Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Oracle Claims Google 'Directly Copied' Our Java Code

CmdrTaco posted about 4 years ago | from the thats-not-fair dept.

Google 675

itwbennett writes "On Wednesday, Oracle amended the lawsuit it filed against Google in August, saying that 'approximately one third of Android's Application Programmer Interface (API) packages' are 'derivative of Oracle's copyrighted Java API packages' and related documents. In particular, '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,' Oracle says. 'In at least several instances, Android computer program code also was directly copied from copyrighted Oracle America code,' Oracle alleges."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Here we go again (SCO) (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34049856)

Fire up Patty at Grocklaw./.... this is identical to the IBM vs SCO case

Re:Here we go again (SCO) (4, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | about 4 years ago | (#34049940)

Also, is oracle really trying to state that they have never heard of clean room design [wikipedia.org] ? Oracle is pretty screwed on this case, and with google's intent to fight hard, all Oracle is going to do is kill their own business off.

Java has now become a liability, so now people won't want to use it. Simple.

Re:Here we go again (SCO) (5, Insightful)

wonkavader (605434) | about 4 years ago | (#34050116)

I don't think it's that bad, but certainly ORACLE becomes a liability -- don't use anything they control.

Re:Here we go again (SCO) (2, Insightful)

medv4380 (1604309) | about 4 years ago | (#34050188)

Too much infrastructure is tied into Java for this to kill it quickly. It will be a slow and painful death as people move away if they can.

Re:Here we go again (SCO) (3, Insightful)

Z00L00K (682162) | about 4 years ago | (#34050376)

And then the question is - move to WHAT?

C# is too windows-oriented to really be useful, but maybe this will be a revival for Ada?

However - it's more likely that a spoof of Java called something else will spring up.

Re:Here we go again (SCO) (4, Insightful)

digitalunity (19107) | about 4 years ago | (#34050492)

Oracle isn't going anywhere. This lawsuit isn't going to be anything at all like SCO/IBM or SCO/Novell because Oracle is many times larger than SCO is and is at least 2 orders of magnitude more relevant.

Java is everywhere. Schools teach it. Companies use it.

If Google really copied things from the Java source like actual source code or documentation, they might be screwed. It sounds like from the summary that the bulk of this 'copying' was the API, which I don't think is even eligible for copyright(not artistic).

Re:Here we go again (SCO) (1)

freeshoes (826204) | about 4 years ago | (#34050516)

Whats wrong with C, why do people need a runtime to hold their hands. It makes everything slower.

Re:Here we go again (SCO) (1, Interesting)

kyz (225372) | about 4 years ago | (#34050602)

Programmer time costs more than machine time in almost all cases. Why have programmers reinventing the wheel when you can have a library of well tested code to cover most of what programmers need to write?

Re:Here we go again (SCO) (4, Insightful)

freeshoes (826204) | about 4 years ago | (#34050640)

Yeah like all the C libraries out there?

Re:Here we go again (SCO) (2)

John Hasler (414242) | about 4 years ago | (#34050658)

There are C libraries. Lots of them.

Re:Here we go again (SCO) (2, Insightful)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | about 4 years ago | (#34050716)

C can have just as large amounts of well-tested library code as Java or any VM or interpreted language can. A better point would be that these languages have features that make it easier to write code, such as garbage collection.

Re:Here we go again (SCO) (1)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | about 4 years ago | (#34050636)

Because devices run on different hardware and CPU's. C requires that you (at a minimum) recompile for every platform, and ship a different binary for every platform.

Re:Here we go again (SCO) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34050710)

because an error in java halts the part you're working on, an error in c crashes the whole program...

until you put it in a managed container.

and the trend is going towards getting cheapo interns to do the low bidding of programming....

Re:Here we go again (SCO) (3, Informative)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | about 4 years ago | (#34050600)

Uh.. what?

C# has absolutely nothing windows oriented to it. It's a completely platform agnostic language.

Now, if you're talking about .NET, that's a slightly different story, although much of it, especially the CLI is also platform neutral. The only parts that are windows specific are things that can be replaced, such as the GUI framework.

