Slashdot Mirror
Kodak Wins $1 Billion Java Lawsuit
nberardi writes "The Rochester Democrat & Chronicle is reporting that Eastman Kodak Company has just won a patent suit against Sun on the Java Language. According to the article Kodak owns a patent which describes a way for a piece of software to "ask for help" from another application. What they are claiming is that Sun violates this patent when Java byte code uses the Java engine to run the code. This may really upset the industry, because not only Sun uses this technology for Java but Microsoft uses this technology in .Net."
Python, most modern basics (GFA, QBasic, ...), Perl,...
Shall I write the check to Kodak or Eastman-Kodak sir? Cuz I have a script to hack on the server tonite.
sheesh...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Forget Sun, this is batshit nuts. Bytecode interpreters have been common since Smalltalk in the 70s and are used by a simply huge number of common progrmaming languages.
Does anyone have the patent in question? Can this be appealed?
It was only decided that Sun had infringed on Kodak's patent. Kodak will return to court and they're initial claim of damages is $1 billion. So it's only a worst-case that Kodak would end up with that much, they'll most likely get less.
However, this still leaves that fact that, unless an appeal overturns this ruling, Sun will need to pay Kodak something for every java product out there. Wow is the patent office messed up... anybody think of some prior art out there?
-Fatty
Feel free to use/adapt my letter (in the parent post). Here's where to send your letter:
Eastman Kodak Company
Attn: Corporate Information
343 State Street
Rochester, New York 14650
There are probably other reasons to boycott Kodak besides the fact that they pulled a SCRambus--such as their offshoring.
I always prefer to get my info from primary sources rather than some newspaper's rendition, so here are the actual patents involved:
/.)
Patent 5,206,951: Integration of data between typed objects by mutual, direct invocation between object managers corresponding to object types
Patent 5,421,012: Multitasking computer system for integrating the operation of different application programs which manipulate data objects of different types
Patent 5,226,161: Integration of data between typed data structures by mutual direct invocation between data managers corresponding to data types
Thanks to Artur Biesiadowski, who orignally posted these at Java Lobby.
I haven't had a chance to read them in detail yet; they're slow reading. '012 seems to be the broadest, and it's very, very long. They seem actually to patent object-oriented programming, but they reference the Smalltalk documentation so presumably they're patenting some enhancement. I've been unable to determine what that enhancement is over Smalltalk, so I can't say if Java infringes on it or not.
A note on reading patents: the title is worthless, so please don't write about "I did X in 1967" based solely on the title. The abstract is hardly better, though my quick scan of these indicates that the abstract does actually do a good job of summarizing. The only thing with legal force is the claims, but they're written in a specialized patent language that takes a bit of practice to interpret.
You can usually learn the most from reading the description section, with background and summary, which has less legal force than the claims but is written in something closer to plain English (or at least computer-ese, which you probably speak if you're reading
"I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
You're full of crap, and I do know of what I speak, being well connected to the phone industry.
The AT&T domestic backbone was for all intents and purposes entirely circuit-switched (TDM nowadays) until the past couple of years. The Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers are almost entirely circuit-switched. MCI and Sprint are circuit switched. The phone backbones use SONET transmission and TDM switches.
There are narrow examples of packet switching in the phone network. AT&T rolled out a Frame Relay-based system in the late 1980s, to compress the bandwidth on high-cost international links. Others have done similar things, for the same reason, with various vendors' technology. It's called "Digital Circuit Multiplication Equipment" (DCME). But domestic SONET bandwidth is so cheap that DCME isn't worth using, especially since DCME degrades call quality. And it's used below the switch layer, to make more TDM virtual channels.
There's a fair amount of ATM (asynchronous transfer mode) floating around too. Some LD carriers may use it, mostly as a multiplexing technique over SONET pipes. Verizon has started using Nortel's ATM switches in its own local networks, especially in New Jersey. But it's still a minority technology. AT&T (back when it owned Lucent, Bell Labs, etc.) was a major advocate of ATM technology, but hardly invented it in house by itself (more like the work a committee -- and I was on the committee, so I know why the camel's so humpy). AT&T also pushed hard for Frame Relay, largely to mix voice and data on DCME.
In today's LD world, Qwest's backbone is mostly VoIP, using Sonus switches. Ditto Wiltel, a fairly small player. AT&T has started to migrate to VoIP, as have Sprint and MCI, but it's not "over the Internet", it's just using IP headers as a multiplexing technique on fat dedicated circuits. Mainly because the VoIP switches are really cheap, and because Wall Street expects it. (The new switches do circuit switching too; the cost per minute differential is negligible. VoIP actually uses more bandwidth, regardless of what the propagandists claim, but fat TDM switch ports are a bit costlier.)
In the local world, VoIP is coming on strong in the form of PacketCable, again not over the public Internet. And of course Vonage and its imitators, who for all their bluster have a combined market share of far less than one percent. A little VoIP gets used here and there by other carriers. The Bells are experimenting with it, but it's a negligible share of their traffic. They're backward monopolists, but they also have reasonably high service-level standards, and they know how hard it is to do that with VoIP.
The signaling network is packet switched (Signaling System 7), but that's a whole story of its own.