Oracle has filed an amended complaint, presumably to fix the problems
noted by Google in the first one. It has clarified its copyright infringement claims, Claim VIII.
It's SCO II, at least in part, alleging that the infringed material is "Java method and class names, definitions, organization, and parameters; the structure, organization and content of Java class libraries; and the content and organization of Java's documentation." Don't tell me it's APIs and methods and concepts again. And infringing the "organization" of Java documentation? Lordy.
I've done a comparative chart for you of the copyright infringement claim in both the original complaint and the new one, so you can see the changes, but here is the new operative paragraph in full, paragraph 40 of the new complaint:
Android includes infringing class libraries and documentation. Approximately one third of Android's Application Programmer Interface (API) packages (available at http://developer.android.com/reference/packages.html) are derivative of Oracle America's 19 copyrighted Java API packages (available at http://download-llnw.oracle.com/javase/ 1.5.0/- 20 docs/api/ and http://download-llnw.oracle.com/ javase/1.4.2/docs/api/) and corresponding documents. The infringed elements of Oracle America's copyrighted work include Java method and class names, definitions, organization, and parameters; the structure, organization and content of Java class libraries; and the content and organization of Java's documentation. Examples of this copying are illustrated in Exhibit I to this complaint. In at least several instances, Android computer program code also was directly copied from copyrighted Oracle America code. For example, as may be readily seen in Exhibit J, the source code in Android's "PolicyNodeImpl.java" class is nearly identical to "PolicyNodeImpl.java" in Oracle America's Java, not just in name, but in the source code on a line-for-line basis.
So some claim of line by line copying also. If you recall, Google pointed out that Exhibit H, the copyright registrations, made no sense, writing in its Answer:
As to Oracle's copyright claim, the Complaint alleges that "Oracle America owns copyrights in the code, documentation, specifications, libraries, and other materials that comprise the Java platform" and that "Oracle America's Java-related copyrights are registered with the United States Copyright Office, including those attached as Exhibit H." Compl. ¶ 11. Exhibit H to the Complaint consists of certificates of copyright registrations obtained by Sun for two identified works, named "Java 2 Standard Edition 1.4" and "Java Standard Edition, Version 5.0" (the "Asserted Copyrights"). Compl. Ex. H. These registrations appear to relate to versions of certain Sun Java materials that were released as open-sourced software in 2006 and 2007.
Oracle has not changed that exhibit that I could see. So I'm guessing that means Oracle is going to say it's open sourced but only for the desktop. Field of use. Plus Java documentation, as you can see on
this page, isn't redistributable. Conclusion? All the complaints that were directed at Sun were right. And now it's clear that using any proprietary anything is reckless. And that includes dual licensed code, because some donkey might buy it someday, and then where will you be? Stick to pure FOSS, where folks don't treat you like this.
More...