Re:Here we go again (SCO) (0, Flamebait)

pitdingo (649676) | about 4 years ago | (#34050762)

who controls the c# specification? I am not talking about what organization rubber stamped it, but what standards body controls it?

Re:Here we go again (SCO) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34050290)

How did this comment get 5/Insightful? "Java has now become a liability, so now people won't want to use it. Simple." is simple alright, but it's not even remotely true. Java is used as an enterprise language by thousands of (large, cold, don't-care-that-you-don't-approve-of-oracles-legal-disputes) companies and by hundreds of thousands of (hopefully busy, don't-care-that-you-don't-approve-of-oracles-legal-disputes) developers making a living from crafting Java. They all aren't going to drop java because Oracle thinks Google is infringing on their patent. And who knows (you don't), maybe they are.

Re:Here we go again (SCO) (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | about 4 years ago | (#34050546)

I can't tell the GP's point precisely, but it might be again the old naming issue: "Java as JVM" vs. "Java as Java SDK".

I presume that GP means by "Java" the Java SDK, implying that as soon as an organization starts using the SDK not the way Oracle envisions, one might become target of a lawsuit. Just like Google. And how many organizations can afford a stand in court against the Oracle?

And to me too that would mean the (slow) death of Java by being converted from "programming language" to "product licensed by Oracle." Because livelihood of a language (or a platform) to me is precisely defined by the new strange things people can do with it.

Re:Here we go again (SCO) (2, Insightful)

Surt (22457) | about 4 years ago | (#34050298)

I'm sure oracle HAS heard of clean room design (legal), but that does not typically result in methods reproduced word for word, as happens when you copy the methods using cut and paste (judgement for the plaintiff).

Re:Here we go again (SCO) (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34050622)

Look at the summary:

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

It's talking about header files and auto-generated (or at least function-derived) documentation. Copyright covers creative expression. Function is not copyrightable. The fact is that if you want something substantially compatible with Java, the class names, definitions and parameters must be the same. Even the "organization" (the order of functions appearing in the code etc.) has to be the same if you want to have certain types of binary compatibility, because it determines the layout of data members in memory, which is functionally significant.

Re:Here we go again (SCO) (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34050664)

Anon because skewering is anticipated....

Really? Comparing to SCO?

I'm replying to a post that is thinking it through vs. some of the others.

I know Google can do no wrong in some people's eyes, but isn't it possible that some middle manager and his crack wiz kids didn't think and indeed copied code directly from Oracle's Java (it pains me to say that name...I already miss Sun). I've seen this many times where people see code, use code, and don't think of the legal ramifications. I'm sure everyone on Slashdot looks at the copyright language for every snippet of code they find on websites but doesn't mean everyone does.

Re:Here we go again (SCO) (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34050508)

i agree.

we are currently laying out requirements to recode our gui system (linux based, using old motif code)

java was mentioned as a possible solution, but was quickly shot down due to its liability, and due to the fact that oracle seems intent on killing it.
 
we can't rewrite code & update systems using code that isn't going to be supported here in a few years.

Re:Here we go again (SCO) (2, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 4 years ago | (#34050672)

I don't know enough about the specifics in this case but clean room implementation is not always a ironclad defense. The specifics will matter since this is about code that is copyrighted and not just patents. The code might match up but Google will have to show that such code was trivial and obvious. For example if you have a method that adds integers together:

public int add(int a, int b) { return (a+b); }

There are only a handful of ways to do this. If two different implementations come up with the same way, although the code might have been copyrighted, it's not infringement per se. Google may have to show (1) it really was a clean room implementation (and that code really wasn't stolen) and (2) such similarities were inevitable given the goal of the implementation.

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

From the complaint, some of parts the code are most likely not copyrightable, especially if you doing an implementation like Google has done. The method and class names and the parameters might fall under Scènes à faire [wikipedia.org] . The rest will have to determined by what may be a long and painful fight if Oracle wants it to be.

Re:Here we go again (SCO) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34050680)

And good riddance if they do.

Somehow, and I'll let the Java folks give their idea about why, *every* *single* program I've ever seen that was written in Java manages to suck. Really. Every last one. They're always slow, annoying to use, don't feel like native apps, use a ton of memory for what they do.

