Google Says 3rd Parties Would Be Liable For Java Infringement 236
angry tapir writes "Third parties, not Google, would be liable for any Java copyright violations in the Android mobile OS, according to a filing Google made in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Oracle sued Google in August over a number of alleged Java patent and copyright violations in Android."
But outside the US? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder how Oracle will go suing Android integrators in Korea, Taiwan and China?
Especially outside of USA (Score:2)
It helps to have "friends" in "high places."
Re:Especially outside of USA (Score:4, Funny)
"what" do you mean "by" that?
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how Oracle will go suing Android integrators in Korea, Taiwan and China?
I'm sure they're big enough to have an overseas law firm rack up the billable hours. I wonder if they'll go after the US or European distributors of Android products? Or even the developers of Android apps?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Seems to be some confusion around here. There is a difference between the developers of Android (the OS) and the developers of Android applications.
Even if there are proven to be patent problems with the Dalvik VM, an application developer is not distributing any part of the OS, only byte code which may or may not have been generated by a Java compiler and just happens to run in a Dalvik VM.
Speaking as an Android app developer, I don't even program in Java. (And no, not the App Inventor or NDK either.)
Re:But outside the US? (Score:4, Interesting)
Injunction against imports? Kind of like what they did when those LCD manufacturers in a certain Asian country got into trouble?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder how Oracle will go suing Android integrators in Korea, Taiwan and China?
This filing doesn't mean that even Google think the defence will succeed.
From the article:
Overall, Google's answer takes an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach, including seemingly contradictory defenses, such as that Android developers are in fact "licensed to use the Patents-in-Suit and the copyrights in the works that are the subject of the Asserted Copyrights."
Sounds a little like "Uh oh! Quick! Everyone think up some kind of a defence for this! Maybe if we have enough, they'll negotiate and set
Re:But outside the US? (Score:5, Informative)
Groklaw disagrees with your assessment.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101111114933605 [groklaw.net]
Come on Sheeple, Android is *NOT* Google's OS (Score:5, Informative)
If you don't want to do the research to verify that I am correct, at least read this part from Groklaw:
I must have pointed out about 20 times here on Slashdot that Android is not Google's OS any more than Linux is a Red Hat OS. It is an OS produced by 78 different companies who are members of the Open Handset Alliance and also has numerous unaffiliated contributors.
Re: (Score:2)
I must have pointed out about 20 times here on Slashdot that Android is not Google's OS any more than Linux is a Red Hat OS. It is an OS produced by 78 different companies who are members of the Open Handset Alliance and also has numerous unaffiliated contributors.
I wouldn't be so sure about that until I'd seen OHA's articles of incorporation...
From OHA press release: "Android and Open Handset Alliance are trademarks of Google Inc.
From OHA Terms of Service:
10. License from Google 10.1 Google gives you a personal, worldwide, royalty-free, non-assignable and non-exclusive license to use the software provided to you by Google as part of the Services as provided to you by Google (referred to as the "Software" below). This license is for the sole purpose of enabling you to use and enjoy the benefit of the Services as provided by Google, in the manner permitted by the Terms.
If the software is in breach of copyright, then the big fat "provided by Google" "trademarks of Google" stickers all over everything might undermine a claim of "it wasn't us, guv, honest, it was those rascals over there in the Open Handset Alliance". Is the Open Handset Alliance even incorporated anywhere? If
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, maybe Jammie Thomas should be trying the defence of "it wasn't me, it was the Jamme-and-Daughter-Open-Source-Project wot did it"?
As a purely intellectual exercise, would any lawyers like to comment on whether this crazy strategy could work? I've thought of doing it before. What and how many aspects of one's personal life could one codify into a charter of incorporation? Can you really shell game yourself? It'd be awesome!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Come on Sheeple, Android is *NOT* Google's OS (Score:5, Informative)
Android is not Google's OS any more than Linux is a Red Hat OS. It is an OS produced by 78 different companies who are members of the Open Handset Alliance and also has numerous unaffiliated contributors.
