Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Morfik Defends IP Rights Against Google

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the set-course-for-deep-pockets dept.

ReadWriteWeb writes "Today Morfik came out fighting in defense of its product JST (Javascript Synthesis Technology). Morfik has implied that Google infringed its IP by releasing Google Web Toolkit (GWT) a couple of weeks ago. The reason? GWT bore more than a casual resemblance to Morfik's JST, which allows developers to use a high-level language of choice and have it compiled to JavaScript. GWT is similar, being a Java-to-Javascript translator. These Javascript compiler products are increasingly necessary for companies like Google, with the high use of Ajax on today's Web and the associated complexity of programming in Javascript."

5 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. Sure.. by suv4x4 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    These Javascript compiler products are increasingly necessary for companies like Google, with the high use of Ajax on today's Web and the associated complexity of programming in Javascript.

    There's no associated complexity with programming in JavaScript. There's lack of progress in the language (still no native support of ECMA4 in browser, shame that *Flash* comes with ECMA4 implementation in just two months, before browsers do).

    JS synthesis is a hack anyway. I've seen the code produced by such technologies, and it's crap. You trust your application's well being to the compiler authors with the hope they update it when it breaks in the latest and greatest browser out there.

    The correct way to me is upgrading the JavaScript language itself, and until then, using native JS libraries that can be readily reviewed and edited.

    JS as a language isn't so primitive as to require a Java or C++ compiler to write good and clean code for it.

  2. Prior art if there ever was by SomPost · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know of several Highlevel-to-Lowlevel language translators (e.g. Java-toC, Oberon-to-C, you name it) that have been around for decades. Surely, you cannot get a patent for doing the same thing with a different language, can you. Can you?!?

    Compiling something to JavaScript in the browser environment is about as obvious as compiling to C on Unix. Case in point, here are a few other X-to-JavaScript compilers pulled off the top of my head: Python, Prolog, Oberon, etc. Seems pretty obvious to me. Not that that has ever prevented the US Patent Office from granting a patent, of course.

  3. Re:Who cares if it's bogus? by suv4x4 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    These guys may be gambling on being able to drag this case out to SCO's epic proportions

    How easily we trust the news today.

    What if I tell you that there's no "case", Morfik doesn't threaten Google with case, Morfik didn't even mention to have claims against Google's kit, and it's all a speculation created by an overly eager reporter who tried to read between the lines in one of Morfik's press releases?

  4. Ok, is this IP infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ok, is this IP infringement? Nobody knows!

    Did Google had a close look at Morfik's technology? Yes!

    Does GWT looks a lot like what Morfik has done? Having used Morfik WebOS ApsBuilder for a couple of months, and given the GWT demos and description: definitely YES!

    And please keep in mind Morfik's tool has A LOT more nice things! It is like Visual Studio and like Borland Delphi but for the Web, i.e. true RAD development invironment! And yes, it supports not just Java, but c#, Pascal and VB. It can target both Linux and Windows WebServers. Go see yoursef!

    Sto

  5. Re:How well does this cross-compilation work? by arevos · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, the grandparent poster has a point. Javascript is a dynamically typed language that makes liberal use of high level functions in more complex scripts. Due to Javascript's fluid nature, it would be difficult for a largely static language like Java to match it exactly. For instance, a class in Javascript is merely a function that dynamically constructs an object. One could roughly map a Java class to a Javascript function, but it would be difficult to the inverse. Java's rigid structure would be disadvantageous in this case.

    Of course, one could just map the Javascript directly to a class file, and I believe Rhino does just that. However, that's not quite what the gransparent said, and even Rhino doesn't allow a flawless mapping from a Javascript class to a Java one (at least to the best of my knowledge). Classes in Java are just too static to entirely accomodate the more fluid Javascript object builder functions.