I'm not sure what the deal is, but there you have it. Of course, *some* programs written in C++ also suck due to programmer incompetence, but a bunch of them don't suck, as well. But I've never seen one in Java that didn't suck.

Re:Here we go again (SCO) (1)

C_Kode (102755) | about 4 years ago | (#34050800)

Also, is oracle really trying to state that they have never heard of clean room design [wikipedia.org] ? Oracle is pretty screwed on this case, and with google's intent to fight hard, all Oracle is going to do is kill their own business off.

Java has now become a liability, so now people won't want to use it. Simple.

The issues is Google recreating the JVM. Most people who use Java do not do that. While Oracle's actions may put some people off, Java's use is far to wide spread for people to just stop using it.

Nobody is liking Oracle right now, but I'm sure any serious developer isn't going to let what happen stop them from using Java if it's the best tool for the job. I mean do you realize how many major applications / frameworks are built using Java?

It's just not going to happen. Oracle would have to do something a whole lot worse for that to happen.

Re:Here we go again (SCO) (0, Troll)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about 4 years ago | (#34050130)

I wonder how much Microsoft is paying Oracle.

Re:Here we go again (SCO) (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | about 4 years ago | (#34050320)

Larry Ellison seems like the kind of guy who would put his hatred for Microsoft above his willingness to make money, so I doubt they're getting paid out. If .NET gets any boost out of this, it'll be purely accidental from Oracle's point of view. Although, I could be wrong.

Re:Here we go again (SCO) (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | about 4 years ago | (#34050568)

Never underestimate the power of money.

And large businesses - they play by their own rules. Just because they are fighting on one front doesn't mean that they do fight on another. Some of the fighting is just to get publicity and free marketing.

Re:Here we go again (SCO) (5, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 4 years ago | (#34050412)

Well, at least we found out why Oracle bought Java...

History Repeating (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34049872)

I seem to remember that the SCO Group used the same arguments against Linux distributors and users. Perhaps Larry should check the performance of SCO stock before he makes another move.

Re:History Repeating (2, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about 4 years ago | (#34050138)

I think oracle is a *little* bit bigger and more powerful than SCO. I don't think they'll get any farther with this than SCO did, but their attempts won't bankrupt them either.

They Forked Standard Java Packages? (-1, Troll)

Black-Man (198831) | about 4 years ago | (#34049874)

I would give them a free pass if they would have made these packages available to everyone. If not... good for Oracle.

So much for "Don't be evil".

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about (4, Informative)

pavon (30274) | about 4 years ago | (#34049968)

The JDK that ships with Android is just a subset of Harmony, which is released under the Apache license. All improvements made by Google have been folded back into the project. The additional non-standard libraries they ship with android, are also opens source.

Re:They Forked Standard Java Packages? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34049998)

What are you talking about? Android is open source under the apache license.

Re:They Forked Standard Java Packages? (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | about 4 years ago | (#34050038)

google used the package from apache harmony and the java.* package in android are open and free, so what exactly is your point ?

Behaving like SCO... (2, Insightful)

Thunderbird2k (1753946) | about 4 years ago | (#34049892)

Apparently they are getting really desperate and are behaving like SCO now. If you have tons of getters, setters and other small functions, it is easy to have the same implementation in all cases.

Dangerous claim (5, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 4 years ago | (#34049902)

"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," Oracle says.

All of this stuff should count as an interface, and therefore not covered by copyright under US law. If they win this, then it sets a very dangerous precedent. Any project that implements an interface defined by another would potentially be violating copyright - including every single PC, which includes a BIOS that implements the behaviour of the IBM-copyrighted PC BIOS. Projects like WINE and GNUstep would also be in serious trouble and Linux (implementing UNIX APIs) would be illegal.

Claiming that Google copied their code is interesting. I was under the impression that the java.* classes in Android came from Apache, not from the Sun releases. Is Oracle trying to pull a SCO here? (i.e. it does something like what our code does, therefore it's ours).

They really should have kept this as a patent / trademark issue. Bringing copyrights in is a terrible idea.