Android is developed by Google behind closed doors. I am unsure of whether those other companies work with it behind those same closed doors, or not. But it's development is controlled by Google in a way very unlike Red Hat's development of Linux (or RHEL).
You can take the released Android code and use it however you want. But practically speaking, Google still maintains a lot of control through the closed-doors development model. So it is fair to say Android is "Google's OS", but I would agree that that can be misunderstood to mean proprietary (which the released code most certainly is not), so maybe it's a bad choice of phrase.
As I said before, I don't know if the other companies work with Google behind closed doors on the development - the development is behind closed doors, so we can't tell. But even if they do, it's still controlled by Google. For practical purposes, if you want to launch a device with Android, you need to partner with Google - only that way can you work on the latest code, and be aware of features in development, so your product when it finally launches will not use an outdated OS.
Kudos to Google though for open sourcing it, when they do release it into the world. I am not saying Android is bad or anything. Just that it is controlled by Google. I'm a fan of Android myself.
Regarding the story itself: Google is 100% right. Patents apply to 'specific machines', or should according to the law, so Google should be free to develop software free from worry from patent lawsuits. Hardware companies may need to enter patent agreements for their specific products. Google is arguing for a model of patents that makes a lot more sense than the one currently in practice in the US, and it happens to be the one that is on the books, so hopefully Google will prevail.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So why is Google being sued then?
Oracle is concerned about Google's unique combination of high profile, database experience in relation to their search and similar businesses, expansive business strategy and collection of high profile friends and business partners. Google is a potential threat. Dell would like to reach a settlement that keeps Google from becoming their competitor in the future.
I know you weren't seriously asking why they are being sued but were using a rheorical device to imply that if they're being sued for something then
Re:But outside the US? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh look, another stupid SCO investors bitter because PJ called it right. Pal, even your momma thinks you're stupid.
Re:But outside the US? (Score:5, Informative)
It's my understanding that if you want to preserve your rights to assert a defense, you have to assert it up front. This prevents dramatic Perry Mason-style maneuvers where you pull a new defense out of the hat near the end of the trial.
But the predictable consequence of this rule is that lawyers will assert any and all possible defenses up front, so as to preserve their client's options.
Re: (Score:2)
It's my understanding that if you want to preserve your rights to assert a defense, you have to assert it up front. This prevents dramatic Perry Mason-style maneuvers where you pull a new defense out of the hat near the end of the trial.
But the predictable consequence of this rule is that lawyers will assert any and all possible defenses up front, so as to preserve their client's options.
Aw, stop spoiling our speculation party with facts.
Re:But outside the US? (Score:5, Funny)
"My client never laid eyes on the victim of this horrible crime; but even if he did, he was not at the scene of the murder at the time of the killing; but even if he was, he's not the shooter; but even if he was, he was insane; and if he wasn't, then it was clearly self-defense."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
say what?
google pretty much just shot oracle in the face, and expects to fight the hell out of this and possibly invalidate patents on java.
Google not only expects to succeed, but is fighting everything. [groklaw.net] It is oracle who expected a fast settlement and a win, not google.
Re: (Score:2)
what makes you think they have to go after a country?
they'd have to go after the entire open handset alliance, which spans probably 3/4 of the world.
this is why it will never succeed.
This is the direct opposite of what MS is doing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is the direct opposite of what MS is doing (Score:4, Insightful)
They also charge for that feature.
I am sure for enough money google could do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
They also charge for that feature. I am sure for enough money google could do the same.
I know... what's interesting is that it seems that either you pay upfront or in the rear; either way you pay.
Re: (Score:2)
That's one reason why the GPL3 is so great: the license prohibits legal distribution if the users are vulnerable to patent attacks on the distributed software. It prevents this kind of racketeering right at the source.
Re: (Score:2)
Will it work if the users don't actually use a GPL licensed software, but an Apache licensed software - Android - with code (allegedly) copied from GPLed code?
