So you admit that there was copying. /s

But, in all seriousness, the 9 lines + 7 files are damning. It also shows that the engineers who implemented Google's project had been tainted by exposure to Java.

> But, in all seriousness, the 9 lines + 7 files are damning. It also shows that the engineers who implemented Google's project had been tainted by exposure to Java.

I think that's one of the key points. How can you claim a clean-room implementation, when there are (small) portions that have been directly copied? It weakens the case for the rest of the code.

Android uses code from Apache Harmony for many basic Java classes. If any code was copied from Java 6, it would have happened in the Harmony project.

Android's use of Java also ends in the toolchain. Android never used a Java(tm) runtime, nor Java bytecode in the runtime. by the time an app hits a device, it's in Dalvik bytecode and either interpreted/JIT-compiled by the Dalvik runtime or pre-compiled to the target system ISA for the ART runtime.

Nobody claimed a clean room implementation because it had nothing to do with the case

It's more interesting than that. The engineer who wrote those 9 lines was employed by Sun working on Java APIs before working for Google. According to his testimony it was a "fix later" copy/paste mistake he made when improving Sun's OpenJDK code while working for Google.

Implementation was never a problem in this case

9 lines copied by the guy who wrote the original implementation, let's not forget. This was literally a case of him saying "oh, I've done this trivial thing before, I'll just grab what I did then".

This whole thing is a travesty.

Correct. But it was still copied and it still didn't help their case.

Yes, it was copied by the original author that wrote it back when he was employed at Sun. Additionally, those 9 insignificant lines were irrelevant to the case. The fact that it was even presented showed how desperate Oracle was.