Re:Dangerous claim (4, Insightful)

vtcodger (957785) | about 4 years ago | (#34050082)

***Is Oracle trying to pull a SCO here? (i.e. it does something like what our code does, therefore it's ours).***

Lawsuits are written by lawyers. Being a lawyer means that you don't actually need to know what you are talking about, you just need to sound like you do.

I agree, that this stuff other than indenting, comments, layout probably is not copyrightable. My understanding is that basically, you can not copyright the only way to express something.

I'm in no way shape or form a lawyer. Does formulating this in the way they have give Oracle access to the Google code to see if the code was in fact copied byte for byte from Oracle rather than simply implementing the same externally interface?

Re:Dangerous claim (5, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | about 4 years ago | (#34050212)

Does formulating this in the way they have give Oracle access to the Google code to see if the code was in fact copied byte for byte from Oracle

You mean this code [android.com] ?

Re:Dangerous claim (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34050096)

"Linux (implementing UNIX APIs) would be illegal. "

Depends which APIs, but many of them went into the public domain long ago (based on the copyright law that applied back in the 70s), and others were written by institutions like Berkely and released under permissive licenses long before they became part of standard UNIX.

Re:Dangerous claim (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34050156)

All those perfectly valid points aside, there's the slight matter of Sun having released the vast majority of their API implementation as open source.

Re:Dangerous claim (5, Insightful)

yincrash (854885) | about 4 years ago | (#34050688)

under a very specific license. if you copy code, yet don't abide by the terms of the rest of the license, you are in violation of copyright.

Re:Dangerous claim (1)

Surt (22457) | about 4 years ago | (#34050366)

Even if all the rest of it did, class definitions would not. Also, I wouldn't expect the private java interfaces to count as public interfaces for purposes of copyright (how you in particular implement a public interface ought to be protected by copyright, even if that involves private classes named interfaces in this particular programming language).

Re:Dangerous claim (1)

SwashbucklingCowboy (727629) | about 4 years ago | (#34050398)

All of this stuff should count as an interface, and therefore not covered by copyright under US law.

Yes and no. With Java, the package, class and method names would be a part of the interface and thus not covered. However, using the symbol XYZ to be some specific value that is used as a parameter to a method would be covered. It's the difference between an interface and an expression of an interface. Of course, this would be a small amount of what Oracle is claiming, but it's still valid.

The code copying is the thing that is most potentially damaging. And that all depends on what code was copied (if it was) and what the license for that code was.

Re:Dangerous claim (1)

John Hasler (414242) | about 4 years ago | (#34050760)

However, using the symbol XYZ to be some specific value that is used as a parameter to a method would be covered.

I don't see how you would find a non-trivial amount of creative expression in that.

Same Lawyer (2, Interesting)

pavon (30274) | about 4 years ago | (#34050438)

Is Oracle trying to pull a SCO here?

Groklaw pointed out that David Boies is one of the three Lawyers listed on the Oracle filings. He also represented SCO in that fiasco, so, yes it appears we will be seeing the same sort of bullshit we saw there. He is a lawyer, and has represented many clients including some we would side with (such as arguing the DOJ's case against Microsoft). But his methods are similar regardless of the client; a no-holds-barred fight claiming anything they can think of regardless of the merit of the claims or how it affects Oracle's reputation with their customers.

Re:Dangerous claim (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | about 4 years ago | (#34050674)

Java's class libraries are split into two sections. The first is the public API, as documented online [oracle.com] .

The second part is the native implementation classes. On Sun's JVM, those are the sun.* and com.sun.* packages.

The real question is... which is Oracle referring to in this lawsuit? The former should be considered the interface (to an extent) and not copyrighted under US law. The latter is the implementation and should be covered by US Copyright law.

There's one additional wrinkle in this: If the code was copied from OpenJDK, that means Android would have to be GPL or be in violation of the GPL license. Android is currently licensed under the Apache 2.0 license.

Re:Dangerous claim (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | about 4 years ago | (#34050728)

>>All of this stuff should count as an interface, and therefore not covered by copyright under US law. If they win this, then it sets a very dangerous precedent.