Harmony, used by Android, isn't an OpenJDK fork - it's a complete reimplementation, and if code was indeed copied, this is a GPL violation like any other.
Nothing to do with patents.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Ahem,
Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version.
That doesn't do jack shit if you (google) distribute code that infringes on third party (oracle) patents.
Re: (Score:2)
> They also charge for that feature.
> I am sure for enough money google could do the same.
Can't argue with this. If Google did what Microsoft is doing, they would definitely not do the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
There are two points though. Much as I am loathe to suggest an ms solution to anyone, at least the cost is predictable with them. The cost of using Android just went to unpredictable, and also, you get the nice feeling of being tossed under the bus by a business partner.
Re: (Score:2)
And Microsoft paid SUN over .NET.
The HTC fees have never been discussed and may in fact be nothing more than a way to make sure HTC builds WP7 handsets.
In short rent seeking sucks, no matter who is doing it. It stifles competition and innovation.
No, it's not. (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft promises to take legal responsibiliy in the case of patent lawsuits resulting from use of their platform
What does that have to do with copyright claims?
Answer: absolutely nothing.
The summary is a bit short. (Score:5, Informative)
Mayber some of the following paragraphs from tfa would have fit in the summary:
"""
"Any use in the Android Platform of any protected elements of the works that are the subject of the Asserted Copyrights was made by third parties without the knowledge of Google, and Google is not liable for such use," Google attorneys wrote in one of 20 defenses to Oracle's amended complaint.
Another defense states that Android was "created independently and without reference to any works protected by the Asserted Copyrights."
Elsewhere in the document, Google discusses the formation of the Open Handset Alliance, the coalition of vendors, including Google, that worked together to develop Android.
The filing also notes that Android can be freely downloaded and developers are free to modify the source code to suit their needs.
In addition, Google states that Oracle's patent claims should be denied under the doctrine of misuse. "Oracle has come to the Court with unclean hands due to its practice of requiring licensees of its purportedly open software to pay for licenses to items not covered by Oracle's alleged intellectual property in order to receive a license under Oracle's alleged intellectual property."
"""
?
Re:The summary is a bit short. (Score:5, Funny)
"Oracle has come to the Court with unclean hands due to its practice of requiring licensees of its purportedly open software to pay for licenses to items not covered by Oracle's alleged intellectual property in order to receive a license under Oracle's alleged intellectual property."
A sentence only the deranged mind of a lawyer could love.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. I just read it, and *I* love it, truly. Started laughing out loud in fact.
Re:The summary is a bit short. (Score:5, Informative)
I had to read it a couple of times. I parse it as: "Oracle says that they have patents on some of the stuff that's used in open-source software. We're not saying they do, but we'll talk about that later. The thing is, because they say they have those patents, they want people to pay them for stuff that they don't even pretend to have patents on. That's bullshit. Therefore Oracle sucks."
Re: (Score:2)
No no no, it boils down to this:
Oracle legitimately owns patent rights or copyrights to Object A.
Oracle's licensing terms for Object A include a requirement to also license Object B, which nobody wants and Oracle doesn't own any legitimate rights to.
It's like being required to purchase a copy of OSX from Microsoft in order to purchase a copy of Windows.
To refine your analogy (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft could indeed (re)sell you a copy of OSX if they possessed one...
It's like Microsoft demanding you pay Microsoft a license fee for OSX in order for you to buy Windows, but in return for that license fee for OSX you get... nothing... Well you get a paper from Microsoft that says that as far as they are concerned it's okay if you get OSX by some other means and then use it. But since Microsoft doesn't have any stake in OSX that paper doesn't actually mean anything.
