Slashdot Mirror


Oracle Sues Google For Infringing Java Patents

Bruce Perens writes "Oracle has brought a lawsuit against Google claiming that Google has infringed patents on the Java platform in Android. Scribd has a copy of the complaint. But there's a patent grant that should allow Google to use Java royalty-free. Has Google failed to meet the terms of the grant?"

510 comments

  1. documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's more info on en.swpat.org at:

    It's a publicly-editable wiki; feel free to help out.

    • 6,125,447 - Protection Domains To Provide Security In A Computer System
    • 6,192,476 - Controlling Access To A Resource
    • 5,966,702 - Method And Apparatus For Preprocessing And Packaging Class Files
    • 7,426,720 - System And Method For Dynamic Preloading Of Classes Through Memory Space Cloning Of A Master Runtime System Process
    • RE38,104 - Method And Apparatus For Resolving Data References In Generate Code
    • 6,910,205 - Interpreting Functions Utilizing A Hybrid Of Virtual And Native Machine Instructions
    • 6,061,520 - Method And System for Performing Static Initialization
    1. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow that site is useless. it doesn't even have any more information than what you put on the comment you're posting.

    2. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by poetmatt · · Score: 4, Informative

      the patents themselves mean pretty much nothing, (hello? Bilski scotus ruling?)and also because Java is licensed under the GPL. So unless google is breaking GPL (very unlikely), it'll be hard to get a clear picture of what is going on at all until this case moves forward.

    3. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, you might want to actually take a look first.

    4. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      The Bilski case is not the be-all-end-all decision on the topic, infact in typical Slashdot style its a meme that has taken on its own form - it does not invalidate software patents at all, it simply laid out more requirements for testing the patent-ability of something.

    5. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative

      First, you seem to think the Bilski ruling said a lot more than it did: it did not invalidate software patents and only some of the justices involved even cast any doubt on the idea that they should be valid.

      The GPL is irrelevant in this case. Google's VM is not based on Sun's GPL'd code, it is an independent implementation (under a BSD-style license, as I recall). The GPL only protects derivatives of the GPL'd code from patent liability. It does not protect any other code.

      Perens seems to be unable to read the text that he quoted in his blog too. The grant there only covers complete Java 2 SE implementations. Android is not a complete J2SE implementation. But, hey, he got it on Slashdot and got paid for the ad impressions down the side...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by yyxx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      and also because Java is licensed under the GPL.

      "Java" isn't licensed under the GPL. A single Java implementation, derived from Sun's proprietary source code, is licensed under the GPL. Furthermore, the patent grant applies only if you meet specific compatibility conditions, which no implementation other than Sun's meets.

      Google implemented the Java language, not its libraries, and did it by themselves. Android (and Dalvik) are licensed under a mix of Apache and GPL, but that doesn't matter; the license under which a third party implementation is released is not relevant for the patent grant.

      Google rolled their own implementation and libraries for good reason: the full Java platform would have been far too obese for Android, and embedded versions of Java aren't free at all.

      There is effectively only one Java implementation, the one controlled by Sun/Oracle. Sun killed most of the others early on with legal threats, and the few remaining ones seem to fail to meet the conditions of Sun's public patent grant.

      Anybody who writes Java software is pretty much stuck with running it on Sun/Oracle's proprietary implementation or its nominally GPL derivative. You're joined at the hip with Oracle, in the bending over kind of sense.

    7. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Miguel de Icaza gives a pretty good guess about what's happened.

      The gist is that Sun very carefully licensed Java under the GPL with an agreement that anyone who implements Java 100%, without supersetting, would get access to the patents. Apparently Sun's embedded implementations have some special functionality not included in the GPLed version. This is where the "very carefully" bit comes in -- it means others can't implement their own embedded versions (adding that special functionality would be supersetting), and would have to license Sun's version. Their embedded implementation generates the bulk of the cash for them, and they wanted to protect that.

      Google wanted to use Java but didn't want everyone to need to license the embedded version. So they implemented their own. To get around the supersetting issue, they changed their implementation (Dalvik) to not infringe on Sun's patents -- even going so far as to change the bytecode format and implementing a Java->Dalvik bytecode translator.

      Now Sun sees everyone hopping on the Android train for all sorts of devices, and no licensing fees coming in from any of them. And they're suing.

      It sounds plausible to me but Miguel is the author of Mono, so take this with a grain of salt. He's usually the one having an argument against someone saying how everyone should use Java because Microsoft will pull the same type of stunt against Mono some day, so this must be a humorous day for him.

    8. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by think_nix · · Score: 5, Informative

      and also because Java is licensed under the GPL.

      "Java" isn't licensed under the GPL. A single Java implementation, derived from Sun's proprietary source code, is licensed under the GPL. Furthermore, the patent grant applies only if you meet specific compatibility conditions, which no implementation other than Sun's meets.

      Google implemented the Java language, not its libraries, and did it by themselves. Android (and Dalvik) are licensed under a mix of Apache and GPL, but that doesn't matter; the license under which a third party implementation is released is not relevant for the patent grant.

      Google rolled their own implementation and libraries for good reason: the full Java platform would have been far too obese for Android, and embedded versions of Java aren't free at all.

      There is effectively only one Java implementation, the one controlled by Sun/Oracle. Sun killed most of the others early on with legal threats, and the few remaining ones seem to fail to meet the conditions of Sun's public patent grant.

      Anybody who writes Java software is pretty much stuck with running it on Sun/Oracle's proprietary implementation or its nominally GPL derivative. You're joined at the hip with Oracle, in the bending over kind of sense.

      Almost but not quite , check out this interesting read: http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/110/


      So, Android uses the syntax of the Java platform (the Java “language”, if you wish, which is enough to make java programmers feel at home and IDEs to support the editing smoothly) and the java SE class library but not the Java bytecode or the Java virtual machine to execute it on the phone (and, note, Android’s implementation of the Java SE class library is, indeed, Apache Harmony’s!)

      The trick is that Google doesn’t claim that Android is a Java platform, although it can run some programs written with the Java language and against some derived version of the Java class library. Sun could prevent this if they had a patent on the standard class library, but they don’t and, even if they did, I strongly doubt it would be enforceable since Android doesn’t claim to be compatible (and in fact, could very well claim that their subset/superset is an innovation on the existing patent and challenge Sun’s position).

    9. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by yyxx · · Score: 1

      My comment above was a comment about Java, not Android.

      What you quote about Android is correct in that it isn't an implementation of the Java platform. However, the patents that Oracle now owns do apply to Android if Android uses the techniques described in those patents (which I believe it does).

    10. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by think_nix · · Score: 1

      Yeah, although about the libraries was my only point. Anyways I think the only way for Oracle to have a case holding water is if google used code that had SUN IP for Dalvik. Although from what many have said that they don't. ( I don't know I havent looked at the code but, only the code will tell .

    11. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      Wha?

      It didn't add requirements. It just said machine and transformation is not the end all be all. So now courts have leeway to come up with their own ways to invalidate patents.

      Again, we don't know the whole picture until the court case moves forward.

    12. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by Vectormatic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now Sun sees everyone hopping on the Android train for all sorts of devices, and no licensing fees coming in from any of them. And they're suing.

      Small correction, Oracle is sueing. I personally like to think Sun was more a bunch of business/social-awkward techheads trying to stay afloat with technology, rather then the blood-sucking vampires that run Oracle's legal/licensing department.

      Ellison, much like balmer has an air of megalomania about him...

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    13. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by stanlyb · · Score: 0

      GPL does not mean that you could sell Java freely, or ship it with your device. And there is some special clause for using java in mobile devices, which in general says that java for Embedded Devices is NOT FOR FREE.

    14. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      I'm not that knowledgeable programming side yet but I do know that there is a Dalvik Cache. So if that's related to their Dalvik IP (by name alone - so inquiring here), that might be an issue - however that's not something that Google has been putting into the OS.

      My only other guess is - could it be related to the JIT compiler that android is including in 2.2?

    15. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by makomk · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except that, as it happens, that's not quite right. Sun's license only prohibits supersetting by adding functionality in the java.*, javax.*, and possibly com.sun.* class heirachies. So Google could've used Sun Java but added their own Android-specific mobile functionality in com.android.* that weren't compatible with Sun's and still benefitted from the patent license. (They already did this as well as creating the Dalvik VM.) If they used .Net, they'd have to do exactly the same since Microsoft doesn't have any openly-licensed mobile or GUI APIs; this happens to actually be more risky than doing the same with Java.

      The real killer for mobile and embedded applications is probably the prohibition on subsetting. You don't want to have to include the entire .Net or Java API on a device with limited RAM...

    16. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      uh, GPL actually doesn't prevent anyone from selling GPL'd software for a price. Just gotta leave source available. It's not that different from a Best Buy selling an Ubuntu CD for $40 or so.

      The rest I don't know much about. I was under the impression that basically all of Java was GPL'd, but other comments seem to show me that I am wrong about that.

    17. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now Sun sees everyone hopping on the Android train for all sorts of devices, and no licensing fees coming in from any of them. And they're suing.

      Actually Sun's grievances go way back to 2007 ("Sun's worried that Google Android could fracture Java".) It's just that Oracle's bite is worse than Sun's bark. Oracle see Java as probably the most important part of the Sun acquisition and it's logical they would want to protect it from fracturing as Sun did with MS in the early years. They're too big to be pushed around by Google too which sadly couldn't be said of the waning Sun.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    18. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by azmodean+1 · · Score: 1

      Have you been following the whole software patents thing?

      That's the whole problem, that Sun acquired a monopoly on certain programming techniques from the government, and regardless of whether Dalvik pulls directly from Sun code, if it happens to use those techniques, then it falls afoul of patent law.

      My takeaway from all of this is that it reaffirms my opinion of Java, that it's poison.

    19. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Thats *precisely* the extra requirements - that an idea could not be patented on the machine-or-transform test alone.

    20. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by yyxx · · Score: 1

      Anyways I think the only way for Oracle to have a case holding water is if google used code that had SUN IP for Dalvik.

      No, what matters is whether Dalvik violates Oracle's patents. Dalvik is totally different from the JVM, probably in order to minimize the risk of violating Sun's patent portfolio. Nevertheless, some of the patents may still stick. The fact that Android kind of skirts around the Java issue in the way it does also will look bad to a jury.

      Still, I think Android is in less trouble here than Java. This is mainly an indictment of Java and its claims of being open and non-proprietary.

    21. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by idontgno · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      My takeaway from all of this is that it reaffirms my opinion of software patents, that it's poison.

      FTFY.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    22. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by ArtDent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oracle see Java as probably the most important part of the Sun acquisition and it's logical they would want to protect it from fracturing as Sun did with MS in the early years

      If they don't want to see Java fracture, they should stop wasting everyone's time with JavaME -- it's been a decade now and no one has ever done anything useful with it -- and embrace whatever's in Android as the official mobile Java solution.

      The writing's on the wall.

    23. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by Surt · · Score: 2, Informative

      An air? He is the textbook megalomaniac.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    24. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by alexborges · · Score: 1

      Perhaps larry is ready to close himself into his not-so-little ecosystem and become yet another ugly ass behemot, devoid of any kind of value or innovation down the line.

      He should watch out. He keeps going this way, we gonna eat his lunch.

      --
      NO SIG
    25. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by whatajoke · · Score: 1

      This is pure FUD.
      Nokia n900 has the complete openjdk available on it. You can use it without paying or licensing Sun/Oracle.

    26. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      Anyways I think the only way for Oracle to have a case holding water is if google used code that had SUN IP for Dalvik.

      You are confusing copyright with patent law.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    27. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by toriver · · Score: 1

      I think he even wrote that textbook...

    28. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by slater.jay · · Score: 1

      You should have said "the setting Sun".

    29. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      yes,but due to Bilski it just became a hell of a lot easier for people to attack patents/have them invalidated in court. Again, this is why I said the patents are unimportant. The questions behind this case will only be found out when we have time to see what exactly is being claimed here, as naming patents does not tell us everything.

    30. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      I never said it didn't become easier, but the meme on Slashdot is that Bilski defacto invalidated the entire concept of software patents, which it did not - and that is the reason why 'hello? Bilski scotus ruling?' doesn't actually mean anything because the Bilski ruling does not invalidate every software patent out there automatically.

    31. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's a difference between being concerned about the politics and sanity of something, and actually being against a project and suing to shut it down.

      Schwartz welcomed Android, he saw it as a positive development. Sun may have contributed to the discussion on whether certain design decisions were in the best interests of Java, but it would be unfair to link Oracle's decision to sue Google with Sun's technical grievances, just as it would to link, Germany's invasion of France during WW-I* with the previous Kaiser's dislike of French food.

      * World War One Gentlemen. There's no Godwin violation here.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    32. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean, there is now a real example of how Mono could be fucked by Microsoft? If I understand this correctly, this just proves the pressure to drink the vendor-blessed fruit-flavoured water.

    33. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by tyrione · · Score: 1

      Except that, as it happens, that's not quite right. Sun's license only prohibits supersetting by adding functionality in the java.*, javax.*, and possibly com.sun.* class heirachies. So Google could've used Sun Java but added their own Android-specific mobile functionality in com.android.* that weren't compatible with Sun's and still benefitted from the patent license. (They already did this as well as creating the Dalvik VM.) If they used .Net, they'd have to do exactly the same since Microsoft doesn't have any openly-licensed mobile or GUI APIs; this happens to actually be more risky than doing the same with Java.

      The real killer for mobile and embedded applications is probably the prohibition on subsetting. You don't want to have to include the entire .Net or Java API on a device with limited RAM...

      Google didn't create the Dalvik VM. They bought it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalvik_VM

      Google has since enhanced it, but they surely didn't create it.

    34. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      everyone should use Java because Microsoft will pull the same type of stunt against Mono some day

      If mono ever manages to actually start impacting Microsoft's revenue stream, it would extremely naive to think that Microsoft would not sue them into oblivion. This lawsuit over Java is exactly what we are talking about.

      In terms of a community response to this lawsuit, I think it may be appropriate to consider pulling all Java related technologies out of Linux distributions. Clearly Java is now as dangerous as Mono is.

    35. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by unix1 · · Score: 1

      The GPL only protects derivatives of the GPL'd code from patent liability. It does not protect any other code.

      That is incorrect. Please refer to GPLv2 (in this case):

      Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

      Emphasis mine.

    36. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by Surt · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, even if not, I'm sure he THINKS he wrote it. :-)

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    37. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and he has Copyrights and method patents on that, too...

    38. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by mysidia · · Score: 1

      The gist is that Sun very carefully licensed Java under the GPL with an agreement that anyone who implements Java 100%, without supersetting, would get access to the patents.

      In other words, everyone who redistributes Sun's GPL release of Java is violating the GPL Sec7. ?

      For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

    39. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      That would be incorrect. That's also only the preamble.

