"Accepting Stolen Goods" in Relation to Google and Java and Bing

  • Thread starter Thread starter wworld
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wworld

Guest
I’m assuming most of you know what the Android Mobile Operating System is. If you don’t, it’s basically Google’s rival OS to Apple’s iPhone

Apparently, Google has stolen some Java source code without any of Oracle’s (wheich owns Java) permission:


http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/21/oops-android-contains-directly-copied-java-code-strengthening/


Does this mean that anyone who buys an Android phone (now they’re being sold more than iPhones) is committing a sin of stealing because they’re accepting Google has stolen code?

Also, does this mean that anyone who uses Bing search (I use it myself, too) is accepting stolen goods since Google claimed that Bing is copying over Google’s search results?

engadget.com/2011/02/01/google-accuses-bing-of-cheating-piggybacking-off-its-search-r/
 
Firstly, this isn’t strictly stealing because nobody is deprived of property. Copyright infringement and the like are sins, yes, but you can’t label them “stealing.” Therefore this code isn’t “stolen goods.” Furthermore, these are in the stage of allegations only; nothing has yet been proved about Google’s ends or motives.

So I would say that it is premature to judge in this case. Buying a product, such as a phone handset, in good faith and using it as intended is not contributing to any evil. Google and Oracle will work this out in court and if Google has infringed code, then they will issue an update to remove the offending code from their product entirely, and you will have a clean phone and a clean conscience.

Please also read this followup article, which points out a few things: 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.
 
There’s no culpability here for the end-user. Intellectual property might have been stolen, but the sin is on those who actually ripped the code. As a consumer, we have an implicit trust that we are buying products in good standing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top