Now if you replace the copyright/pat
Re:The summary is a bit short. (Score:4, Interesting)
The big stick (Score:2)
Yes this has been conventional wisdom. However, it looks as if Google may well use it to beat Oracle over the head with it, since it forces anyone using "open source" Java to pay Oracle, when they don't actually own the right to force developers to pay them for what is essentially open source software. That is an illegal extension of the technology that the patents cover, which only strictly pertain to just how similar to the JVM any VM has to be and be permitted to call itself Java. Google makes no pret
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but one that a judge could love. Read: Oracle can not receive patent protection for technology that it does not own. The onus legally will be on Oracle to prove that the Dalvik VM is a copy of the Java JVM. That is not going to be easy to do given that they are bytecode incompatible and that simply translating Java into Dalvik bytecode is not a technology that Oracle owns.
I see it is going to be very difficult for Oracle to prove that its JVM can generate bytecode that is able to run Dalvik bytecode
Not quite what Google says (Score:4, Interesting)
From TFA, Google filed 20 defenses taking an 'everything but the kitchen sink' approach. In other words, they listed every defense they could conceive of, so that Oracle has to defeat each individual defense. If one fails, Google will then rely upon the others.
Furthermore, it's a strategic move - if the others were responsible, Oracle could find itself in the position of trying to sue either companies with much smaller bank balances like the Open handset Alliance or some 20 year old student. That's a lot less attractive than a bumper payday from Google.
Re:Not quite what Google says (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah peeps need not get their knickers in a wad. PJ can explain things, as always:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101111114933605 [groklaw.net]
I love this:
"Wouldn't it be ironic if Oracle's patents ended up on the junk heap? Clearly that is Google's intention. I've been hoping for a settlement of this mess from day one. I smell that it is now a real possibility. You can take this amended answer two ways -- that it's Google angling for a better settlement or that it's Google looking to win the whole enchilada and free up Java for everyone."
Re: (Score:2)
The bully in the schoolyard tries to shake down another kid to take his lunch money. The other kid rolls up his sleeves and says f*#k off, you're going to have to take it by force. The bully then has a choice: Walk away embarrassed in front of all the other kids, or risk getting his ass handed to him?
Kudos to Google for not rolling over like a lot of other companies would.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a lot less attractive than a bumper payday from Google.
Or a patent cross-licensing deal which is what Oracle is really after. This makes this Google's best defense.
Remember, there's somebody who can scale databases much better and faster than Oracle.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, considering what they had to work with they did a great job. Not their fault the customer was an idiot.
Highly misleading headline (Score:4, Informative)
Here's what the article actually says:
"Any use in the Android Platform of any protected elements of the works that are the subject of the Asserted Copyrights was made by third parties without the knowledge of Google, and Google is not liable for such use," Google attorneys wrote in one of 20 defenses to Oracle's amended complaint."
That is, "we are not responsible for any violations added by the third parties". Well, duh.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is a reference to the Dalvik VM code pre-dating Android. Since the code had an Apache (?) license, Google complied with that license. If the original party had no authorization to license the code under those terms (copied it from the JVM), then that is not Google's fault (or liability). Seems like a solid defense to this engineer...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Google is still distributing illegal copies.
"The 1976 Copyright Act, as amended in 1999, authorizes statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work infringed in cases of willful infringement and from $750 up to $30,000 in cases of non-willful infringement."
Google is making copies, they are possibly illegal. Doesn't matter the license they thought they had, they can still be held responsible up $30,000 a copy.
(source for quote https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&cr [lexisnexis.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Patents != Copyright
Re: (Score:2)
Google is still distributing illegal copies.
"The 1976 Copyright Act, as amended in 1999, authorizes statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work infringed in cases of willful infringement and from $750 up to $30,000 in cases of non-willful infringement."
Google is making copies, they are possibly illegal. Doesn't matter the license they thought they had, they can still be held responsible up $30,000 a copy.
Is "worked infringed" the same as "copy"?
Re: (Score:2)
Patent issues are a separate claim unrelated to the copyright issues. While I admit I could be wrong, my understanding is that the person committing a copyright violation is the person who (may have) committed copy-and-paste plagiarism, and then putting that fancy (c) their name symbol.