      If a patent would prevent you from distributing a work without additional limitations incompatible with the GPL, you may not distribute the work under the GPL. Sun had to license their patents to anyone using the original work or derivatives of the work or they simply couldn't use the GPL. What they meant in the preamble is that there will be no selling licenses to individual distributors. Anyone who distributes the GPLed work is licensed or nobody is.

      They do NOT have to license their patents to everyone for works that do not derive from sources they've released, however.

    40. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by Glock27 · · Score: 1

      The real killer for mobile and embedded applications is probably the prohibition on subsetting. You don't want to have to include the entire .Net or Java API on a device with limited RAM...

      My understanding always has been that Sun* didn't care about non-compliant implementations as long as they weren't billed as "Java", which Android's isn't.

      This simply looks like a cash grab by Oracle, and it may very well work if Google decides it'll be cheaper and result in better PR if it just settles (possibly for a patent swap).

      *For some value of Sun. ;-)

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    41. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by unix1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's also only the preamble.

      IANAL, but so what that it's in the preamble? The statement is pretty clear itself, it's even preceded with the phrase we have made it clear.

      Anyone who distributes the GPLed work is licensed or nobody is.

      That's not so. First of all, with the patents it's the "use" that's licensed not the distribution. Second, to me "everyone's free use" means what it says and it's not limited to distributors or program in question only*. Third, if you read the patent section in the license "everyone" includes any person who receives the software "directly or indirectly through you" - that would include pretty much everyone.

      * one argument that could be made is that you actually need to get a GPL program to acquire such license; that could easily be satisfied by distributing a small file with every copy of software.

      Sun had to license their patents to anyone using the original work or derivatives of the work or they simply couldn't use the GPL.

      I still don't see how Sun's patent license - i.e. only for full J2SE implementations - satisfies GPL anyway. There's nothing in GPL that prevents you from removing features from the program and creating another more limited derivative. Since this wouldn't be compatible with Sun's patent license, then was there an implicit license as well that did satisfy GPL?

      Definitely interested to see how it develops.

    42. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by rve · · Score: 1

      This is off topic, but the n900 is too little, too late. Deserved or not, Nokia allowed itself to get the reputation of peddler of cheap European crap. If a product isn't actually cheap or actually crap, with the Nokia name on it, it will not sell any more than a $100,000 sports car with the name Fiat will.

    43. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by spatrick_123 · · Score: 1

      The patent grant only covers Java 2 _Standard_ Edition, not Java 2 _Micro_ Edition, which is the technology that would be at issue here. Not saying I agree with Oracle's actions at all - just think this is a key distinction that's being missed...

    44. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      JavaME -- it's been a decade now and no one has ever done anything useful with it
      Well, there are those 100's of millions of digital TV set top boxes in the americas, europe, asia, and millions DVR are related boxes. But other than that, sure...

    45. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by chaboud · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've used some of those DVR and set top boxes.

      He said useful...

      Whatever your view of television, those boxes are merely there to shorten one's lifespan with rage alone.

    46. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by chaboud · · Score: 1

      And google based their work off of SE, not ME. Oracle (Sun) was trying to walk a very fine line here, and they may have opened a loophole.

      We'll know soon enough (not from a courtcase, as those are as likely to find the truth as I am to discover a unicorn in my kitchen).

    47. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by spatrick_123 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the correction - not sure why I made that assumption.

    48. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Alas, no. The patent license allows you to redistribute the Oracle version of Java, and even a modified version of the same. What it doesn't do is permit, in countries that recognize the patents, you to distribute a version that doesn't conform to the Java specification.

      It would certainly help invalidate Oracle's position (ie put them in the awkward position of having to withdraw their position, or else see no further distribution of Java by anyone at all) if the part of the GPL you quote made it illegal to redistribute Java, but that's not the case.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    49. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by Rexdude · · Score: 1

      There is effectively only one Java implementation, the one controlled by Sun/Oracle. Sun killed most of the others early on with legal threats, and the few remaining ones seem to fail to meet the conditions of Sun's public patent grant. Anybody who writes Java software is pretty much stuck with running it on Sun/Oracle's proprietary implementation or its nominally GPL derivative. You're joined at the hip with Oracle, in the bending over kind of sense.

      Um, no, not necessarily.

      --
      "..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
    50. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by yyxx · · Score: 1

      Um, no [ibm.com], not necessarily.

      That's a derivative of Sun/Oracle's proprietary implementation, produced under license.

    51. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by amirulbahr · · Score: 1

      They are not suing because Android is Java. They are suing because they claim that it infringes upon some patents that they hold. They could have used the syntax of Eiffel for Android and that would not affect Oracle's claims one bit.

    52. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      Ellison is cerifiably nuts. Gates' little brother cannot stand being out of the news. He better be careful or this could be the end of Java, already carrying a "get-off-my-lawn" level of obsolescence.

      My thoughts exactly. We are heavily invested in Java and Ellison is making me very nervous. Basically he's making everyone think twice about going with the Java runtime on their platform. Wonder how long it will be before Google comes out with a "Go" like language or makes "Go" applicable for mobile platforms.

    53. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      the patents themselves mean pretty much nothing, (hello? Bilski scotus ruling?)and also because Java is licensed under the GPL. So unless google is breaking GPL (very unlikely), it'll be hard to get a clear picture of what is going on at all until this case moves forward.

      The GPL doesn't cover all of Java (there are parts that proprietary) which is why the license grant is necessary and, apparently, there is an exception to the license grant on java ME.

    54. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by Rexdude · · Score: 1

      The derivative is only so far as class libraries are concerned. IBM uses its own J9 virtual machine. Furthermore, Harmony code continues to steadily replace Oracle's class library code, so the aim is to end up with a runtime (NOT necessarily branded as Java) that can support additional languages as well. I work on IBM JDK 7, and as of now several core packages - java.lang, java.io, java.net - are being partially replaced by Harmony code.

      --
      "..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
    55. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't want to have to include the entire .Net or Java API on a device with limited RAM...

      Limited RAM? Are we still talking about Android? These things have 5-10 times as much RAM as your 1995 desktop PC had.

    56. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 1

      > regardless of whether Dalvik pulls directly from Sun code

      Not true. Sun released code under GPLv2, which includes a patent grant - one which isn't cancelled by modification or by subsetting, supersetting, or ignoring the specification. If Dalvik was based on Sun's code, Google would be ok.

    57. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He must be talking about every device, since no device has *unlimited* RAM.

    58. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by yyxx · · Score: 1

      The derivative is only so far as class libraries are concerned.

      IBM is still bound by its license terms. So it is not an independent implementation.

      Furthermore, Harmony code continues to steadily replace Oracle's class library code,

      Even if you replace Oracle's class library completely, it still won't be an independent implementation because you will be bound by Oracle's license terms. Once IBM's Java and patent license agreement with Oracle end (if they ever do), you'll be in the same situation as Android: non-conforming and infringing Oracle's patents.

      Actually, IBM will be in a worse situation; Dalvik is very different from Java, but IBM will be infringing pretty much all of Oracle's patents.

      I work on IBM JDK 7

      Well, get your lawyers ready.

    59. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by mysidia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Alas, no. The patent license allows you to redistribute the Oracle version of Java, and even a modified version of the same. What it doesn't do is permit, in countries that recognize the patents, you to distribute a version that doesn't conform to the Java specification.

      That's a problem. That restriction on the patent grant restricts you from modifying the software to no longer meet the Java specification, which is still modifying the software.

      That requirement is in conflict with the GPL. You cannot redistribute Java if received under the GPL period, due to that restriction.

    60. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by jc42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... Miguel is the author of Mono, so take this with a grain of salt. He's usually the one having an argument against someone saying how everyone should use Java because Microsoft will pull the same type of stunt against Mono some day, so this must be a humorous day for him.

      Oh, I dunno. I'd wonder how many developers are looking at this and deciding to use some language other than Java until the courts tell us that it's safe to use Java again.

      Not that I expect the courts to say that. More likely, they'll say something that not even IP lawyers understand, and the legal status of our Java code will still be ambiguous.

      I think I'll stick to C, perl, tcl and python. Are there any outstanding questions about the legal status of code in those languages?

      (15 to 20 years back, I worked for several companies who decided against using Sys/V in products for just this reason. The C libraries there, and thus all binaries, contained AT&T copyright notices. The company lawyers said it was possible that if a product became successful, AT&T could sue for copyright violation, and might win. Using AT&T's libraries was possibly gambling all your profits on the good will of AT&T. So libraries were used that didn't do this. I just checked some binaries of mine on some FreeBSD, linux and OS X systems, and none of them contain copyright notices.)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    61. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by jc42 · · Score: 1

      I think it may be appropriate to consider pulling all Java related technologies out of Linux distributions. Clearly Java is now as dangerous as Mono is.

      So is there a summary of all the Java-related stuff in Linux? I don't offhand know of anything critical that's written in Java, but I'm no expert on the topic. But if we can get a good list of the endangered Java-coded components, we can start working on rewriting them in a safer language.

      For that matter, is there a reasonable way to put together a list of patent/copyright/trademark issues in various languages (and their libraries)? It could be useful to have an explicit list of such problems, and whether they're known, suspected, or charged, together with whatever knowledgeable commentary we can collect. Such information could help a lot of startups, small companies, and various other organizations who don't have millions of spare dollars to defend themselves in court.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    62. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by makomk · · Score: 1

      In terms of a community response to this lawsuit, I think it may be appropriate to consider pulling all Java related technologies out of Linux distributions. Clearly Java is now as dangerous as Mono is.

      Not really. If Mono were merely as dangerous as Java, there wouldn't be quite so much concern over it. The fun thing about Microsoft's .Net-related patent promises is that you can develop an entirely compliant implementation of exactly the correct subset of .Net to be covered by the promises - nothing more and nothing less - and still get sued into the ground for infringing Microsoft's patents on .Net. (There's other really nasty patent traps around .Net too, like patents designed to ensnare GUI frameworks based on .Net - Gtk# falls straight into this one.)

    63. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is going to sue McNealy. How he dares to say that textbooks should be free. ( http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/08/02/222200/Sun-Founders-Push-For-Open-Source-Education )

    64. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Miguel de Icaza Missed the boat completely and just certified his FUDster and scumbag status. He is FUDing against GPL, and claims that SUN patent grant (one that discriminates against mobile) apply to GPL'd implementation, AKA OpenJDK. It doesn't. It applies to non-GPL clean room implementations like Dalvik or IBM j9, but it doesn't cover mobile. (That is why Google is getting sued). That is even written in patent grant itself:

      "Sun Microsystems, Inc. (SUN) hereby grants to you a fully paid, nonexclusive, nontransferable, perpetual, worldwide limited license (without the right to sublicense) under SUN's intellectual property rights that are essential to practice this specification. This license allows and is limited to the creation and distribution of clean room implementations of this specification that: [...]"

      Notice the part that says: "creation and distribution of CLEAN ROOM IMPLEMENTATIONS".

      OpenJDK is not clean room implementation, it is Java code that is GPL'd by creator, and therefore patents are granted to all users, mobile included, by GPL patent grant. That is separate grant, and it is better than "clean room" grant that doesn't alow partial implementations. GPL patent grant doesn't discriminate against field of use, and additionally has "liberty of death clause", meaning that OpenJDK is either royalty free, or dead.

      So, de Icaza is deliberately confusing GPL patent grant with "clean room" patent grant that Sun gave to non-GPL implementations, and all that just to help his little Mono crusade. He is slandering GPL just to damage Free Java and help his misguided agenda. It is sad that some sites take his crap as valid argument.

      Before someone says "Mono is GPL too"... yes it is, but it is not GPL'd by creator of .NET (Microsoft), it is GPL'd by Novell who doesn't have any .NET patents anyways. Mono is in same spot as Dalvik, and De Icaza tries to play FUD game to make people forget that. If someone puts all eggs in Mono (like Google did with Dalvik) same thing will happen; Microsoft will sue, or it will go after customers directly. OpenJDK is only safe and free runtime now.

    65. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be bullshit - if it actually made sense, which it doesn't.

  2. Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by Gothmolly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not for MySQL (to kill) or their overpriced shitty hardware (to commoditize). They bought Sun for Java - you know how many other companies Oracle might have by the short and curlies now?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think it was all three. Sun had a decent amount of virgin un-evil products. Oracle saw them, and had an insatiable desire to corrupt and spread malevolence.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    2. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by cappp · · Score: 5, Funny

      how many other companies Oracle might have by the short and curlies now?

      None of the really hip companies, they all shave.

    3. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Google should have bought Sun. They had all kinds of interesting projects, people, patents and research happening. Plus they also would have had the SPARC platform (not big iron, but the CMT implementations) that, given enough investment, could have paid off in the long run for their commodity datacenters.

      For 7 billion, Sun was worth it. I wonder why they just let it pass.

    4. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by Rhaban · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why do you think Oracle bought Sun?

      For Solaris?

    5. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      Why do you think Oracle bought Sun?

      For Solaris?

      Don't be ridiculous, they bought it for SPARC..

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    6. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by tverbeek · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      As far as I'm concerned that ugly red "ORACLE" on the splash screen for OpenOffice is reason enough to hate them; at least the Sun branding was tasteful. And the icons for the individual apps (Writer, Calc, Impress, etc.) didn't all look alike.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    7. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why do you think Oracle bought Sun?

      For Solaris?

      Laugh all you want, but Solaris is as far beyond Linux in stability as Linux is beyond Windows.

      And there's no file system on earth faster than Sun/Oracle's QFS/SAMFS. Nothing open-source is even on the same planet. The only competition for it is IBM's GPFS.

    8. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      I just updated OOo and I must say, I actually like the new splash screen better than Sun's (the Oracle logo not-withstanding). potato/potato (you can't really get that across in text-based mediums, unfortunately).

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    9. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Laugh all you want, but Solaris is as far beyond Linux in stability as Linux is beyond Windows.

      Even if that's true, nobody cares. Solaris is also slower than Linux on x86 and vastly more expensive on SPARC, and reliability can be achieved in other ways.

      And there's no file system on earth faster than Sun/Oracle's QFS/SAMFS.

      This may also be true, but nobody cares. Solaris is a server OS, and the filesystem is rarely a bottleneck in interactions with servers.

      Basically, Solaris is dying because Linux is better in most ways, and Linux is still good enough in all the areas where Solaris actually is better. Sorry to break it to you, but your favourite OS is going the way of BSD. I expect Netcraft will get an announcement out in the near future.

    10. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      potato/potahto?

    11. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Why do you think Oracle bought Sun?

      For Solaris?

      Laugh all you want, but Solaris is as far beyond Linux in stability as Linux is beyond Windows.

      And there's no file system on earth faster than Sun/Oracle's QFS/SAMFS. Nothing open-source is even on the same planet. The only competition for it is IBM's GPFS.

