I just reread your original post [1]. I'd like to apologize -- I just skimmed your article and those by Burnette [2] and ars [3]. I came away with a very wrong impression.

The relevant quote is "I have discovered additional material that Oracle might present to the court as examples of copyright-infringing material in the Android codebase" [1]. Which is indeed true. The other articles draw a distinction between code in the repo under unit tests and code that is built and deployed onto devices. Which is helpful to Google, but still much worse than there simply being no Oracle owned code in the repo.

So, my apologies.

It would probably have been better if your original article more clearly distinguished between code in the repo and code that becomes a binary and is deployed onto the android devices, but it was also my responsibility as a reader to pick up on that.

[1] http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-evidence-support...

[2] http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/oops-no-copied-java-code-...

[3] http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2011/01/new-alleged-...