The license under which it was distributed by that party of the first part would state that parties of the second part could copy it at will without repercussion. If the original copyright holder takes issue with the plagia
We need a flow chart of sorts (Score:3, Interesting)
Having a flow chart would clear up so many issues surrounding patents. Here is the question:
What line of reasoning must hold water before a patent is deemed valid?
If you read this story [groklaw.net], you realize that each party is asserting their position as the valid one. To me, the confusion surrounding this topic is hitting me hard. A flow chart would help out a lot.
PolicyNodeImpl.java is from the Android TEST tree (Score:5, Interesting)
It's been widely reported that there's a duplicated file, and indeed it there is something close to that. BUT! One thing you'll find missing in Oracle's Exhibit "J" [groklaw.net] are the package headers at the top of the file. There's a good reason for that. On the Android side the file is in package org.apache.harmony.security.tests.support.cert, in directory support/src/test/java. You can see this in the git repository [kernel.org] for android. It's sitting in a directory of test support [kernel.org] classes.
So the matching file that we have here is part of the test suite to ensure compliance with the interfaces. It is NOT part of the implementation itself. So the real question is, is it OK to have this kind of file sitting in the test branch, to ensure that the real implementation of it complies?
The fact that the package headers have been removed and that this file is from the test suite can't be anything other than a deliberate attempt to deceive, well, someone. ;)
It's rather unbelievable that with thousands of stories out there on this file nobody is talking about WHERE it fits into the android tree.
Re:PolicyNodeImpl.java is from the Android TEST tr (Score:5, Informative)
The headers haven't only be removed - which is a GPL violation by itself - there's a *new* header:
This is a blatant copyright violation, because you can't re-licence GPL code as Apache.
it's Exhibit J that is the problem... (Score:4, Insightful)
The objection is, to my understanding, that "Exhibit 'J'" doesn't consist of any of the actual source code at all. It's got nothing to do with the headers or locations. Exhibit "J" is a decompile. To that end it has all the expressive part stripped. It may be that both halves of the comparison are decompiled from their respective objects using the same tool.
This would naturally strip the result of any indicators as to whether any code was copied because the _tool_ would pick the variable names, and the indenting style and so on.
So consider two implementations of some function "int add_two_integers(int, int)".
One guy goes in for the one-liner: "int add_two_integers(int l, int r) { return l+r; }"
Another guy does the long haul: /* giant copyright notice */ /* motivation for writing code */ /*specific integer sizes selected to constrain results within 32 bits for sure */ /*with comments and everything */
int32
add_two_integers(int32 Left, int32 Right)
{
return (Left + Right);
}
In no way did either party "copy" the other.
But you compile both on a 32-bit platform, then decompile them both, and then say look, that second guy just stole the first guy's code.
The outcome of the above would be different code were both compiled for, say, an amd64. The intent is clearly different. The amount of effort clearly different again. The actual act of copying isn't even in question when the source is examined.
But cook it right and use decompiles and whatnot and you produce a misleading sense of similarity.
So don't go looking at the files from the two distributions and how similar or different they are. The objection is to the particular details of an exhibit we don't have that has, according to Google, been produced or redacted or just plain old manipulated to remove the obvious dissimilarities in a way that Google thinks the court should see as dishonest or biased against a correct finding of fact.
Re: (Score:2)
If this is true then Wine is in the same boat.
They implement a compatible Win32 layer.
Which is it?
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone can see that though they do not call their implementation Java, the implementation is indeed Java to a great extent. That is where Google might lose in my opinion.
Uhhh, no. The Dalvik VM is a completely different beast; comparing it to Java is like comparing a sterling engine to an electric engine. Yes, they are both engines. Yes, they might both run on clean energy, and even get you from point to another. However, the damn things don't even have the same guts.
Incomplete Story (Score:4, Informative)
Miss Sun yet? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oracle's corporate personality is (Score:2)
the arrogant @$$hole in the polyester suit.