      That's all true and dandy, but newsflash to you: it's irrelevant. Oracle bought Sun primarily for Java and next for the hardware. The OS has already been comoditized (sp).

    12. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

      How about potayto/potawto?

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    13. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Oh, that would work. Thanks!

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    14. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Also, they still don't all look alike (though the Writer/Math icons do look very similar, all the rest are still readily identifiable). Are you using a B&W screen?

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    15. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by jmerlin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Maybe, just maybe, Oracle hates open source projects. Buy the leading open source database.. check. Buy the company that created and owns the encumbered patents to one of the most popular open source programming languages.. check. Attack any company of any reasonable size producing commercial products with open source technology.. say.. Google.. a win would cement a victory against any company they might want to challenge.. so check.

      Oracle's products are pretty terrible with the one exception of the DB. And that's pretty ugly too, it just happens to work pretty well, not that its configuration is simple, intuitive, or quick, nor that its logging capabilities really tell you anything. I've never looked at Oracle as an example of how to write software or as a token example of a what a good, successful software company should look like. But it seems like Oracle is scared of the new kid in town and wants to kick his ass to demonstrate Oracle's badassness. I hope Oracle loses, and big. More rulings against software patents. And when you buy a company just to get the patents it owns to troll bigger fish, you've entered a new realm of "patent trolling." Oracle seriously lost any amount of respect I might've ever given them with this move. Just another patent troll. Just another big software company that can't win any way but fighting dirty. Let's hope the judicial system actually works properly for once -- retroactively kill all software patents and stop the issuance of any future ones, and possibly reverse the purchase of Sun by Oracle. It was clearly not about growth, but about obtaining a new weapon to run around shooting at people. Why this was allowed in the first place, I can't possibly imagine... oh wait, yeah I can. It looks something like this: $$$$$.

    16. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      This is why we can't have nice things.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    17. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oracle will never be better than Sun.
      They don't have ability to drive neither Java, Solaris or anything else but their database application.

      They are a database company which has a portifolio of excelent products made by others.

    18. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by frehe · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hmmm... I thought the primary reason Oracle bought Sun was to acquire Jonathan Schwartz's blog.

    19. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Buy the leading open source database.. check

      PostgreSQL isn't for sale.

    20. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by Excelsior · · Score: 1

      Why do you think Oracle bought Sun?

      For Solaris?

      Ha. Hahahhahahah. I've got to read that a second time.

      Why do you think Oracle bought Sun?

      For Solaris?

      Hahahahhhaaaa. Heeehee. Hah....hah. Oh man, tears.

    21. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by bigpat · · Score: 1

      They bought Sun for Java - you know how many other companies Oracle might have by the short and curlies now?

      Pretty much 0

    22. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      They bought Sun for Java - you know how many other companies Oracle might have by the short and curlies now?

      You may be correct, but you're also wrong - if only due to incompleteness.

      Oracle bought Sun for the same reason Oracle does anything: to get more licensing fees paid. Licensing has been what Oracle has sold since day one, and they'll do anything to get those fees. They've also been very protective of the licensed products as a result of this.

      I think we can expect to see more of this happening, with other projects. I'd imagine anything GPL licensed would be safe, thankfully.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    23. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Who cares if the OS has been commoditized, that's irrelevant to Oracle.

      The significant things are that the OS is a good one, they own it, and can therefore control it.

      Hasn't Oracle wanted to have a vertically integrated product for some time now?

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    24. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think Oracle bought Sun?

      For Solaris?

      Now that's sarcasm!

    25. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

      Pussy. Wax!

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
    26. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both o' you are pussies... TWEASERS!

    27. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      I'd have to concur. P-Code pre-dates, and anticipates most Java-like VM behaviors and dynamic recompilation covers the rest with prior art existing at least 1-2 years prior to Sun getting the idea to even DO HotSpot- dynarec being basically what you're doing with JIT compilation...

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    28. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by rkhalloran · · Score: 1

      Having left Netscape just before Sun and AOL carved it up between them, I have a certain fondness for what's now the "Sun Java Server ..." products, what's left of the old Netscape server suite.

      My personal bet on their long-term survival post-Oracle are, sadly, poor. Oracle already has a ton of products in the middleware space, all DB dependent. The likelihood they'll keep any of the legacy-Sun stuff around when it doesn't prop up the database: are you kidding?

      SCOX(Q) DELENDA EST!!

    29. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      And all one has to do to prove dynarec pre-dates things is go looking for Executor by ARDI or any good emulator from the 90's era. It was the in-vogue thing and there were libraries even to provide RISC and X86 code for synthetic CPU types back during that time.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    30. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      Do not bet anything on that. The GPL projects cut into the licensing- and they're technically attacking a FOSS project right now. What they're lashing out at is licensed under the Apache license. Being GPLed isn't going to keep them from doing anything- if you think the bad blood from attacking a GPL project is going to stay their hand on things, why did they attack the fastest rising handheld OS which was, popular, and FOSS at it's core?

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    31. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      Maybe they should beat Oracle up a little to lower it's value and then just buy them?

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    32. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      None of the really hip companies, they all shave.

      Ahh, that's why they're so irritating.

    33. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      their overpriced shitty hardware (to commoditize)

      It's overpriced, but hardly shitty. Niagra is massively parallel. That hardware is required to run Oracle's database for its core customers, until Oracle can re-tool to a modern database architecture. Yes, Facebook can use a cluster of 40,000 MySQL servers, but your Fortune 50 AR department can't, and their data keeps growing.

      Oracle got caught with its performance pants down, and bought a stop-gap measure. Java was nice synergy for them - all their apps run on Java.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    34. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shaved head doesn't irritate.

    35. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Laugh all you want, but Solaris is as far beyond Linux in stability as Linux is beyond Windows.

      If by stability you mean "doesn't change", then you are right. The user space doesn't change much -- lots of newer software won't compile on it. If by stability you mean "doesn't crash and doesn't cause application instability", I have news for you. That may be true only on SPARC for both. I've never used Linux/SPARC. But comparing Linux stability on x86_64 to Solaris stability on SPARC is an even score these days, with the edge going to Linux in my book. And don't get me started with Solaris on x86_64. That's not stable -- full stop.

    36. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of corporate and government agencies exclusively run the Oracle suite of products, on Solaris on Sun hardware in their data centers. Now Oracle controls the stack and can leverage licensing however they want.

    37. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not using a B&W screen, which is why I know that the new icons are so bad. They are no longer color-coded and require you to squint at the itty-bitmaps inside the little circles to tell them apart. The designer of the new icons is either color blind or knows nothing about the use of color in UI recognition.

    38. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      I don't know what icons you are looking at. I just installed the update last night, and in my start menu they are color coded.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    39. Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      Oracle's products are pretty terrible with the one exception of the DB. And that's pretty ugly too, it just happens to work pretty well, not that its configuration is simple, intuitive, or quick, nor that its logging capabilities really tell you anything. I've never looked at Oracle as an example of how to write software or as a token example of a what a good, successful software company should look like.

      Let me say upfront that i don't really like Microsoft. I use Windows because that's what i have to use at work and because that's what i need for most of the games i want to play at home. However i'll always look for alternatives to Microsoft products in any other area i can. Database software is one of the few areas where i've looked at Microsoft and looked at the competition and decided that Microsoft is just better. Both Microsoft and Oracle have fundamentally sound database software, but in my opinion Microsoft surpasses Oracle in pretty much every way when it comes to both user interface and support. Microsoft itself isn't generally known as a genius at coming up with interfaces, so you have to wonder about a company like Oracle being so technically proficient and yet doing so poorly at basic usability.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  3. Hooray Patent Minefield! by Haedrian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Patent Minefields - helping drive innovation forward!

    1. Re:Hooray Patent Minefield! by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Patent Minefields - helping drive innovation forward!

      Your satire is well taken. Here's an example, Rare Sharing of Data Leads to Progress on Alzheimer's, that shows how much can be accomplished when everyone agrees to share and work together. Perhaps this collaboration is not perfect and the outcome not certain, but perhaps it's a start. We accomplish more when we work together.

      The key to the Alzheimer's project was an agreement as ambitious as its goal: not just to raise money, not just to do research on a vast scale, but also to share all the data, making every single finding public immediately, available to anyone with a computer anywhere in the world.

      No one would own the data. No one could submit patent applications, though private companies would ultimately profit from any drugs or imaging tests developed as a result of the effort.

      ...And the collaboration is already serving as a model for similar efforts against Parkinson's disease.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re:Hooray Patent Minefield! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In this case that's probably accurate but only because Java was, from the outset a poor choice for android. Oracle have provided Google with the opportunity and incentive to remove Java from Android alltogether.

      The unfortunate way in which Oracle chose to bring the matter to Googles attention notwithstanding; autohell, C/C++ and luaJIT/V8 make for a more appealing development environment than Eclipse and Java.

    3. Re:Hooray Patent Minefield! by Haedrian · · Score: 1

      It is sad that something like "People working for the good of the community" is rarely seen anymore, and lots of research is re-done by different people for nothing.

      I read that link and it made me feel quite sad at the poor state that we are in - if we can't personally profit from something, we don't do it.

      If only more people (and more industries) would follow the 'data sharing' model. I've no idea when "Living in a Community" ever became "Sucking what we need out of other people" - but its a rubbish system.

    4. Re:Hooray Patent Minefield! by Xest · · Score: 1

      Innovation in bullshit legal arguments and other methods for lawyers involved in these sorts of cases to sponge more cash off of the productive and useful sections of society you mean?

    5. Re:Hooray Patent Minefield! by kj_kabaje · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just imagine if we shared global climate data with everyone... oh wait...

    6. Re:Hooray Patent Minefield! by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Just imagine if we shared global climate data with everyone... oh wait...

      Well... There are major competing financial and political forces to global climate change. I'm sure if Obama somehow backed this shared Alzheimer's research, Fox News would report it all as a Socialist/Communist plot and several state Attorneys General would sue to keep their citizens from being able to use it. :-)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    7. Re:Hooray Patent Minefield! by kj_kabaje · · Score: 1

      I agree with the openness and sharing concept--don't get me wrong. Just hope it can truly be used for the "greater good" without abusing the "minor good".

    8. Re:Hooray Patent Minefield! by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      Just imagine if we shared global climate data with everyone... oh wait.

      You realize the raw data has not been shared, only the mysteriously "adjusted" data.
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/phil-jones-lost-weather-data
      http://article.nationalreview.com/407512/the-dog-ate-global-warming/patrick-j-michaels

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    9. Re:Hooray Patent Minefield! by kj_kabaje · · Score: 1

      Geez the mods are idiots. We need a training course on being a mod that you actually have to understand the moderation system before you can become one. Now this part of the post is off-topic.

      To reply to your response (mods, this is informative): Thanks--yes. I'm aware of the data. I've actually spent some time reading about this topic. The data is not mysteriously adjusted--they actually explained in scientific journals exactly what they have done and why they do it. Your sources are both right-leaning and non-scientific in their approach.

      Now to educate the mods on flamebait: You (Anomalyst) are being obviously pedantic and biased in your reply. Please and kindly do go bugger off.

      Now then mods, my original comment was intended to be funny, but it may also have had a tone of trolling to it, which is why Anomalyst responded the way s/he did.

      Now, assume I'm trying to amuse you, and have this post also modded funny. A typical slashdot modder will find the "There's no way Anomalyst is a girl. There aren't any on /. anyway." Or perhaps if I wrote something about /.ers living in basements.

      Oddly enough this post will likely be unnoticed and unmodded, in which case it might deserve the underrated mod. On the off chance that this post actually gets some attention, it may be moderated every which way, in which case, I'd say it was probably overrated as we all should read the moderation rules better (insightful).

      Hopefully, in the end, my rant will also be to some degree interesting to the /. editors, because the mod system is to some degree still broken(redundant). Out of curiosity, I looked back at some stories from around 2000. Even on stories that have around 200-300 posts only 1 or 2 comments actually achieve a "5" rating. This is just like grade inflation in our schools--we don't all need or deserve a "5" post. A comment should be something truly remarkable to deserve it.

    10. Re:Hooray Patent Minefield! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, bright boy.

      Explain why the "adjustments" ALWAYS make the temperatures go UP as time goes by?

      And if they're so scientifically justified, why did you fail to mention the controversy over the urbanization warming corrections over large parts of the world? Once again, those adjustments ALWAYS make the temperatures warmer as time goes by.

      And here I thought science was based on skepticism, where "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". But NOOOO, now anyone who dares question the received wisdom of AGW is labelled a "denier".

      Gee, that sounds a whole lot like "heretic", doesn't it?

    11. Re:Hooray Patent Minefield! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The data is not mysteriously adjusted--they actually explained in scientific journals exactly what they have done and why they do it

      No. There are some explanations in papers from the early 80s which has nothing to do with modifications done after that - like reversing the complete temperature of Nepal from negative to positive through adjustments alone.

      When you want to rant, make sure you know the facts.

    12. Re:Hooray Patent Minefield! by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a job for a good Minesweeper.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    13. Re:Hooray Patent Minefield! by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Explain why the "adjustments" ALWAYS make the temperatures go UP as time goes by?

      That's because the temperature is rising, so the data will naturally reflect that.

      why did you fail to mention the controversy over the urbanization warming corrections

      There is no such controversy. Scientists are well aware of the urban warming effects, and adjust the data to take it into account. You are just parroting denialist talking points

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    14. Re:Hooray Patent Minefield! by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Why are you mindlessly parroting denialist lies and talking points?

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  4. Please sue the patent office! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the list of patents they claim to be violated:
    6,125,447, 6,192,476, 5,966,702, 7,426,720, RE38,104, 6,910,205 und
    6,061,520

    So maybe it's time to show that each of these patents wasn't new at the
    priority date and that the patent office once again screwed up checking
    if a claimed patent really was new at the priority date. .. any way to sue the patent office for this? .. at least we should ship this somehow to google .. not that I want to
    defend google over oracle, it's more that everything against the patent
    office seems to be right to me ..