Indeed. There (is supposedly) a clear difference between interface and implementation, and if they're going to claim that copyright extends to interface as well, then it means that reverse-engineering for compatibility - which is legal - will become impossible to do, legally. Because you can't even make a clean room alternative implementation any more, since you can't use the name method names in your API.

Honestly, though, I have to admit I'm really happy this lawsuit is occurring to Google, who has the legal muscle to beat Oracle down hard and hopefully set an ironclad precedent. If they sued Mom and Pop's Software Emporium... /shudder.

I have to wonder (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | about 4 years ago | (#34049920)

Oracle - how did Google get their hands on it in the first place?

Re:I have to wonder (5, Funny)

characterZer0 (138196) | about 4 years ago | (#34050090)

how did Google get their hands on it in the first place?

aptitude install sun-java6-source

Re:I have to wonder (1)

PatPending (953482) | about 4 years ago | (#34050246)

aptitude install sun-java6-source

Apache Harmony, no?

Regardless, +1 Funny

Re:I have to wonder (4, Insightful)

Surt (22457) | about 4 years ago | (#34050408)

The code in question is publicly accessible, just not licensed for this kind of use. Once you violate the license, your right to copy that code goes poof.

And so it begins. (5, Insightful)

contra_mundi (1362297) | about 4 years ago | (#34049926)

Oracle makes Java unusable, by being Oracle.

Re:And so it begins. (3, Insightful)

MrSenile (759314) | about 4 years ago | (#34050124)

Sadly, they aren't stopping there. They're slowly (ok, not so slowly) making Solaris unusable as well. As well as the hardware support.

Paying $160,000/year for 25K support why again?

Re:And so it begins. (1)

Doctor Faustus (127273) | about 4 years ago | (#34050522)

Oracle makes Java unusable, by being Oracle.

They were doing that before they owned it. OC4J drove me back to Microsoft tools.

Re:And so it begins. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34050778)

Seems to be common behavior in the software industry.

If you can't control it, kill it.

Even if you have to buy it with shareholders's money to do it.

And they wonder why the world considers them barbarians.

Isn't Java open these days? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34049930)

As long as they provide sources for their Davlik JVM i would think they will be fine no?

Only if they are certified Java (5, Informative)

JSBiff (87824) | about 4 years ago | (#34050102)

I want to start by saying I'm not making any commentary here on the validity of Oracle's claims regarding direct copying (I suspect they are making that claim just because class names and methods are the same for some classes, for compatibility purposes).

The thing is, Google doesn't claim Dalvik is "Java". They aren't using a Java license. Yes, you can create a free/open-source implementation of Java, as long as you are licensing from Sun/Oracle under the terms of the Java license.

Google created something very similar to Java, but they are not calling it Java, and do not claim to have licensed Java from Sun/Oracle. I believe they claim copyright over the entire Dalvik VM and API. That makes a world of difference, legally, and so they can't use the defense the parent is suggesting.

Re:Only if they are certified Java (0, Troll)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 4 years ago | (#34050286)

Except that they have created a derivative of j2me which is not open source.

Re:Only if they are certified Java (1, Insightful)

EasyTarget (43516) | about 4 years ago | (#34050462)

How can you make a derivative of something if you do not have the original source code?
And if they have the j2me code; surely a police complaint is in order since that would be pure theft, and a civil matter.

Re:Only if they are certified Java (2, Interesting)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | about 4 years ago | (#34050306)

Yes, you can create a free/open-source implementation of Java, as long as you are licensing from Sun/Oracle under the terms of the Java license.

But really, how long can it be before Oracle's suing open source implementations of Java, too?

I know, GPL, law isn't on their side, etc. But who really thinks that will stop them from trying to manage a win simply based on having more lawyers and money?

Re:Only if they are certified Java (3, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 4 years ago | (#34050532)

Yes, you can create a free/open-source implementation of Java, as long as you are licensing from Sun/Oracle under the terms of the Java license.

But really, how long can it be before Oracle's suing open source implementations of Java, too?

I know, GPL, law isn't on their side, etc. But who really thinks that will stop them from trying to manage a win simply based on having more lawyers and money?