It's a good thing we have choice in the market.
Prediction: They're going to lose all their open source franchises
as developers and customers walk out.
Re: (Score:2)
nice Leisure Suit Larry reference!
Oh Google you cowards! (Score:2)
That's low! It should be on you!
Besides, Java is just the input language - change it for Android 4.0 - change the input language to Basic, make a new compiler and change the virtual machine accordingly. Problem solved.
Oh Google you accurate and correct bastards! (Score:4, Insightful)
Ouch (Score:2)
So they're just throwing their partners under the bus? I bet that is going to make everyone want to build more Android phones.
Awesome (Score:2)
Throw the makers to the lions.
Re:nice (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:nice (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it may be Oracle that's left "twisting in the wind". Google is a huge target, but suing several dozen developers instead is probably not going to be nearly as easy or lucrative.
Does it have to be lucrative or just effective at preventing anyone from using it without a licensing fee?
Re:nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Rent seeking the last refuge of the truly un-innovative.
Re:nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:nice (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps you mean SAP.
If Oracle goes after users, they're making 200,000 enemies a day.
Uh, sorry about your phone, dude, but Oracle says you can't use that Android stuff. I think they have their own version, but you have to get it at the Oracle App Store. Have a nice day. Oh, and there's this URL where you can jailbreak your Unbreakable Oracle Phone....
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oracle has no choice, and the "bad guy" in this situation is Google. Google (or the OHA if you want to nit-pick) is destroying Java in exactly the same way that Microsoft tried to destroy Java. If Oracle wants Java to survive as a viable multi-platform development environment they need to kill Dalvik. Simple as that.
It is funny how, when Microsoft did this, the "community" turned against Microsoft, but when God^H^H^HGoogle does exactly the same thing then it is OK.
Re:nice (Score:5, Informative)
Nope. Microsoft modified Java's platform and still called it Java. It wanted to add incompatible features and extend Java to its liking, ruining the write once run everywhere.
There was already a Sun/Oracle lead platform (and strategy) for Java on the phone, it was JavaMe and it wasn't good enough.
Google is thus taking the result of the compilation of a Java program and making it run on a phone in a different platform. It never clamed dalvik to be a Java VM, it just uses the Java language. That's very different from what Microsoft did.
Google has no interest in destroying the Java language and platform. It uses it in several places, including Google App Engine.
Re:nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Try rereading what you wrote with C in place of Java. You cannot patent or copyright a language. All Google did was write a different infrastructure for the language.
Re:nice (Score:5, Insightful)
> very much the same thing that Microsoft did
Let's clear this up a last time. Microsoft and Google did _very different things_.
As you agree, Java is a language (syntax) _and_ a platform (the API and the VM). (actually there are 3 platforms from Oracle: ME, SE, EE)
Google is using the _language_. Google never said it was using a _platform_ from Oracle. Check http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/fundamentals.html [android.com]
Microsoft on the other hand was implementing a JVM for Windows, under a license to do so from Sun. Microsoft extended the platform in a non cross-platform way (against the license) in order to "Kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market." Doh !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Java_Virtual_Machine#Antitrust_trial [wikipedia.org]
This is *very* different!
So now back on the android/dalvik google/oracle suit.
> Dalvik shoots Java ME and probably also JavaFX in the head.
First JavaFX is for the desktop. Nothing to do with the mobile.
Second JavaMe has had its success (2B devices) but isn't technically adapted to compete on smartphones. It's a 10 years old platform. The programming model for application developers is outdated. The licensing scheme (and fees) is not adapted, and the amount of work for implementors is too large. Android seeks and manages to alleviate those issues.
Third, Google is under no contractual obligation to not compete with Sun on providing a _platform_ for mobiles.
> That is not in Sun's interest, not in Oracle's
> interest, and generally not in the development
> community's interest.
It's not in Sun's interest, it's not in Oracle's interest but who says it's not in the community's interest ? You ? Based on what ?