    Publishing something under the GPL version 2 (yes, version two!)
    according to RMS implicitly allows to use possibly violated patents.
    Something he made explicit with the GPLv3. But doesn't this kill the
    whole case?

    best regards,

    jan

    What follows is a short association to each patent where I already heard
    of it (so like 10 minutes / patent .. something the patent office
    obviously wasn't able to do .. )

    ===

    -- cut 6,125,447 / 1997 --
    1. A method for providing security, the method comprising the steps of:

    establishing one or more protection domains, wherein a protection domain
    is associated with zero or more permissions;

    establishing an association between said one or more protection domains
    and one or more classes of one or more objects; and

    determining whether an action requested by a particular object is
    permitted based on said association between said one or more protection
    domains and said one or more classes.
    -- end cut --
    -> This is C++ private / protected
    -- cut evidence 1983 --
    C++ (pronounced see plus plus) is a statically typed, free-form,
    multi-paradigm, compiled, general-purpose programming language. It is
    regarded as a "middle-level" language, as it comprises a combination of
    both high-level and low-level language features.[2] It was developed by
    Bjarne Stroustrup starting in 1979 at Bell Labs as an enhancement to the
    C programming language and originally named C with Classes. It was
    renamed C++ in 1983.[3]
    -- end cut --

    ===

    -- cut 6,192,476 / 1997 --
    1. A method for providing security, the method comprising the steps of:

    detecting when a request for an action is made by a principal; and

    in response to detecting the request, determining whether said action is
    authorized based on permissions associated with a plurality of routines
    in a calling hierarchy associated with said principal, wherein said
    permissions are associated with said plurality of routines based on a
    first association between protection domains and permissions.
    -- end cut --
    Sounds to me like ACLs (Access Control Lists), for example documented
    within POSIX.1e

    ===

    -- cut 5,966,702 / 1997 --
    1. A method of pre-processing class files comprising:

    determining plurality of duplicated elements in a plurality of class files;

    forming a shared table comprising said plurality of duplicated elements;

    removing said duplicated elements from said plurality of class files to
    obtain a plurality of reduced class files; and

    forming a multi-class file comprising said plurality of reduced class
    files and said shared table
    -- end cut --
    This one is easy: select distinct count(*) from xyz-table;
    This is very old SQL-92. (so a public standard published in 1992)

    ===

    -- cut 7,426,720 / 2003 --
    1. A system for dynamic preloading of classes through memory space
    cloning of a master runtime system process, comprising: A processor; A
    memory a class preloader to obtain a representation of at least one
    class from a source definition provided as object-oriented program code;
    a master runtime system process to interpret and to instantiate the
    representation as a class definition in a memory space of the master
    runtime system process; a runtime enviro

    1. Re:Please sue the patent office! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guy, literally every single one of your guesses is absolutely way out. They're talknig more about classloaders and signed apps than ACLs and C++-style object models. Your SQL example is hilarious - no, they're not trying to count anything. They're creating shared class files originally comprised of greater than one class file, recognising where the byte blocks are identical. Think more VM or storage deduplication, not counting things.

    2. Re:Please sue the patent office! by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      Guy, literally every single one of your guesses is absolutely way out.

      That is a wild exaggeration, for example his observation about copy-on-write process memory is absolutely correct and dates back to the dawn of Unix.

      They're talknig more about classloaders and signed apps than ACLs and C++-style object models. Your SQL example is hilarious - no, they're not trying to count anything. They're creating shared class files originally comprised of greater than one class file, recognising where the byte blocks are identical. Think more VM or storage deduplication, not counting things.

      There is more than one way to skin a cat. I would suggest running the byte code through rzip, which will deduplicate it even more effectively.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
  5. What does it mean by Codename+Dutchess · · Score: 0

    The text of their lawsuit isn't available. Does that mean its not publicly available? How do we hear about a lawsuit, and not have any wording on the lawsuit?

  6. Like most things in the legal system..... by xzvf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are so many laws and twisty parts, that I'm sure everyone violates some law every day, it is only the lack of incarceration space and your own unimportance that keep us out of trouble. While Oracle sueing over Java is the surest way of destroying the language so people won't want to use it, at least Oracle is pulling its SCO moment against a peer like Google, and not building up a case against small companies that can't fight back.

    1. Re:Like most things in the legal system..... by cappp · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thats the underlying idea of Silverglate's "Three Felonies a Day". I haven't read the book yet myself but the general points he makes in his discussion seems well founded. There's a youtube vid if you feel like a general overview - the Wall Street Journal has a brief summary as well.

    2. Re:Like most things in the legal system..... by John+Hasler · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      > ...I'm sure everyone violates some law every day...

      True, but this is about patent infringement. Oracle has not alleged that any laws were violated.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    3. Re:Like most things in the legal system..... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If no laws have been claimed to be violated, there cannot be a lawsuit. The relevant laws in this case are those which say that you may not use ideas for which other people hold patents, unless those people give permission to do so, and those which say you may not copy stuff other people created without permission (unless those people are long dead).

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    4. Re:Like most things in the legal system..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I commit far fewer felonies these days since so-called "sodomy" statutes were struck down.

    5. Re:Like most things in the legal system..... by tverbeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Either you're trolling or you don't understand what patent law is.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    6. Re:Like most things in the legal system..... by cappp · · Score: 1

      You know sodomy doesn't include beating off right?

    7. Re:Like most things in the legal system..... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > If no laws have been claimed to be violated, there cannot be a lawsuit.

      Yes there can. Lawsuit are filed over breaches of contract and torts. In this case it is the latter, patent infringement being a tort.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    8. Re:Like most things in the legal system..... by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Informative

      Patent law creates the tort of patent infringement, granting patent owners the right to sue those who practice their inventions without permission the right to sue for the tort of patent infringement. No violation of law is involved. If there were it would be the government taking the infringer to court, not the patent owner.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    9. Re:Like most things in the legal system..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, and your mom asks for it even more now, so it's a win-win.

    10. Re:Like most things in the legal system..... by valeo.de · · Score: 1

      What are you insinuating, that AC is some dumb American who doesn't know the meaning of the word 'sodomy'?

      --
      cat: /home/valeo/.sig: No such file or directory
    11. Re:Like most things in the legal system..... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      > If no laws have been claimed to be violated, there cannot be a lawsuit.

      Yes there can. Lawsuit are filed over breaches of contract and torts. In this case it is the latter, patent infringement being a tort.

      No, there can't. You can only file a lawsuit over breach of contract because there's a law saying you have to fulfil your contracts. And you can only file a lawsuit over tort because there's a law that says so.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    12. Re:Like most things in the legal system..... by cappp · · Score: 1

      Isn't that how our great culture works? Everything gets reduced to a (bad)wanking joke given the fullness of time?

    13. Re:Like most things in the legal system..... by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      There are two classes of law: civil and criminal. In criminal law, the government (on behalf of The People) is the plaintiff. In civil law, it is not, and the plaintiff is... someone else. Patent infringement falls under civil law, and defendants who lose do so because they are ruled to have violated it.

      So again: you're either trolling (i.e. trying really hard to be ignorant), or... simply ignorant.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    14. Re:Like most things in the legal system..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which state were you disbarred in? cause only a lawyer would try to argue that "creating the tort of patent infringment" isnt "violating a law". but no _practicing_ lawyer would think he could get away with it

  7. Can't believe Java still exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    If it wasn't for Jdownloader I wouldn't allow that shit anywhere near a computer. Let's hope Google delist Oracel from their Index and the saddos disappear for good.

    And I am NOT an anonymous coward, I am an Anonymous PIRATE

    1. Re:Can't believe Java still exists by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      So you cant believe php/ruby/asp exists either eh? apparently something only has a reason d' etre if it serves a purpos on your computer..

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    2. Re:Can't believe Java still exists by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      That's funny, I can't find http://.slashdot.org/~Anonymous%20PIRATE here at all. Are you sure you're not that AC guy?

  8. Sun released Java under the GPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    "PJ: Well. It's for patent and copyright infringement. And guess who is representing Oracle Morrison & Foerster and Boies Schiller. I take it the latter have decided to learn from the masters. But this is really, really sad on so many levels. Also puzzling. Since Sun released Java under the GPL, how can anyone be sued for anything like this? The complaint doesn't make that clear, saying just that Google has no license, so for sure we'll be watching this litigation. So we'll have to wait until Google answers the complaint to get a clearer picture."
    Groklaw

    1. Re:Sun released Java under the GPL by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah but I think this is about non-sun implementations which use sun/oracle patented techniques.

    2. Re:Sun released Java under the GPL by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Are there still parts of Java not released under GPL? In that case, it could be those parts which are covered by the patents and copyright in question.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:Sun released Java under the GPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "PJ: Well. It's for patent and copyright infringement. And guess who is representing Oracle Morrison & Foerster and Boies Schiller. I take it the latter have decided to learn from the masters. But this is really, really sad on so many levels. Also puzzling. Since Sun released Java under the GPL, how can anyone be sued for anything like this? The complaint doesn't make that clear, saying just that Google has no license, so for sure we'll be watching this litigation. So we'll have to wait until Google answers the complaint to get a clearer picture."

      Groklaw

      Is the GPL even relevant here?

      Is the Android Java platform even derived from Sun's GPL'd code? If so, under what version of the GPL was Sun's code released? AFAIK GPLv2 wouldn't preclude a patent-related lawsuit.

      And does the Sun's release of the Java source code allow use of the Java name? If Google is calling their platform "Java" or "Java-compatible", they may be bound by the license that Oracle is claiming.

    4. Re:Sun released Java under the GPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.
      But then all the arguments against .NET/Mono in favor of Java fall quite out of place: you are not free with Java either (if experience speaks, you are less than with .NET/Mono - MS never sued for that yet at least).
      To be true, I wonder how this applies to basically every language, library, framework, whatever - it's certainly difficult to track and be 100% certain of having every possible license for patents, and to be compliant to the terms.

      BTW, this is again a strong argument against SW patents, and in favor of patent clauses in open source licenses.

    5. Re:Sun released Java under the GPL by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      It really doesn't matter if its released under the GPL or not. Not in the least. Largely, the GPL does not address matters of patents. That's what created the GPLv3. Having royalty free copyright access does not speak at all to patent accessibility.

      Having said that, Oracle/Sun's patents are complete bullshit and should never have been granted. All of the stated patents have a huge body of pre-existing art.

      I sure wish the patent examiners were forced to pay legal fees out of their retirement accounts. If this were enacted, I'm sure the number of completely illegitimate patents would suddenly dry up overnight.

    6. Re:Sun released Java under the GPL by IceFreak2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I could be wrong, but I don't think .NET/Mono is relevant here - both the C# Language and the Common Language Runtime are ECMA standards. Whereas Sun did indeed open-source the Java language, but the runtime remained completely under their control and if I've understood the complaint from Oracle correctly they are attempting to go for Google on the basis of the Dalvik VM. As I say though, I could be completely wrong about this ;)

      --
      Life is like a sewer; what you get out of it depends on what you put into it...
    7. Re:Sun released Java under the GPL by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 1

      It really doesn't matter if its released under the GPL or not. Not in the least. Largely, the GPL does not address matters of patents. That's what created the GPLv3. Having royalty free copyright access does not speak at all to patent accessibility.

      GPLv2 does not explicitly address patents. From my understanding it's considered "fairly likely" that it implies a patent license to anyone using that code, but (part of) the reason for GPLv3 was that "fairly likely" tends to make for very expensive court cases.

      But I don't think any of that actually matters here, since as I understand it Google isn't actually using any of the code that Sun released. Even the patent language in GPLv3 looks like it only applies to (modified version of) the released code.

    8. Re:Sun released Java under the GPL by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The GPL is irrelevant. It contains a patent grant that only applies to derived works of the GPL'd work. Dalvik is an independent implementation and so is neither bound by the GPL nor covered by the extra grants of rights that it contains.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re:Sun released Java under the GPL by fwarren · · Score: 1

      The problem with .NET/Mono is even though the language is a ECMA standard. There are things in .NET that are patented and live outside that standard. The only way for MONO to be 100% compatible is the bring in things that Microsoft has the right to sue over.

      In the short term, due to the license agreement between Microsoft and Novel, the MONO folks at Novel can even implement these features and they are OK if you get your Linux/MONO combo from Novel. If anyone else uses that code, again Microsoft has the right to sue.

      Right now, it does not matter if it is true or not. Microsoft loves FUD and as long as there is a specter of fear over this, it gives the MS platform an advantage over the Linux platform. And that is what really counts.

      --
      vi + /etc over regedit any day of the week.
    10. Re:Sun released Java under the GPL by valeo.de · · Score: 1

      You'd think a paralegal like PJ would actually do her research. Even I know the answer to the question "how can anyone be sued for anything like this?" - it's because the patent grant doesn't apply to random implementations, like Dalvik!

      --
      cat: /home/valeo/.sig: No such file or directory
    11. Re:Sun released Java under the GPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's difficult to "cleanse" a derived work to become independent, but it's quite easy to turn an original work into a derived work by simply combining them both.

      Just distribute some files from the Sun's GPL distribution in addition to yours, and voila - the total work is derived if you wish it to be. (though the total work should be GPL'd then).

    12. Re:Sun released Java under the GPL by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Until GPLv3, patents were not a concern in the least. The GPL license, until GPLv3, is strictly a copyright license. This is exactly why GPLv3 came into being; as, for example, patents can be used to restrict access where it would otherwise not be restricted by way of copyright.

    13. Re:Sun released Java under the GPL by makomk · · Score: 1

      The problem with .NET/Mono is even though the language is a ECMA standard. There are things in .NET that are patented and live outside that standard.

      Actually, it's even more evil than that. For example, there's a Microsoft patent (can't remember the number off-hand) that's broad enough to affect most implementations of a GUI framework on .Net that don't intentionally avoid it - including the Gtk# library that nearly all Mono GUI applications use.

  9. Anonymous Oracle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many of you think Oracle's popularity is dwindling fast?

    1. Re:Anonymous Oracle by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Oracle don't care. They are in it for the money, even more than IBM.

  10. Congratulation ORACLE by JamesP · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You're retarded

    No, really. Whose idea was that? How's that MBA called? Ok, then Google says, "ok, here's your billion dollars, go away"

    Or Google can absolutely block Oracle with its patents and other dirty tricks.

    And then MS will have a field day with this.

    Of course, Google in using Java in the first place for android, is debatable, still

    --
    how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    1. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by yyxx · · Score: 3, Informative

      Of course, Google in using Java in the first place for android, is debatable, still

      Google isn't really "using Java"; they are using the Java language, but almost none of the implementation or libraries.

      Why did they choose the Java language? Because they needed a safe, statically typed, garbage collected language that people had experience with and that there were tools for. There is little else out there that fits the bill (C# wasn't an option at the time they started).

    2. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by JamesP · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're right, and I understand that. I have friends developing for android and they say it's a breeze.

      But not even the best solution is without faults

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    3. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by kestasjk · · Score: 3, Insightful
      • An expanding company makes Java part of their platform.
      • The short-sighted company which owns Java sues the expanding company.
      • The expanding company drops Java and carries on expanding.
      • The short-sighted company realizes its mistake too late.
      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    4. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google isn't really "using Java"; they are using the Java language, but almost none of the implementation or libraries.