Very unlikely actually. You forget that Java on the desktop doesn't make much money - it's far more lucrative to make it free, get people addicted and use Java elsewhere that makes more money - enterprise and mobile devices.

Forget smartphones for a moment, as they are but a tiny drop in total phone sales. The vast majority of those phones ('dumbphones' or 'featurephones') allow apps, and have for years. Those phones run Java, and Sun made (and Oracle makes) a killing licensing Java technology for all those handsets - both from the handset manufacturer and the carriers. And with the hundreds of millions of phones made annually, that's a lot of money.

Oracle's not going to give up such a lucrative source of cash anytime soon. And Android's Java implementation is in the direct line of fire because of it.

Re:Only if they are certified Java (2, Interesting)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | about 4 years ago | (#34050740)

Very unlikely actually. You forget that Java on the desktop doesn't make much money - it's far more lucrative to make it free, get people addicted and use Java elsewhere that makes more money - enterprise and mobile devices.

I didn't forget that; let me explain the nuance of where we differ.

I think what you're saying is true.

I think Sun saw it that way.

I don't think Oracle sees it that way. I think they're more likely to take the (bad, imho) strategy of deciding that Java needs to make them money directly even on the desktop/enterprise (herein defined as businesses that are using Java for business apps but maybe not using "enterprise Java"), one way or another. Maybe that's trying to get rid of free decent Java IDEs and muscle the makers of the rest into paying them a fee. Maybe that's bolting features or APIs onto Java that are extremely labryinthine or poorly documented so that you need to pay Oracle for consultants to do some or all of your implementation, and suing the hell out of alternate implementations of Java.

Basically, I think Oracle is about as likely to keep things going the smart way they previously were as the RIAA is to decide that file-sharing ultimately helps them out. There's just nothing in their culture or history that indicates they're remotely capable of letting a goose continue to lay golden eggs when it can be cooked and eaten today.

Most Hated (0, Redundant)

freeshoes (826204) | about 4 years ago | (#34049990)

Larry Elison, to become the most hated man in the World.

Re:Most Hated (0, Offtopic)

PatPending (953482) | about 4 years ago | (#34050062)

Larry Elison, to become the most hated man in the World.

I didn't realize Mr. Ellison was a Conservative.

Re:Most Hated (1)

wonkavader (605434) | about 4 years ago | (#34050720)

Yes, he lacks a gene.

Re:Most Hated (1)

mafian911 (1270834) | about 4 years ago | (#34050468)

"Larry, I have Bob Kotick on the line. He wants to meet over tea and crumpets. He mentioned that Adolf will be coming this time."

So now we know who the next SCO is... (1, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | about 4 years ago | (#34050054)

n/t

Original code leaked (1)

digitaldc (879047) | about 4 years ago | (#34050072)

10 INPUT "What is your query? ", U$
20 PRINT "Did you mean:"; U$
30 INPUT "Are you feeling lucky? ", N
40 PRINT "Goodbye "; U$
50 END

Doesn't this sound a lot like SCO's suit? (4, Insightful)

wonkavader (605434) | about 4 years ago | (#34050080)

Maybe there's more here. Maybe Google took actual, non-open Java code, but it looks a lot like the SCO suit to me. That Oracle is saying that using the same header files (AKA APIs) is infringement. We all know that to make a work-alike system, the strings in the header files (APIs) need to be the same. They really look the same, even if you create them from scratch by following the published specs.

This seems like Darl's work, all over again.

Deluded much? (1)

judeancodersfront (1760122) | about 4 years ago | (#34050238)

Does the logic flow of the code need to be the same as well? This goes beyond interface interaction.

Re:Deluded much? (1)

hAckz0r (989977) | about 4 years ago | (#34050726)

The design is different, the security model is different, the class binary byte code structure is different, and therefore the logic flow is *completely* different. The most that would be in common would be the names of the entry points for some of the classes used in both implementations.

Oracle is counting on the laymen juror thinking that because they both technologies use the letters "VM" to describe how the application is run, that it must be a clone. If that were the case then perhaps Oracle should be suing VMware instead?

Re:Deluded much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34050772)

TFS mentions nothing about function bodies. It mentions 'definitions,' but I suspect Oracle meant declarations, method signatures, or constants -- it fits in with their overall argument.