As a developer, I say: JavaMe doesn't work for everything, there's a better technology out there, let's use it.
The manufacturers say: this allows us to focus on building and selling a phone, not a VM and software stack. Great !
Only Oracle is unhappy because their expected revenues on JavaME are potentially reduced.
> Google/OHA should not be allowed to fragment the Java platform [...]
JavaME and JavaSE are already different platforms you know ? There's no such thing as a unique Java platform.
Google isn't thus fragmenting _the platform_.
> Google could have worked with the community to
> fix JavaME and JavaFX, but Google doesn't foster
> than kind of an environment internally.
You can't fix an inappropriate platform. You replace it: the VM, the class libraries, everything had to be modified in a non compatible manner.
So why would Google help Sun/Oracle create something that only one compagny had control on ? No one wanted that. Hence the OHA.
Given the patent wars risks & the market complexity, with its reuse of the Java language, development environment and developer pools, the reuse of Apache code, the OHA, Android is one of the smartest move in the industry in the past years. Sun couldn't pull that. Google did. Oracle is pissed because it kills their revenue forecast. But there's a big chance Oracle cannot do anything about what Google did. Google carefully thought their plan, and Sun/Oracle's patents/copyrights/license&strategy may not have protected them against Google's move. That's called business.
Now instead of working hand in hand to make the language and the platforms more universal, Oracle seems to have taken a step against, alienating some of their best supporters (developers and FOSS community). That's a very very bad long term move for the platforms that Oracle present.
To me, the one who is damaging the most the platforms, isn't Google. It's Oracle.
Er vi enig ?
Perhaps but this will kill Java for sure (Score:2)
but who will be eager to buy a license to a product that Oracle can sue you if you use it?
If this policy begins to bleed into its Java - database offerings, it could sink Oracle as a company within a few years time.
Larry must be freaking out over the lousy legal advise given to him by a few lawyers eager to find a new gravy train.
What you mean to ask is (Score:2)
can Oracle now win this lawsuit without simultaneously destroying Java as a product that any developer may choose to use, since it creates the possibility for Oracle to extend the scope of their patents just by the application of the language itself on the part of the developer?
Larry must be fuming at the lawyers who convinced him this was a great strategy to take. Now he may have put his entire company in jeopardy by proceeding with this lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
What does the Dalvik name has anything to do with this? If you're talking about calling itself Java, this is an unrelated _patents_ matter, while the customers under a bus thing is about copyright - more specifically, the code Oracle says was copied from the OpenJDK and relicensed as Apache, which is a copyright violation.
"Third parties, not Google, would be liable for any Java copyright violations in the Android mobile OS"
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
My point was, ripping off Java and bypassing the licensing requirements for a mobile Java might have been a good way to save some cash, but it was slightly shady at best, and is going to kill Android as this struggle battles on.
They *call* it Dalvik and the bytecode differs, but the fact remains that it sucks in Oracle(TM) Java classfiles and spits out a proprietary, incompatible binary format. One of the general complaints in the broader struggle between Oracle and Google is precisely this.
The idea that G
Re: (Score:2)
So then you think Wine should be shutdown as well?
They implement Win32 and now Win64.
The real lesson here is Google should have either bought SUN or stayed the hell away from anything Oracle touched. Dalvik is not proprietary, it is Apache licensed. Do you think Apache is proprietary?
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is a VM licensed under the GPL (OpenJDK) or one licensed under Apache 2,0 (Dalvik) "proprietary"?
They _are_ free. The problem is patents, which apply to any code, free or not, and the copyright violations, which are simply a result of incompatible licenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Dalvik is not a java vm, it makes quite different byte code. Google is suggesting the open handset alliance members are responsible not their customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, yeah, but it is *Java* in the sense that a jury will understand it. That's all that really matters here.