      Which is why Bruce Perens' blog entry is irrelevant. If he'd bothered to read the text that he quoted, he'd see that the patent grant only applies to complete implementations of the Java SE environment. Android uses Java-the-language but not Java-the-platform, so is not covered by the patent grant. This was intentional on the part of Sun: the aim of Java was 'write once, run anywhere' and this is not possible if various implementations have incompatible standard library implementations.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by yyxx · · Score: 1

      Of course it's intentional. It means that Sun effectively retained full control over all Java implementations, because the only implementations that could meet those criteria were the ones passing their compatibility tests and (in practice) only those based on their licensed source code. That makes Java a highly proprietary platform.

      And where is your "run anywhere" going to go if Oracle decides not to renew Java licenses to Apple or IBM anymore? I don't think Apple or IBM can use the GPL version of Java on their platforms because they need to link non-GPL code into the implementation.

      Java is, and always has been, a proprietary platform, in the same sense as Microsoft Windows has been. All Sun wanted to do was insert their proprietary layer in between the operating system and applications, meaning that you would be dependent on them instead of Microsoft. Looks like they may have the legal means to make it all stick.

    6. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      An expanding company makes Java part of their platform.

      Google is being sued over Dalvik which is a clean room implementation of part of the Java language with incompatible byte-codes. It is not directly compatible with or can be labeled as Java.

      The short-sighted company which owns Java sues the expanding company.

      A company defending its technology is not being short sighted. Things would have been different if Google used actual Java code which is GPLed and made a Java based phone OS. The way Oracle sees it, Dalvik is competing with Java in the phone space and they see a problem with that.

      The expanding company drops Java and carries on expanding. The short-sighted company realizes its mistake too late.

      The problem with your argument is that Google isn't using Java on the PHONE. Oracle makes money on Java by licensing the language for use on embedded devices and Dalvik is cutting into that profit. Adding insult to injury is that Dalvik is not even byte-compatible with Java so Oracle can't even claim Android phones in their marketing material promoting the growth of Java.

      Oracle sees a need to protect their investment in Java when it comes to licensing agreements. You may have noticed that they don't charge for their SDK and runtimes, so they must get the money somewhere.

      Everyone should have seen this coming when Google decided to make an incompatible version of the Java language since this is the Sun versus Microsoft lawsuit all over again.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    7. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So by your point, if the implementation is incomplete, and Android only uses the language, then Google doesn't then have any patent grant to use Java. And Sun is probably suing for that alone.

      In physical device terms, this is like an imaginary "patent" on the 104 key keyboard layout and main electronics. If they made it free to reimplement, but with restrictions on changing layouts, etc... But here comes Google with their keyboard, it looks to the user just like a normal 104 key keyboard, but lacks some buttons (scroll lock, break, etc?) and google created their own way if interpreting key presses.

      So I think what may have happened is Sun is pissed that Google's version of "Java" is not standard, and they want to prevent Brand(tm) fragmentation.

    8. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by lehphyro · · Score: 1

      they need to link non-GPL code into the implementation

      It's their problem, not Sun's.

      Java is, and always has been, a proprietary platform

      Then why are there so many FOSS implementations?

    9. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly why they are suing. Read the linked materials.

    10. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by yyxx · · Score: 1

      It's their problem, not Sun's.

      It's also your and my problem if we rely on Java. That's why we shouldn't rely on Java.

      Then why are there so many FOSS implementations?

      Because Sun/Oracle hasn't bothered suing them out of existence yet. With its patent portfolio, Oracle has the power to kill pretty much any unlicensed implementation of Java.

    11. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > ...this is the Sun versus Microsoft lawsuit all over again.

      No it isn't. That was over the use of the JAVA trademark.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    12. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Everyone should have seen this coming when Google decided to make an incompatible version of the Java language since this is the Sun versus Microsoft lawsuit all over again.

      Apparently some did see it coming. I don't remember it being reported at the time but here's what the Trolltech CTO said back in 2007 :

      "They are using Java, but they aren't implementing any well-known Java framework, and really that just creates another standard to support. The risk they take here is that they might fragment the market further," Benoit Schillings, Trolltech chief technology officer [said]." ("Google's Android parts ways with Java industry group")

      Of course Google was, and still is, the tech darling that could do no wrong and nothing seemed to come of it for a couple of years. Unfortunately for Google it seems that Oracle is very much a business company first and a tech company second. One with very deep pockets no less. This could get interesting, if someone could give Google a run for their money it'd be Oracle. Oracle might even see it as a preemptive strike against a company that wants to move data out of the datacenter and into their cloud.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    13. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by DiegoBravo · · Score: 1

      > Of course, Google in using Java in the first place for android, is debatable, still

      Until today it was strange for me the Apple's use of an obscure language like Objective-C. The "Cocoa" library portability issue could be just a nice disguise.

    14. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      No it isn't. That was over the use of the JAVA trademark.

      Trademark was only part of the litigation. J++ extensions to Java and use of Java technologies was also part of the litigation.

      This was all finally settled in 2003, as reported by CNET (emphasis mine):

      Under the 10-year pact with Microsoft, the software company will pay Sun $700 million to resolve antitrust issues and $900 million to resolve patent issues, the companies said. The companies will pay royalties to use each other's technology; Microsoft is paying $350 million now, with Sun to make payments when it incorporates technology later.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    15. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think the community is really using Java.

      Java as a platform died for good in 1995, when people realized it was slow shit and stopped using it for their personal projects.

      Now it is faster but it is dead for good. Java is something you use when your company writes software for crappy mobile phones. I can't name a single Java project on SF.

      There is far more "community" working on C# than Java.

    16. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      An expanding company makes Java part of their platform.

      I forgot to raise this point. Google is not making Java part of their platform. They are using Java to bootstrap their implementation of Dalvik.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    17. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      Android uses Java-the-language but not Java-the-platform, so is not covered by the patent grant. This was intentional on the part of Sun: the aim of Java was 'write once, run anywhere' and this is not possible if various implementations have incompatible standard library implementations.

      wasn't this also what got Microsoft's Visual J++ killed?

    18. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by gknoy · · Score: 1

      . Android uses Java-the-language but not Java-the-platform, so is not covered by the patent grant.

      Can you patent a language, though? I thought you had to patent some feature of the implementation of it.

    19. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      Nope. It mutilated the Java language with proprietary extensions. Dalvik doesn't pretend to run Java or be it- it only uses it (like a few other runtime environments, actually...) to produce code for it. There's an extra translation step in the mix that takes the Java bytecodes and transforms/ports them over to the other VM environment.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    20. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see Google switch to using Parrot. Translate it's byte code into whatever they need instead of Java. The ONLY things I still use Java for are Android and GWT both of which are Google projects. Java was always an overhyped suck language.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    21. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > (C# wasn't an option at the time they started).

      Let's be honest: C# isn't an option for anyone to do something like Android with, least of all Google. Going head to head with Microsoft using one of Microsoft's own tools is an open invitation to the hundred and one ways Microsoft can use to try to fuck you over. Anything you could say about Sun/Oracle making Java a risk applies tenfold to Microsoft and C#.

      The only reason MS isn't suing anyone over C# is that, so far, no one is using it to compete against Microsoft. (And, IMO, the reason that no one is using it to compete against Microsoft is that they KNOW it's a bad idea).

    22. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by steelfood · · Score: 1
      • An expanding company makes Java part of their platform.
      • The short-sighted company which owns Java sues the expanding company.
      • The expanding company goes bankrupt from all the lawyer fees.
      • The short-sighted company realizes it can sue other expanding comapnies to keep any potential rising competitors away.

      Fixed that for ya.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    23. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by judeancodersfront · · Score: 1

      Some of the patents are related to the VM.
      Just because it translates bytecode to a different VM does not mean that it is 100% original.

    24. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by alexo · · Score: 1

      Why did they choose the Java language? Because they needed a safe, statically typed, garbage collected language that people had experience with and that there were tools for. There is little else out there that fits the bill (C# wasn't an option at the time they started).

      Dan Bornstein, the designer of Dalvik, has been with Google since October 2005.
      C# was standardized by ECMA (ECMA-334) in December 2001, updated to version 3 in June 2005; and by ISO (ISO/IEC 23270:2003) in 2003, similarly updated in 2006.

      Whatever the reasons for not choosing C# were, I doubt availability was one of them.

    25. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      They didn't patent the language, they just patented some things that are required to create an implementation of certain characteristics of the language. The patents are quite specific to running Java in a VM (something like gcj would probably not be infringing them, for example). You could implement a Java-like language without stepping on any of them.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    26. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dan Bornstein, the designer of Dalvik, has been with Google since October 2005 [milk.com].

      Android development started much earlier.

      C# was standardized by ECMA (ECMA-334) in December 2001, updated to version 3 in June 2005; and by ISO (ISO/IEC 23270:2003) in 2003, similarly updated in 2006.

      But the patent situation wasn't really clarified for a while.

      Whatever the reasons for not choosing C# were, I doubt availability was one of them.

      Lack of availability of third party implementations, lack of legal certainty, and lack of practical experience, however, were.

      Today, C#/CLR might be a better choice. At the time it wasn't.

    27. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that Oracle has has virtually the same (slightly more) revenue and income than Google, as well as a similar sized cash stockpile ($27B). The problem with your argument is that Oracle has an much larger patent portfolio than Google, with most of them in the realm of databases. Guess who uses very large, home brewed, and almost certainly patent infringing databases? I think Oracle's bigger reservation is that Google intentionally circumvented Oracle's Java with Dalvik, most likely with the specific intent of avoiding paying royalties for the mobile version of Java. This can be fixed quite easily, have Google pay Oracle a license fee for each Android handset sold. The only problem with that is that Google doesn't make a dime on Android, it adds exactly $0 to the bottom line, and in fact, when you factor in engineering costs, Android is a loss leader for Google. I don't see this one ending in Google's favor, especially since Schmidt used to lead Java at Sun and can't rely on the innocent infringement defense to moderate any ruling.

    28. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by rxan · · Score: 1

      Developing for Android is a breeze but it has little, if nothing to do with their "Java" implementation.

      It more has to do with their great development tools, extensive guides, and excellent activity-based application framework. The fact that it's all open source is a bonus because if you ever wonder "How did they get their list to look like that?" you can just open up the files and take a gander. This is further bolstered by the large development community.

      Give developers all of those things and they won't care what language you shackle them to.

    29. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by alexo · · Score: 1

      Dan Bornstein, the designer of Dalvik, has been with Google since October 2005 [milk.com].

      Android development started much earlier.

      Android the OS. We're talking about the VM part.

    30. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by rve · · Score: 1

      And where is your "run anywhere" going to go if Oracle decides not to renew Java licenses to Apple or IBM anymore?

      Apple uses Java? For what product?

    31. Re:Congratulation ORACLE by yyxx · · Score: 1
  11. How ironic by MikeRT · · Score: 0

    That the first competing VM to be throttled by the patent holder would be a Java-based one, not a .NET-based one. I bet Steve Ballmer is laughing his ass off right now saying, "even I'm not that stupid."

    Note to Microsoft: now would be a perfect time to stick your boot up Oracle's ass so far they'll cough up rubber for a week by signing an iron clad patent licensing agreement with the FSF and Mono team that says that Microsoft will never sue an OSS .NET implementation that is released under the GPL or a BSD-like license. (The fact is that Microsoft develops Windows-specific APIs too rapidly and too well for Mono to be a threat to its business).

    1. Re:How ironic by dnaumov · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That the first competing VM to be throttled by the patent holder would be a Java-based one, not a .NET-based one. I bet Steve Ballmer is laughing his ass off right now saying, "even I'm not that stupid."

      Did you miss the part where SUN has (succesfully) sued Microsoft for the exact same thing?

    2. Re:How ironic by delt0r · · Score: 1

      just because Oracle did it first, doesn't mean MS won't. We need wait to see if this has any merit too. It may not stick.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    3. Re:How ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the obligatory "microsoft is somehow involved" too. I got over the microsoft sucks attitude years ago. All tech companies are just nasty bastards trying to make money. And most of you work for one of them, so fuck off. Don't get me wrong, I think steve ballmer it dick cheney's evil fucking twin.

    4. Re:How ironic by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      If you looked up "pyrrhic victory" in the dictionary it'd probably make reference to Sun vs Microsoft

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    5. Re:How ironic by quintesse · · Score: 1

      That was a contract dispute, it was not about patents. And besides it was a different era, Java was young still and Sun was afraid that Microsft would damage the "eco system". Nowadays they probably wouldn't have cared except for the fact that you can't call it Java if it doesn't adhere to the specs or fails the tests.

    6. Re:How ironic by mvdwege · · Score: 3, Informative

      No. Sun sued Microsoft because Microsoft was not implementing the JVM to spec, thereby violating the trademark agreement they had with Sun that allowed them to use the Java name for their JVM.

      Mart

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    7. Re:How ironic by bain_online · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Did you miss the part where SUN has (succesfully) sued Microsoft for the exact same thing?

      This is slashdot... Sueing Microsoft is _always_ OK.

      --
      BAIN http://www.devslashzero.com
    8. Re:How ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err... second.

      The first was the Microsoft JVM. Oracle is just being consistent with previous policy re sub-setting the VM.

    9. Re:How ironic by RivieraKid · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, didn't Sun sue Microsoft for their usual Embrace, Extend, Extinguish tactics when they added proprietary extensions to their Java version and claimed it was still Java, thus violating Suns patents/trademarks/copyright/license terms/whatever?

      They didn't sue just because MS created their own runtime/JVM, they sued because MS distributed an incomplete Java implementation, and then passed it off as the Java, something which only Sun had the legal right to do.

      --
      "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves
    10. Re:How ironic by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 1

      You are doubly wrong.

      First of all, Sun sued Microsoft, because Microsoft's Java implementation contained the proprietary Windows only extensions, thus the software written for "Microsoft" Java would not be compatible with the true original Java implementation.

      Secondly, Google doesn't promote Android as a "Java platform", Android SDK just has a lot of common with Sun's Java implementation (Java syntax, a VM, byte-code, classes, etc.).

      And thirdly, this dispute/suit is not about Java/Java VM per se, it's about software patents which apply to Android as a software product.

    11. Re:How ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they did not. Microsoft called it Java, licensed from Sun and then went on to make it incompatible with Java. Google do not claim Android is Java or that it's Java compatible.

    12. Re:How ironic by DrXym · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Did you miss the part where SUN has (succesfully) sued Microsoft for the exact same thing?

      It wasn't the exact same thing. Microsoft was passing off a bastardized version of Java as Java so they were sued for trademark infringement and related matters.

      Google doesn't claim their platform is Java and never has. Oracle can't sue them for the same reasons so they've pulled some generic patents out of their ass and are suing them for those. Google will probably pull a bunch of generic web patents out its ass and countersue. After a big noise both sides will settle.

    13. Re:How ironic by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      The sad part is that sun was just a little less evil then most tech companies, Larry Ellison however, must be steve ballmers evil twin.

