According to documents obtained by intellectual property expert Florian Mueller, Oracle is alleging that Google derived code from specs for hundreds of copyrighted Java files.
The judge has allegedly said: “Having considered both parties’ submissions, this order finds that good cause has not been shown to engage in a summary judgment battle at this time.”
In simple terms, this says Google has failed to convince the court that Oracle’s claims of reported copyright infringement had impacted on business – and more evidence is needed to prove Google’s in the right.
“Google’s request is denied without prejudice to renewal after a more complete evidentiary record has been developed through discovery,” so it says.
Mr Mueller reckons Oracle shouldn’t crack open the bubbly just yet. Despite the judge currently siding with the company, once more evidence is scrutinised the tables could turn.
Oracle is fighting back with claims that there is strong evidence Java Code has been found in “hundreds” of Google files. It reckons Google “derived its Android code from the specifications for hundreds of Oracle’s copyrighted Java files.”
It also believes it has “identified fourteen registered copyrights–not two–that Google has infringed,” and at least “eight Android source code files are actually decompiled Oracle object code.”
Mueller puts his two pence in: “If you read my blog post on evidence that I found (about a month ago) concerning this case, you may remember that I showed (among other things) seven source files that IO juxtaposed to decompiled Oracle/Sun code.
“One of those files had been presented by Oracle in its amended complaint; the other six were found by me in an adjacent directory. Now Oracle arrived at the same conclusion concerning the genesis of those files.”
In the same post, he claims he had also discovered a ZIP archive containing 37 files with Sun copyright notices. He says that with further research he had also found “some official source availability packages of major Android OEMs such as Samsung, LG and Motorola included material [he] had identified as presumably infringing.”
The case continues.