Re: (Score:2)
Then the jury is poorly educated. Google should have from the beginning implemented several language to Dalvik VM compilers. I know that would have cost more, but they could have then removed support for java the minute Oracle bought SUN. We all know this is what Oracle does and would do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oracle is not pursuing Trademark violations, which is all that sounds like.
If this stuff holds up how long will it be before MS kills Wine?
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think there will be a jury rather than just a judge?
Re: (Score:2)
That conclusion is really unfounded. You would have to know and understand Android and its developmental origins to understand what is going on here. Google participated in the development of Android and went to great extremes to protect itself from precisely what is going on here now. But as we all know, you don't have to do anything wrong to be sued. In this case, if you read the claims against Google and Google's responses, you would begin that Oracle's claims are rather similar in nature to SCO's ag
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
So Google rips off most of Java, makes an incompatible bytecode format, calls it something else, and it's magically *NOT* Java?
Google could have protected itself from this fiasco by starting fresh and not using any of the Sun (Oracle) Java implementation, and calling it something else. What they did instead is take a buttload of Java stuff and call it something else so they didn't have to pay up on the licensing fees.
They were betting on massive amounts of applications being written for Android deviced by
Re: (Score:2)
Rips off or makes an inter-operable language?
There is a difference.
Class names are not artistic and do not deserve protection.
Re: (Score:2)
How about the functions in the classfiles?
Are you saying Google reimplemented every Java class from scratch, in a clean-room fashion, without having seen it first?
Re: (Score:2)
I am saying seeing GPLed code does not prevent me from writing Apache licensed versions that do the same thing. No where in the GPL does it say that by reading this code your brain is now property of someone else.
I am not saying it is impossible that they clean roomed it, it is in fact quite possible, since docs could be easily written by one team from that code to be given to another team. Again the GPL never says thou shalt not write docs from this code.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, if you simply copy the GPL'd code and relicense it as you wish, you are committing a violation of the GPL at the very least.
If you clean-roomed the code, you may not have a problem. However, if tiny details in your Apache code are identical with the GPL'd code, you are clearly messing around with the GPL.
This all ignores the fact that Dalvik was created as a way to bypass Sun's mobile Java licensing, without actually giving up compatibility with Sun's language files, passing their compliance test
Re: (Score:2)
I never said I could simply copy it. Tiny details of creative work seem not to match. Else Oracle would be not pulling an SCO. If tiny details really did match we would see reams of matching code.
Dalvik was created to be an open VM that can have java type language compiled for it.
This nonsense that you must pay rent to read a file needs to end. I should not pay to decode h264, nor should google pay to translate some java. If the originator of some filetype thinks it is so special he should not show it to an
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Sun MADE the Java platform, and it seems that Oracle as their successor can do pretty much what it likes with Java.
Again, this should be taken as a good, hard lesson - don't bet the farm on a proprietary language that is encumbered with patents and copyrights and etc.
Yeah, I know that Java is GPLd now, but in the strictest sense it still isn't Free as there are other gotchas and pitfalls.
Re:Hey Larry! (Score:4, Funny)
Which Larry?
Larry of Oracle or Larry of Google?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
class Larry (){
public String go_fuck_yourself() {
"Self fucked."
}
}
public static void main (String[] args){
Larry ellison = new Larry();
Larry brin = new Larry();
ellison.go_fuck_yourself();
brin.go_fuck_yourself();
}
Under that pile of BS (Score:2)
everyone seems eager to smear themselves in s__t as under all that BS is a pot of gold. Fro that either Larry will be glad to paint themselves brown.
Re: (Score:2)
It's about as much a matter of interpretation as: ... } ... }
for ( int i = 0; i < len; i++ ) { a[i] =
is equivalent to
for ( int i = len; --i >= 0; ) { a[i] =
The interpretation is "Hey, those are two different loops iterating across an array, one's forwards, the other is backwards." It's not a matter of interpretation because a compiler must generate different machine code because the code is very different, and it doesn't know that the iteration order is not important.
Much like the actual source code