      I just hope to god Google burries oracle six feet under, and if it all possible, rescues java from the flaming wreckage

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
  12. Epic Fight on the way.. by tebee · · Score: 5, Informative

    I wonder if this could be as big and as interesting(for the geek community) a fight as SCO v Novell

    There's an interesting comment on James Gosling's blog http://nighthacks.com/roller/jag/entry/the_shit_finally_hits_the

    "Not a big surprise. During the integration meetings between Sun and Oracle where we were being grilled about the patent situation between Sun and Google, we could see the Oracle lawyer's eyes sparkle"

    And yet more money get syphoned out of the IT industry into the lawyers pockets. Sigh

    --
    N.B. this user is far too lazy to write a witty and intelligent sig.
    1. Re:Epic Fight on the way.. by delt0r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Patents work for the economy like breaking windows. Do your part today. Break a window.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    2. Re:Epic Fight on the way.. by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      I wonder if this could be as big and as interesting(for the geek community) a fight as SCO v Novell

      I'm sure that in ~10 years (when this one gets settled) somebody will be able to write an exciting and full of intrigue 2k words article about it, but the process itself is boring. May be their PR teams' fight will add a little spice, but still... boring.

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    3. Re:Epic Fight on the way.. by ebcdic · · Score: 1

      "And yet more money get syphoned out of the IT industry into the lawyers pockets."

      You mean, out of the advertising industry.

    4. Re:Epic Fight on the way.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Valid point, but then the question becomes will Google be able to charge more, or will they have to do less Summer of Code style things?

    5. Re:Epic Fight on the way.. by delinear · · Score: 1

      Google have funded plenty of worthwhile IT projects (and even in the advertising realm they prevented us from being buried until a sea of flashy advertising banners every time we did a search - maybe you don't remember the early search portals).

    6. Re:Epic Fight on the way.. by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

      What if I said there would be mud wrestling with booth babes?

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
    7. Re:Epic Fight on the way.. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I wonder if this could be as big and as interesting(for the geek community) a fight as SCO v Novell

      I doubt it. Oracle doesn't want to destroy Java, Google, or Android. They probably don't even care about the money - Google has something else it wants. Probably distributed database patents, which Oracle desperately needs to stay relevant.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  13. Here's the lawsuit as a PDF by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 5, Informative

    > The text of their lawsuit isn't available

    Yes it is. I put it here:

    Other info:

    1. Re:Here's the lawsuit as a PDF by DrXym · · Score: 1
      From the PDF - "Google's Android competes with Oracle America's Java as an operating system software platform for cellular telephones and other mobile devices."

      Hahah. No.

    2. Re:Here's the lawsuit as a PDF by wasabifan · · Score: 1

      I love how paragraph 12 of the lawsuit is just flat out incorrect. I hope Google slaps this down with ease, and I wouldn't mind some lovely counter suits against Oracle's database patent portfolio just to silence Larry.

  14. Is the Android Java *complete*? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the linked article:

    This license allows and is limited to the creation and distribution of clean room implementations of this specification that:

    (i) include a complete implementation of the current version of this specification without subsetting or supersetting;

    (ii) implement all the interfaces and functionality of the required packages of the Java 2 Platform, Standard Edition, as defined by SUN, without subsetting or supersetting;

    If the Java implementation on the Android isn't complete or has proprietary Android-only extensions, Google is violating the license.

    These are the same clauses Sun nailed Microsoft on.

    1. Re:Is the Android Java *complete*? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      But isn't that if you call it java? I don't know that google do that.

    2. Re:Is the Android Java *complete*? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The "of the current version" clause is interesting: It actually means that as soon as a new version is published, all those distributing the previous version cannot distribute anything until they changed the implementation to match the new specification. Change versions fast enough, and no one will have a real chance to comply.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:Is the Android Java *complete*? by show+me+altoids · · Score: 1

      No, it isn't. I know right off the top of my head that AWT and Swing were left out intentionally.

      --
      I feel sorry for people that don't drink, because when they get up in the morning, that's as good as they're gonna feel
    4. Re:Is the Android Java *complete*? by Vectormatic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      except that android does not have an acutal java implementation. It has a dalvik VM, which runs non-java bytecode.

      The fact that the de facto standard syntax for writing code that gets compiled into dalvik bytecode happens to be java, does not mean an android phone has any java on it.

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    5. Re:Is the Android Java *complete*? by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      The fact that the de facto standard syntax for writing code that gets compiled into dalvik bytecode happens to be java, does not mean an android phone has any java on it.

      Allow me to draw your attention to

      Android will ship with a set of core applications including an email client, SMS program, calendar, maps, browser, contacts, and others. All applications are written using the Java programming language.

      on Google's What is Android? page (emphasis added by me).

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    6. Re:Is the Android Java *complete*? by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      I SAID THAT

      The code itself is written in java syntax, which is then compiled to DALVIK bytecode (rather then java bytecode) and run on a DALVIK vm, on a phone which has no java on it what so ever.

      If Google built a C# compiler that output dalvik compatible bytecode, the end result would be the exact same, and does not mean android phones suddenly run C#

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    7. Re:Is the Android Java *complete*? by toriver · · Score: 1

      This is a "walks like a duck, talks like a duck, won't pay for the license for a duck" situation.

    8. Re:Is the Android Java *complete*? by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      The programming language and the VM are completely differing entities. In fact you can have Python, Ruby and a few other languages running on the JVM, C++ actually included- because the JVM is a virtual machine, an artificial CPU under which things are executed against something of a common execution environment.

      Don't munge the two concepts together- because they're not one and the same and the patents they're fielding have NOTHING to do with the Java language, only allegedly the JVM runtime according to the patents Oracle led with.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  15. Oracle will win by AbbeyRoad · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Sun developed Java for embedded systems, and then further for business systems,
    investing enormous amounts of capital to create better technology. This was done
    over the period of over a decade. For this they deserve IP protection.

    The fact that Google is so closely copying their method means that *whatever*
    patents Sun had on the Java VM, could easily be said to be infringed upon.

    The details of course will play a part, but on the face of it myself I side
    with Oracle. If Google wanted to do Java on the android, they should have
    licensed the VM like everyone else, not stolen it.

    What Google has done is exactly what the patent system was invented to
    protect agaist.

    -paul

    1. Re:Oracle will win by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      How about Microsoft with the C# VM? Or perl with Parrot, and python?

    2. Re:Oracle will win by stikves · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A few days ago, I was checking the .Net Micro Framework (for embedded systems, not the regular one). Apparently (almost) the entire stack is open source:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Micro_Framework

      "available along with the source code as a free download under the Apache 2.0 license at the Microsoft Download Center.."

      And Microsoft is actually encouraging people to port it (thus .Net is used on more platforms). Given their patent pledge (which is now more open than Java's) there is almost no risk.

      Oh the irony!

    3. Re:Oracle will win by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      - Software patents are not considered valid in the majority of the world, precisely because they get in the way of perfectly reasonable actions.
      - Software patents on an "open" standard might not be enforceable if those patents are required to implement that standard, and are the only sensible way to do so. Interoperability with an existing product can't be protected by a patent if that patent is the only (or only sensible) way to do things.
      - All the mentioned patents have prior art except one, which is so far worded towards Java only use that it falls foul of the previous statement (I didn't think you *could* patent something that specific to a particular product).
      - The Oracle patents are particularly weak, most of them re-iterating 1980's knowledge of programming.
      - Google probably has one of the largest patent profiles ever, especially in the area of collating huge amounts of data into a database - this is commercial suicide for Oracle who could well see a retaliatory attack that they just can't afford to defend against (yes, THAT many patents). Google's patents are likely to be MUCH more substantial than these Oracle ones.
      - Sun never had a problem with IP protection. You don't need to protect your IP when "Java" is in everything from mobile phones to servers - basically Sun *WAS* Java and not much else before it was taken over, and saw no need to sue anyone at all substantial over patent infringement when it could have done at any time for even more cash.
      - Going for Google first is commercial suicide - there will be other, smaller, players using third-party Java VM's.
      - Suing immediately is a sign of desperation. Much more conducive to receiving compensation would have been quiet negotiations (there hasn't been ANY time for that since the Oracle takeover) and/or asking them to work around the patent at least. The path chosen is the most stupid and expensive.
      - The lawyers here are Boies, Schiller & Flexner - the same ones that handled the SCO case's IP side. That went well for them. *fall into fits of derisive laughter*.

      Much more likely is a quiet settlement involving cash, or Google saying "Go for it" and filing a counterclaim for a whole host of patents they own. Google can pretty much take Oracle to the cleaners if it wants. It makes me wonder why Oracle has set itself up to be that target.

    4. Re:Oracle will win by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      Apparently (almost) the entire stack is open source ... there is almost no risk.

      you wrote that and yet still failed to spot the really important word, in brackets, twice! :)

    5. Re:Oracle will win by lseltzer · · Score: 1

      Microsoft and Sun signed a broad patent cross-license for this stuff long ago.

    6. Re:Oracle will win by Xest · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting way of looking at things, except historically there's never been a problem creating your own compiler or interpreter for an existing managed language. This is precisely why Microsoft's C# is an ISO/ECMA standard, because it means other people can create their own implementation for the standard language hence spreading it's use and adoption leading to net benefits for the company.

      For example, in developing Android apps that connect to a web server someone may then go on to pay for and use Sun's enterprise products which makes sense as you're keeping the technology the same. They might even have gone on to use one of Oracle's database solutions too.

      The irony now is that it seems Google would've actually been no less safe in creating a C# VM and having that as their development language. Although, from what I can tell of this case the issue is the VM itself rather than the language itself- this means that if Oracle wins this case then any other technology almost certainly including all Microsoft's .NET languages running on the CLR (in other words the CLR itself) are at risk of also infringing these patents.

      This is bad all round, if Oracle isn't careful not only do they risk killing interest in Java, but also stifling all modern programming language development too and we'll all be worse off for that, whichever side of the fence we sit on. Look at the things covered in this post:

      http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1752790&cid=33237368

      Some of them are important advances in modern programming languages that make all code written using them better off.

    7. Re:Oracle will win by keirre23hu · · Score: 1

      Patent Infringement != Theft How do you "steal" a method for doing something? Further, if you cannot implement basic java functionality, then why why why is it an "open" language in the first place... Its like if I tell you to read a paper before writing your own, then I get mad when the paper I had you read influences your writing.. software patents are absolutely the devil.

    8. Re:Oracle will win by AltairDusk · · Score: 2

      or Google saying "Go for it" and filing a counterclaim for a whole host of patents they own. Google can pretty much take Oracle to the cleaners if it wants. It makes me wonder why Oracle has set itself up to be that target.

      This might make me a jerk but I would love to see this happen.

    9. Re:Oracle will win by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      When DEC sold RDB to Oracle the price for support went up by almost a factor of ten. There was no intention to develop the product. They wanted the cash.

    10. Re:Oracle will win by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      If Google wanted to do Java on the android, they should have licensed the VM like everyone else...

      They did. Sun licensed it to everyone. Read the grant in the specification. > ...not stolen it. It is impossible to steal an idea.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    11. Re:Oracle will win by stikves · · Score: 1

      I did not want to go into details. The missing parts (from open source release) are the TCP/IP stack and crypto routines:
      http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/11/16/microsoft-to-open-source-the-net-micro-framework.aspx

      TCP/IP stack code was licensed from another company, thus MS does not have the right to open it. Crypto has all sorts of export regulations, thus they did not want to go there (you can always find replacement from somewhere else).

      On the patent side, the community promise is pretty clear:
      http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx

      MS cannot sue you for implementing core C#/.Net. The only risk (almost part) is either if you sue them (when you lose the license), or another totally irrelevant party claims patents on the code (e.g.: Alcatel mp3 issue). But this risk is on any language. You can never know Borland (or whatever is called right now) will not sue you for using gcc c++ compiler, since they might have a patent on a specific optimization.

    12. Re:Oracle will win by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is it possible that the purpose of this whole action was to attack the concept of software patents itself? I realize that Oracle is evil by any reasonable definition, but could it realize that even an evil business could still prosper far more in a world without software patents than one with them? It chose an apparently very weak attack against a very powerful foe. It really doesn't make sense to me unless I'm missing something big.

    13. Re:Oracle will win by gclef · · Score: 2, Insightful

      - The lawyers here are Boies, Schiller & Flexner - the same ones that handled the SCO case's IP side. That went well for them. *fall into fits of derisive laughter*.

      Did they fail? Novell isn't going to get any money, the lawsuits cost all sides far more than the value under contest, and most of them are still going on.

      They failed if you believe that SCO was trying to really win. If their only tactic was to make the case as painful and expensive as possible (ie, to make it as attractive as possible for the defending party to settle), then Boies, Schiller & Flexner were massively successful.

    14. Re:Oracle will win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is impossible to steal an idea.

      Then how could they do that in Inception?

    15. Re:Oracle will win by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

      The irony now is that it seems Google would've actually been no less safe in creating a C# VM and having that as their development language.

      I wish they'd do that now to spite Oracle, because I generally prefer to work in modern C# over modern Java, but I don't have a lot of faith in the success of Windows phones.

      Android is actually the thing that spurred me to get my home desktop set up for Java development again. I've done (and sometimes still do) professional work in Java, but there hasn't been anything that seems like fun that I'd want to do with Java for a long time. (YMMV, lots of people like to play around with tech in their spare time that bores the hell out of me and more power to them, etc.)

    16. Re:Oracle will win by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      - Software patents are not considered valid in the majority of the world, precisely because they get in the way of perfectly reasonable actions.

      This is between two US companies, so what the rest of the world does is irrelevant in this case. And yes, I think software patents are stupid, but if it wasn't for patents, Oracle would use something else to go after them... possibly even copyrights over the interface classes source code, which are essentially the same between every Java implementation, since they are just method signatures.

      - Software patents on an "open" standard might not be enforceable if those patents are required to implement that standard, and are the only sensible way to do so. Interoperability with an existing product can't be protected by a patent if that patent is the only (or only sensible) way to do things.

      Java isn't an open standard. It has a GPLv3 implementation, but Google didn't use that and thus aren't covered by the GPLv3 protections.

      - All the mentioned patents have prior art except one, which is so far worded towards Java only use that it falls foul of the previous statement (I didn't think you *could* patent something that specific to a particular product).

      - The Oracle patents are particularly weak, most of them re-iterating 1980's knowledge of programming.

      It really matters how the courts interpret it. Some patents that should be thrown out (Amazon one-click business patent) haven't been.

      - Google probably has one of the largest patent profiles ever, especially in the area of collating huge amounts of data into a database - this is commercial suicide for Oracle who could well see a retaliatory attack that they just can't afford to defend against (yes, THAT many patents). Google's patents are likely to be MUCH more substantial than these Oracle ones.

