprise apps
New release arrives with GlassFish, NetBeans support
 breaking news
'Office Facebook' firm Tibbr wants you to PAY for mobe-meetings app
Great idea. Punters won't cough for it though
 breaking news
The only Waze is Google: Ad giant tipped to gobble map app 'for $1.3bn'
Pac-Man-satnav-ish upstart in bidding war with Apple, Facebook
 breaking news
PM Cameron calls for modern, programmable computers! (We think)
IT education musings to G8 chiefs to mystify IT industry