That being said, when you follow a language or library specification, expect many functions to be letter-for-letter exact when compared to the official implementation. If the library authors did a proper job, then there is minimal room for custom interpretation except where the platform requires it. If the new implementation was clean-room designed, as Google has claimed all along, then there is literally no grounds for a copyright claim -- if you think there is, you desperately need to rethink copyright.

The new Axis of Evil has formed... (1)

tangent3 (449222) | about 4 years ago | (#34050120)

...consisting of Microsoft, Apple and Oracle.

Re:The new Axis of Evil has formed... (4, Funny)

somersault (912633) | about 4 years ago | (#34050278)

I wonder who will they make Chairman of this MAO group? Actually Steve has the most experience with chairs, so he should probably be the new Chairman MAO.

Re:The new Axis of Evil has formed... (1)

somersault (912633) | about 4 years ago | (#34050302)

(Ballmer, not Jobs, obviously)

Re:The new Axis of Evil has formed... (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 4 years ago | (#34050668)

Ballmer makes a better Igor style sidekick while Jobs and Ellison have the arch-villain chops. You could make an entertaining TV show about those two egos battling for supremacy with samurai swords and turtlenecks.

Java GPL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34050144)

I thought that Java was now under the GPL?

Re:Java GPL? (3, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 4 years ago | (#34050322)

J2se is. J2me is not. That's three problem that Google faces.

Re:Java GPL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34050536)

FYI, Android is j2se like.

To all those who saw no harm in the Sun purchase (2, Interesting)

No. 24601 (657888) | about 4 years ago | (#34050198)

Oracle should never have been allowed to buy Sun. Instead it should have been liquidated (since that's what happening anyways... particularly with the high-profile Sun departures).

And so it begins...

Re:To all those who saw no harm in the Sun purchas (1)

khallow (566160) | about 4 years ago | (#34050388)

Oracle should never have been allowed to buy Sun. Instead it should have been liquidated (since that's what happening anyways... particularly with the high-profile Sun departures).

Well then, you shouldn't have allowed it.

Re:To all those who saw no harm in the Sun purchas (1)

digitalunity (19107) | about 4 years ago | (#34050646)

Investors wanted their money back. If Sun dumped all their copyrighted works onto torrent networks with a GPL license and folded up shop, their stock price would have instantly tanked and investors lost every penny.

Such a leadership decision would have been so negligent with regards to fiduciary responsibility that the board likely would have faced personal criminal liability. Not to mention, anyone working at Sun who actually wanted to stay at the company would have lost their jobs.

It's easy to see the repercussions of the Sun sale affecting us all for years to come, but I don't think there was any other choice. Oracle was the last company I wanted to see get Sun's assets; but it is what is is.

Re:To all those who saw no harm in the Sun purchas (1)

cpghost (719344) | about 4 years ago | (#34050700)

In most countries, when a company is liquidated, the various assets (including so called intellectual property assets) are being sold to the highest bidder. Imagine some crucial Unix-y stuff by SUN being bought by MSFT, SCO etc...!

The code is obviously ripped (2, Insightful)

judeancodersfront (1760122) | about 4 years ago | (#34050204)

Sorry but that is a fact that is independent of any hatred you may have of Oracle.

Renamed a string to s???? Why even bother?

Re:The code is obviously ripped (1)

pavon (30274) | about 4 years ago | (#34050648)

Do you have access to the court filings? If so, please post them. This latest one isn't up on Groklaw yet, and I would be interested in more detail than the linked article.

Who cares? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34050308)

Seriously. Oracle are a company with a shitty overprices RDBMS, Java is a bloated legacy platform and Android a closed one.

Whoever loses, we win!

obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34050372)

Suddenly, I feel the need to buy a t-shirt...

http://www.zazzle.com/obstacle_database_11g_tshirt-235492717886734808

Conspiracy (1)

WilyCoder (736280) | about 4 years ago | (#34050394)

Anyone else thinking Oracle buying Sun was a calculated move to destroy Android by killing Java?

Maybe Google wanted Sun to die so Google could buy Java in a disheveled state....