      Oracle has a lot of pals with deep patent portfolios, including IBM. And given the marketspace we're referring to, you may be able to count Nokia, Apple, and Microsoft too. After all, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

      - Sun never had a problem with IP protection. You don't need to protect your IP when "Java" is in everything from mobile phones to servers - basically Sun *WAS* Java and not much else before it was taken over, and saw no need to sue anyone at all substantial over patent infringement when it could have done at any time for even more cash.

      - Going for Google first is commercial suicide - there will be other, smaller, players using third-party Java VM's.

      Oracle cares about Android, because Android directly cuts into Oracle's JavaME licensing. This is one of Sun's profit centers, and now Android is cutting into that.

      Most other, non-open source Java implementations are licensed from Oracle.

      On the desktop/server, Oracle doesn't care about the open-source implementations.

      - Suing immediately is a sign of desperation. Much more conducive to receiving compensation would have been quiet negotiations (there hasn't been ANY time for that since the Oracle takeover) and/or asking them to work around the patent at least. The path chosen is the most stupid and expensive.

      Reading between the lines of what James Gosling said, negotiations had already been going on between Sun and Google before Oracle bought Sun.

      The lawyers here are Boies, Schiller & Flexner - the same ones that handled the SCO case's IP side. That went well for them. *fall into fits of derisive laughter*.

      You mean the company that successfully sucked millions out of a sinking ship before it sank? And you think they're stupid?

      Whether Oracle actually has a case with these patents is debatable, but Oracle no doubt has other ammunition against Google should these fail.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    17. Re:Oracle will win by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Sun initially developed Oak for embedded systems and failed. Then they targeted the desktop and failed. Then they targeted the server and succeeded. Eventually some embedded systems got boatloads of memory and Java succeeded there too.

    18. Re:Oracle will win by ID000001 · · Score: 1

      A bit of a wishful thinking here, plus, what you say is just speculation. I'm sure people wish you are right, but there are nothing to discuss when we have no way to confirm such a hypnosis.

    19. Re:Oracle will win by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      On what basis do you base this on?

      The claimed patents that have clear prior art? If you haven't been in the computer industry for anything less than 10 years, you wouldn't know that Oracle's patents might be running afoul of prior art.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    20. Re:Oracle will win by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      No, they didn't fail in the sense they lost money. But the SCO vs. IBM suit hasn't been finished. This is just the SCO vs. Novell part you're talking about. IBM's going to be able to make Lanham Act violations stick and be able to pierce the corporate veil and be able to go looking for the corporations behind the action in question (and there should be little doubt about that one- they couldn't have lasted this long without someone big helping out in varying ways...) and be able to sue that party for the acts in question. Might be a financial win on BSF's part, but their client didn't fare very well- and the principals and the people that funded them may not fare well either.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    21. Re:Oracle will win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google can pretty much take Oracle to the cleaners if it wants. It makes me wonder why Oracle has set itself up to be that target.

      how would they do that?

    22. Re:Oracle will win by axp_bofh · · Score: 1
      Another thing that Google might do would be to throw out the BigTable source (maybe a generation or two behind) to poison the commercial big database market.

      Wouldn't Larry like that?

    23. Re:Oracle will win by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

      I'm not convinced that Google has more patents to sue Oracle over than vice versa.

      If it were a contest of brilliance, innovation, or technical savvy I'd bet on Google over Oracle ten times out of ten. But in one of possibly-dubious patent ligitation? That's right in Oracle's wheelhouse.

    24. Re:Oracle will win by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      Interesting information. I don't trust MS and I don't trust MS but it appears from that that for micro applications the .net framework is just as "free" or more "free" than the java me framework.

    25. Re:Oracle will win by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      Eh ... sorry I meant "I don't trust MS and I don't trust Oracle".

    26. Re:Oracle will win by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      The lawyers here are Boies, Schiller & Flexner - the same ones that handled the SCO case's IP side. That went well for them. *fall into fits of derisive laughter*.

      Actually, I think the whole purpose of that battle was to create FUD and on that front they had some success. That's why they keep appealing it and dragging it out. They want to create an environment where people in high places making decisions involving a lot of money are at least going to wonder about the legal implications.

    27. Re:Oracle will win by makomk · · Score: 1

      The fact that Google is so closely copying their method means that *whatever*
      patents Sun had on the Java VM, could easily be said to be infringed upon.

      Except that they're not. Android has its own VM - Dalvik - that has more in common with .Net than with Java, its own security model, and its own API. About the only things it shares with Java are the language syntax and a small subset of the runtime library API.

  16. Boies, Schiller & Flexner by ledow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    God, it's like SCO & IBM again.

    Stepping on the toes of just one the world's largest corporations not enough for them?

    1. Re:Boies, Schiller & Flexner by lotho+brandybuck · · Score: 2

      Yep. I freaked out when I first saw this. The Register describes Boies as "The Reknowned Litigator".

    2. Re:Boies, Schiller & Flexner by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      More like the infamous one...SCO vs. IBM's not something I'd be proud of if I were a Lawyer on the SCO side of things. They are perilously close to having promulgated a nonexistent case. In many jurisdictions, running up a case like that one is illegal for the plaintiff and the attorney.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  17. Please, *you*, sue the patent office! by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    > maybe it's time to show that each of these patents wasn't new

    Ever heard of 1-click?? The review took five years (!) and the end result was that it was upheld and just narrowed. I wonder how much is costs to hire a lawyer for five years... please tell me in 2015 when you've done what you suggest :-)

  18. Copyright too ? by Builder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The link mentions both patent and copyright infringement. Is that accurate?

    I'm far more interested in alleged copyright violations in an open-source ecosystem than patent violations. What does it mean for other players trying to build on Java if you're going to get done for copyright infringement by doing so ?

  19. Stallman rolling in his, er, house by WankersRevenge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't this exactly what Stallman warned when he suggested that Open Office should be forked because it used Java?

    1. Re:Stallman rolling in his, er, house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it wasn't. Did you notice the note that is added before the article that states that the information in it is out of date? This article isn't about patents.

    2. Re:Stallman rolling in his, er, house by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      I wonder if GNU classpath is immune to this..

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    3. Re:Stallman rolling in his, er, house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best way to fork OpenOffice would be to fork it to the darkest and nullest corner of /dev/null. Seriously, it has so outdated and horrible UI that one can't even consider using it for anything. Also the actual important features (integration to other products like "Sharepoint",) are lagging 10+ years behind in development. It is lost cause at this point and should be abandoned.

    4. Re:Stallman rolling in his, er, house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I think he said something that [i]SOUNDS[/i] like "Open Office is forked because it uses Java".

    5. Re:Stallman rolling in his, er, house by FlorianMueller · · Score: 2, Insightful

      RMS is really a great visionary but Oracle actually proves him wrong because he recently warned against Mono, DotGNU and C# because of patent concerns. I disagreed and said that those platforms are the last pieces of software against Microsoft would consider using its patents because those basically help the .NET ecosystem. More importantly, I said that other programming languages are also patent-encumbered, and I mentioned Java. That's why I thought it was wrong to single out C#.

      Oddly enough, right now -- just a few weeks later -- it looks like C#, which was submitted to a standards body, is actually much safer from a patent point of view than Java and much more of an open standard.

    6. Re:Stallman rolling in his, er, house by delt0r · · Score: 2

      That patents don't have anything to do with the *language* but its implementation.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    7. Re:Stallman rolling in his, er, house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your link points to the wrong article. It advocates the use of gcj instead of the sun java implementation and does not mention Open Office.

      Even the GPL licence wouldn't protect google from the patent lawyers, neither would developing their own vm help them. The idea behind software patents is that when oracle patents taking a shit you better be able to pay them whenever you use "their" IP and they will sue you. They don't have a patent on java they have a patents on severall components of a vm.

    8. Re:Stallman rolling in his, er, house by diegocg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think this is a proof of how dangerous is to bet your future in platforms controlled by companies like Oracle or Microsoft. I don't care if mono it's a bit safer to use, it's still dangerous if it's in the hands of a company that can change its opinion depending of what Wall Street does. I think opensource should avoid platforms "owned" by companies in some way and bet into open plataforms like python. Python could be sued for patents, but python itself will never sue anyone.

    9. Re:Stallman rolling in his, er, house by kj_kabaje · · Score: 1

      unfortunately, the splash on this page: http://www.gnu.org/ still shows openoffice as the main way of being productive on a GnuOS computer.

    10. Re:Stallman rolling in his, er, house by valeo.de · · Score: 1

      I may be wrong, but a class library isn't a complete implementation. If GNU Classpath was an incomplete reimplementation of the class libraries, compiler, VM etc., then they might have reason to worry.

      --
      cat: /home/valeo/.sig: No such file or directory
    11. Re:Stallman rolling in his, er, house by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Even the GPL licence wouldn't protect google from the patent lawyers, neither would developing their own vm help them. The idea behind software patents is that when oracle patents taking a shit you better be able to pay them whenever you use "their" IP and they will sue you. They don't have a patent on java they have a patents on severall components of a vm.

      The GPL is irrelevant here, as Google is using a clean-room implementation. The GPL license does you no good if you're not using software licensed under the GPL or a derivative or it.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    12. Re:Stallman rolling in his, er, house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stallman doesn't have a house, he is a perpetual squatter.

    13. Re:Stallman rolling in his, er, house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is ASTONISHINGLY naive to assume that Microsoft will not sue users of Mono. Android is actually a successful product making billions of dollars for a whole lot of companies centered around Google. Mono is probably costing Novell hundreds of thousands of dollars a year with little to no real market penetration to speak of. If, tomorrow, Mono were to become as widely recognized and successful as Android is, you think Microsoft would sit there twiddling its thumbs? Wow.

    14. Re:Stallman rolling in his, er, house by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      Isn't this exactly what Stallman warned [gnu.org] when he suggested that Open Office should be forked because it used Java?

      Regardless of ooo's tie to Java, it is clear that Oracle cannot be trusted to act in good faith as steward of Openoffice. This should remove all doubt that a fork is necessary. Incidentally, ooo is already forked, however that fork is also a patent trap courtesy of Mono.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    15. Re:Stallman rolling in his, er, house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that Mono is not in the hands of Microsoft. This FUD needs to stop.

    16. Re:Stallman rolling in his, er, house by makomk · · Score: 1

      Remember that RMS thinks long-term. He's warning about Mono and C# not because he expects Microsoft to use its patents against them now - you're right in thinking that's unlikely - but because it puts them into a position to do so in 5 or 10 years when the .Net ecosystem is more important and doing so could do real damage to Microsoft's competition.

    17. Re:Stallman rolling in his, er, house by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Python could be sued for patents, but python itself will never sue anyone.

      I'm working on PySue, an AI system written in Python that sues everything and everybody.
         

  20. Not a grant; a licence by NotoriousDAN · · Score: 3, Informative

    The summary and article both misuse the word "grant". The quoted text is not from a patent grant but rather a patent licence (or "license" in the US). A patent grant is something issued by the government to an inventor or his employer, not something issued by a patentee to anyone else.

    1. Re:Not a grant; a licence by John+Hasler · · Score: 0

      The word has multiple meanings. A patent owner can grant a license.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  21. Boo Oracle by rveldpau · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Boo Oracle! This could spell the end for Java.

    1. Re:Boo Oracle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HOORAY!

  22. Looks like a good reason... by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...not to use Java.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:Looks like a good reason... by devent · · Score: 1

      Why exactly?

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    2. Re:Looks like a good reason... by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Because FORTRAN is faster ;)

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    3. Re:Looks like a good reason... by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Why exactly?

      For fanboyist, logically empty, rhetorical reasons ;) The fact that such a comment was rated "insightful" gives you a sad glimpse of the logical depth exhibited by many /. posters.

    4. Re:Looks like a good reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and here's another:

    5. Re:Looks like a good reason... by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Informative

      To avoid being sued by Oracle or having the platform on which your software has been debugged sued by Oracle.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    6. Re:Looks like a good reason... by codepunk · · Score: 1

      Looks like another good reason, not the reason.

      --


      Got Code?
    7. Re:Looks like a good reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In case you needed *more* reasons..

    8. Re:Looks like a good reason... by devent · · Score: 1

      Ok, next time I try to build myself the VM from .NET and avoid building a JavaVM. Maybe Oracle will leave me in peace with their patents.

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
  23. as predicted by yyxx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So much for all the people who said that Java was open, free, and not patent-encumbered. The Java patent grant set up conditions that you can essentially not meet unless you use Sun/Oracle's version. And the fact that Sun was going to be taken over was obvious for years. I had just hoped it was going to be IBM, who wouldn't have done this sort of thing.

    1. Re:as predicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Java is open, free and not patent-encumbered, but Oracle thinks the opposite. The intent of all Sun legal stuff was only to avoid an incompatible implementation of java to be named java. I think that Google has always said that it was not providing java, but an incompatible implementation. AFAIK they did not pretend to provide real java, they should win the trial.

    2. Re:as predicted by lehphyro · · Score: 1

      I wonder why there are so many JVM implementations out there... Even bundled in linux distributions.

  24. If I was Google... by zyche · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...I would immediately make a large donation to PostgreSQL - the arch enemy for all Oracle database solutions. Just to spite them.

    1. Re:If I was Google... by tcr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...or appeal to the OHA members to put any relevant software patents into an arsenal to hit Oracle with. They exist to improve (and perhaps protect) the platform.
       

      --


      Information wants to be beer.
    2. Re:If I was Google... by anonymousNR · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why people time and again think Google would donate large amounts of money to FOSS or its projects
      Google may be less 'evil' but its still Profit making Corporation.

      --
      -- It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -- Aristotle
  25. They're not using Java by lseltzer · · Score: 1

    Android has its own VM called Dalvik. You use Java tools to compile to JVM bytecode and then there's a translater to Dalvik bytecode.

    1. Re:They're not using Java by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Android has its own VM called Dalvik. You use Java tools to compile to JVM bytecode and then there's a translater to Dalvik bytecode.

      Maybe Oracle believe Dalvik implements their patented techniques.

    2. Re:They're not using Java by think_nix · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Android has its own VM called Dalvik. You use Java tools to compile to JVM bytecode and then there's a translater to Dalvik bytecode.

      Maybe Oracle believe Dalvik implements their patented techniques.

      Most are saying that they are going after google's jme which is quite interesting since google built (Dalvik) themselves to get around these licensing issues, although if they did use ip from Sun for Dalvik then maybe they have a case, although only the code will tell. Here are also some interesting reads on the matter besides those in the summary:

      http://www.itworld.com/071116googlesun

      http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/110/

    3. Re:They're not using Java by NuShrike · · Score: 1

      Has it been said? Native FTW.

      A dynamic language is nice, but not as your core language esp when a mega-corp owns it (.NET too), and has every reason to sue or abandon (MS) at any time. Maybe Android should switch to ObjC, although that's another revived dead-language controlled by Apple.

      Just make the core C/C++ "as the only true way" and be done with it.