Reeks of conspiracy, I know, just a thought...

Re:Conspiracy (2, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | about 4 years ago | (#34050662)

Anyone else thinking Oracle buying Sun was a calculated move to destroy Android by killing Java?

Nope. I'm of the opinion that Java and Android are casualties to "business as usual" at Oracle.

I believe they really did want to be able to market an Oracle appliance set up specifically for running Oracle DBs. In fact, they will likely eventually move to a mode where Oracle is only supported on Oracle machines with a support contract. Since even the most trivial install of Oracle on the enterprise level requires a staggering amount of machines and processors, there's huge money in selling you a couple of million in hardware/software with tens of millions in built in support costs over the lifetime.

My wife works for a large company that does enterprise backups and the like. They have some aging Sun equipment -- but, since the machine isn't on a maintenance agreement with Oracle for bazillions of dollars each year, they suddenly can't get even the most basic stuff they used to be able to get. Oracle has locked everything down, and basically says "no contract, no peeking" -- needless to say, that is accelerating replacing Sun equipment with something else.

Oracle are as evil and closed as Microsoft, and ran by megalomaniacs on the same scale. Java is a casualty, but it wasn't a strategic goal of buying Sun. They had bigger fish to fry there.

In the long run, I think Oracle might devalue themselves overall -- they're gutting the brand value and good will of Sun, they're destroying Java, and generally not playing nice. I don't think people will want the taint of Oracle around their Sun platforms and Java.

Re:Conspiracy (1)

technomom (444378) | about 4 years ago | (#34050694)

Killing Java also does considerable damage to IBM.

Apple - Java (5, Interesting)

aitikin (909209) | about 4 years ago | (#34050444)

So maybe this is why Apple decided to stop updating their java and leave it to Oracle...

Sueing for using open source? (1)

daid303 (843777) | about 4 years ago | (#34050502)

Isn't oracles java just OpenJDK? Which is GPL, and thus can be copied in the way google did (if they did)?

Next up, Linus sues the world for each copy of the kernel sources?

Trading free languages for proprietary (1)

whiteboy86 (1930018) | about 4 years ago | (#34050542)

has never been a good idea - the enforcement of Java on Google's Android platform has been often criticized and caused major headaches for developers and FOSS community.

This mess might make Google think twice about Java and might push them to embrace patent-free industry standards instead.

PostgreKill (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 4 years ago | (#34050544)

Google should buy PostreSql, jazz it up a bit, and use it to kill Oracle's root business.

Farley (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34050556)

Wow, Oracle is making themselves irrelevant in a hurry... do they really want to go out of business that bad? If I worked for them right now I'd be looking for another job asap. First MySQL, then OpenOffice, and now they are (simplified) attacking open legitimate use of Java? I know some higher-end vendors rely on Oracle still, but this is strike three in the case to move the heck off of anything Oracle.

Ok, so google buys up oracle stock .. (1)

fkx (453233) | about 4 years ago | (#34050632)

OK so google buys up oracle stock,

holds a meeting and fires and replaces everyone and proceeds on like nothing happened, right?

Google's response (1)

nomad-9 (1423689) | about 4 years ago | (#34050712)

For those who are interested, here's a blog that discusses in more details the matter & Google's response.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101005114201136 [groklaw.net]

Google's answer with counterclaims. Like a declaration that the Oracle’s claims be barred by the doctrine of "unclean hands" (i.e. bad faith), and for Oracle to pay Google's attorney fees for that invalid lawsuit.

Evil? (2, Interesting)

guybrush3pwood (1579937) | about 4 years ago | (#34050786)

Evil? Are you serious? Oracle is not "evil", at least not by my understanding of the word. Evil would be to stealing food from a starving crowd, selling weapons to terrorists, secretly building atomic arsenals to launch surprise attacks, creating an ever-mutating virus targeting a specific ethnic group, and the like... A company buying another one and filing a lawsuit for a patent against a competitor might be silly, unfair, wrong... but never "evil".

Google Buy Oracle (3, Funny)

freeshoes (826204) | about 4 years ago | (#34050810)

Google should just buy Oracle, then it could develop OO etc to kill MS Office.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?