  26. At least there's still the mono project. by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 1

    I don't think mono's been sued over patents yet. Maybe it really is the safer choice despite what everyone had been saying?

    1. Re:At least there's still the mono project. by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I don't think mono's been sued over patents yet. Maybe it really is the safer choice despite what everyone had been saying?

      Yet. When Balmer runs MS into the ground and Apple buys them, Jobs will sue anyone that uses mono.

    2. Re:At least there's still the mono project. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Which major player has used Mono yet?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:At least there's still the mono project. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I don't think mono's been sued over patents yet.

      Yet being the operative word.

      If Google shows that Oracle can push them around with patent intimidation, it's on for young and old. It's only a matter of time until someone at MS figures out that Mono can be a cash generation tool via lawsuits.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  27. Must See: Java Fanbois eating crow! by jrbrtsn · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Do all you Java fanbois remember capriciously dismissing concerns about Sun's licensing of Java way back when? I hope you enjoy
    EATING CROW!!!!

    1. Re:Must See: Java Fanbois eating crow! by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, I don't; I do remember fully supporting their decision to sue Microsoft due to their breach of the licence though.

      If Google truly have breached the licence, then they deserve to lose. If they have not, then they will beat this and Oracle will suffer (bad press, financial loss, etc). Given Google's size I'm really not seeing the problem here, beyond the potential that one company or the other has acted poorly.

  28. easy solution for Google: by Midnight's+Shadow · · Score: 1

    Just bloody buy Oracle! Last I saw there was like 120million oracle shares trading at around 25$ so the price for buying every share is about 3billion$. Didn't Google make 6.5billion net in 2009?

    Yes these are rough figures from a minute or so of googling and I make no claims of them being 100% correct.

    --
    "God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. " -Voltaire
    1. Re:easy solution for Google: by Issarlk · · Score: 3, Funny

      I can see the news Headlines: "Google buys Evil"

    2. Re:easy solution for Google: by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
    3. Re:easy solution for Google: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oracle has about 5 billion shares outstanding. Buying 120 million shares would give Google a whopping 2.4% share. That would certainly get them listened to at board meetings, but it's far from a controlling stake.

    4. Re:easy solution for Google: by Pollardito · · Score: 1
  29. Oracle ate Sun and Duke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Boycott Oracle! :p

  30. Sun is to blame by yyxx · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It was Sun who never submitted Java to ISO or ANSI, it was Sun who created a dual-licensed Java, it was Sun who filed hundreds of patents on Java-related technologies, and it was Sun who created the limited patent grant under conditions that nobody could meet.

    And it was predictable that Sun would eventually fail and get bought by someone who might start to enforce those patents; in fact, the reason Oracle was willing to outbid everybody else was probably because they realized that these patents hadn't been placed fully into the public domain.

    I had been warning about this for years, but all the Java fanboys were arguing that Sun was the good guys, that they would never sue, and that Java was a free and open platform.

    Do your homework people: what has happened was predictable, and the evil seeds were sown by Sun itself.

    1. Re:Sun is to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Come on yyxx, this is Slashdot. Here, it's cool to hate successful jerks, not because they're jerks but because they're successful. The rabble here love to hang out all day in the bazaar; the best place to be when The Masters throw some loaves of bread over the wall of the cathedral. LT's a Master, and they wait for his loaves too. It's their Buddha nature. Nobody who didn't swallow the Linux koolaid could fail to see this coming. Now their panties are all bound up...

    2. Re:Sun is to blame by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      In other news, a handgun was manufactured today. I predict that it's going to hurt someone.

      Sun managed its IP like any other decent-sized company should. They built up a nice portfolio and promptly ignored it, unless someone else wanted to start trouble. Oracle is one of those companies who wants to starts trouble.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    3. Re:Sun is to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had been warning about this for years, but all the Java fanboys were arguing that Sun was the good guys, that they would never sue, and that Java was a free and open platform.

      I think to myself every day - if only I had listened to yyxx.

    4. Re:Sun is to blame by Unoriginal_Nickname · · Score: 1

      Pretty much! I remember when Sun sued Microsoft on the same grounds (an incomplete implementation.) Slashdotters everywhere foamed at the mouth and declared Sun the David to Microsoft's Goliath.

      In reality, Sun sued Microsoft for two reasons:
      - The Microsoft VM was enormously faster than the Sun VM, to the point where no sane person would ever use the Sun VM.
      - Visual J++ had delegates.

    5. Re:Sun is to blame by yyxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, this isn't "like any other company" or like any other patent portfolio. Sun claimed that Java was an open platform when, in fact, it was highly patent encumbered, by design.

      And open source developers had other choices. They chose Java because they erroneously believed that Sun's platform was open.

    6. Re:Sun is to blame by meloneg · · Score: 1

      You're prediction is horrible. The *VAST* majority of handguns never hurt anyone. Many, however, save people from injury.

    7. Re:Sun is to blame by meloneg · · Score: 1

      I think to myself every day - if only I had listened to yyxx.

      I usually find myself wishing I'd listened to Xyzzy...

    8. Re:Sun is to blame by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In other news, a handgun was manufactured today. I predict that it's going to hurt someone.

      It's more like a miter saw with a known random finger-slicing flaw (i.e. not the fault of the operator) was sold by a hospital trying to get more finger-reattaching work. Sun knew what they were doing, they wanted Microsoftian control over Java. They chose their license for ZFS carefully as well.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Sun is to blame by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      In reality, Sun sued Microsoft for one reason:
      - they didnt want to end up embraced, extended, extinguished like many that went before

      FTFY

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    10. Re:Sun is to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Is this "how many metaphors can you cram into a single post" day?

    11. Re:Sun is to blame by stanlyb · · Score: 0

      You mean pointers, better memory management, not the "garbage" one. But yes, they had a point, the common java developer is simply unable to grasp the idea of memory management, in fact, of any kind of management, lol.

    12. Re:Sun is to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had been warning about this for years, but all the Java fanboys were arguing that Sun was the good guys, that they would never sue, and that Java was a free and open platform.

      Do your homework people: what has happened was predictable, and the evil seeds were sown by Sun itself.

      I did exactly the same, with the same results. Hopefully this case will be an eye-opener for all the people who ignored us.

    13. Re:Sun is to blame by VGPowerlord · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was Sun who never submitted Java to ISO or ANSI, it was Sun who created a dual-licensed Java, it was Sun who filed hundreds of patents on Java-related technologies, and it was Sun who created the limited patent grant under conditions that nobody could meet.

      Actually, they were going to submit to ISO... but then the complaints suddenly started coming in about being a standard from a single company. One of said complaints was from Microsoft, naturally.

      Funny how MS doesn't have that same problem when it's their standard (OOXML).

      Sun submitted it to ECMA instead. Then later withdrew it after realizing that Microsoft could use this to add things to the Java specification (this was after the lawsuit).

      Of course, Microsoft's goals here were probably to get Sun to do exactly that, as less than a year later, they C# (and by extension the .NET framework).

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    14. Re:Sun is to blame by BasilBrush · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Many, however, save people from injury.

      The NRA would have one believe so, much as the klu klux klan would have you believe that racism saves people. However statistics from around the world do NOT show people to be safer in countries where there are more handguns.

    15. Re:Sun is to blame by yyxx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sun made a promise and commitment to make Java an ANSI/ISO standard and they failed to live up to that, period. As a result, the industry is stuck with a proprietary and badly designed language.

      As for the reasons, in the 90's, the industry and standards bodies were highly sympathetic to Sun; they could have gotten Java through fast track and without any changes from Microsoft. It was Sun's decision not to standardize Java, precisely because they did not want it to be an open platform.

      As for C#, yes, Microsoft didn't have much of a choice at that point: they needed a Java-like language and they couldn't use Java. What were they supposed to do?

      Sun overplayed their hand and they lost; their control of Java never translated into a sufficiently large business. If they had gone through with Java standardization in the 90's, they might even still be in business.

    16. Re:Sun is to blame by Unoriginal_Nickname · · Score: 1

      Yes, that was essentially the opinion on Slashdot.

    17. Re:Sun is to blame by ichthyoboy · · Score: 1

      While traveling on your way to Zzyzx?

    18. Re:Sun is to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The rabble here love to hang out all day in the bazaar; the best place to be when The Masters throw some loaves of bread over the wall of the cathedral.

      Nobody who didn't swallow the Linux koolaid could fail to see this coming.

      Careful with the mixed metaphors, I get motion sickness. . .

    19. Re:Sun is to blame by Surt · · Score: 1

      In other news, a handgun was manufactured today. I predict that it's going to hurt someone.

      That would be a bad bet. Only a tiny, tiny fraction (far less than 1%) of guns manufactured ever manage to hurt anyone, and the fraction is smaller for handguns than for many (probably any) other class.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    20. Re:Sun is to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And amazingly this all sounds familiar to the whole .NET being an open standard debate...

    21. Re:Sun is to blame by azmodean+1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sun made a promise and commitment to make Java an ANSI/ISO standard and they failed to live up to that, period. As a result, the industry is stuck with a proprietary and badly designed language.

      I disagree, Sun made a promise.(full stop)
      The industry believed them, and as a result is stuck with a proprietary and badly designed language.

      NEVER take action based on a companies "promises". Either it's a legally binding agreement, or it doesn't even belong in your decision-making process.

    22. Re:Sun is to blame by devent · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oracle is not suing someone who's using Java. The JVM on Android is not the Sun JVM and Oracle is not suing Google because they are using a Java style syntax. How is Oracle suing Google over the Dalvik JVM going to affect the millions applications that are written with Java for the Sun Java JVM?

      You have been warning all this years that Google will be sued over patents for a Virtual Machine? In this patent minefield in the USA it's a wonder if you are not been sued over a Hello World application. I think somebody would have had some patent and it was just a matter of time that Google gets sued. Oracle and Google will just settle, the lawyers will get their share and the world will keep spinning.

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    23. Re:Sun is to blame by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      That's probably true, given the high numbers of guns in countries whose governments have collapsed, that are in the middle of civil wars, etc. Which means such a stat is, by itself, meaningless as the cause of high gun ownership will, in many cases, also be the cause of the lack of safety.

      If there's one thing I've learned from the gun control arguments, it's that people who have strong opinions on gun control, for or against, are absolutely abysmal analysts of statistics.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    24. Re:Sun is to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The actual legal action never happened until Oracle bought Sun. The only legal action over Java before that was when Sun sued Microsoft for their shitty knock-off not-quite-compatible JVM.

    25. Re:Sun is to blame by yyxx · · Score: 1

      In principle, I agree. But there was not much choice at the time: non-Windows platforms had no viable GUI, no viable alternative to VisualBasic, and Microsoft looked like they were going to take over the industry entirely. Between certain doom (Microsoft) and a geeky tech company that had been fairly open (Sun), Sun was the lesser evil.

    26. Re:Sun is to blame by yyxx · · Score: 1

      Oracle and Google will just settle, the lawyers will get their share and the world will keep spinning.

      Yes, and the only Java implementations that exist will be those derived from, and licensed by, Oracle. That makes Java a proprietary platform, legally not much different from Microsoft Windows.

    27. Re:Sun is to blame by Raenex · · Score: 1

      I remember when Sun sued Microsoft on the same grounds (an incomplete implementation.)

      It wasn't just an incomplete implementation. They provided Microsoft alternatives to what they didn't implement. They also put Microsoft extensions into the java.* namespace. The whole thing was Microsoft's way of vendor lock-in.

      The really stupid thing is that Microsoft could have added these extensions *as extensions*, putting stuff into their own namespace and implementing the standard Java way of doing things, like IBM did.

    28. Re:Sun is to blame by steveha · · Score: 1

      The NRA would have one believe so, much as the klu klux klan would have you believe that racism saves people.

      Damn, you are offensive. Lumping the NRA in with the Ku Klux Klan? Are you just trolling or are you really this deluded?

      statistics from around the world do NOT show people to be safer in countries where there are more handguns.

      Based on what I have read in various books, the presence or absence of handguns is a poor predictor of violence. For example, in the USA, police officers always carry handguns, yet we do not expect officers to violently attack people.

      Violence is a social issue. Put a gun in Mother Teresa's hand and she will not turn into an insane killer. Pull the gun out of an insane killer's hand, and he will find some other weapon. Or, to put it on the level of countries: England was a largely non-violent place. Then England banned guns. Then England was a largely non-violent place. So, did the gun ban cause England to be a largely non-violent place?

      For me, the most important statistical issue is that imposing gun control has never brought a decrease in violence. Also, reducing gun control doesn't bring an increase in violence. When Florida made it much easier to obtain a license to carry concealed handguns, gun opponents predicted that violence would increase; "minor traffic accidents will turn into gun battles", they said, and similar silliness. Violence actually went down.

      So, correlation does not prove causation. If a violent city imposes strong gun control and crime goes up, is it because of the gun control? Crime was already on the way up, so maybe the gun control helped. But when gun control is dismantled, as in Florida, crime doesn't go up.

      I view gun ownership as being similar to ownership of a first aid kit or a fire extinguisher. Having a gun doesn't make you the police, just as having a fire extinguisher doesn't make you the fire department and having a first aid kit doesn't make you a hospital. If you are sensible and level-headed, you are better off to have all of these things; if you are silly and impulsive, you can get yourself into worse trouble.

      steveha

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    29. Re:Sun is to blame by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 1

      it was Sun who created the limited patent grant under conditions that nobody could meet.

      Not true at all. For example, that's exactly what Apache Harmony is: a clean room implementation that meets all the conditions. The goal of the patent grant was clearly to avoid fragmentation. It covers any implementation that is compatible with Sun's, but not incompatible ones like Android. If it were Microsoft instead of Google that had created an incompatible psuedo-Java, no one would be defending them. Everyone would be talking about "embrace and extend" and laughing at them for having gotten caught.

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
    30. Re:Sun is to blame by devent · · Score: 1

      Yes exactly. The under the GPL licensed Java VM will become a much more proprietary platform then the C# from MS one.

      I think every C# fan boy is so happy about this news, but can you please try a little harder?

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    31. Re:Sun is to blame by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Damn, you are offensive. Lumping the NRA in with the Ku Klux Klan? Are you just trolling or are you really this deluded?

      Carrying guns is far more offensive than lumping two disgusting organisations in with each other.

      England was a largely non-violent place. Then England banned guns. Then England was a largely non-violent place. So, did the gun ban cause England to be a largely non-violent place?

      This is the trouble with the NRA, they tell lies like those. In the UK, private ownership of handguns was banned in 1997. Since then, far from changing from a non-violent place to a violent place, violence has actually halved.
      http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/hosb1210chap3.pdf

      Murder has also decreased. 615 murders last year vs 739 for 1997.

      For me, the most important statistical issue is that imposing gun control has never brought a decrease in violence.

      Except in the very country you chose to make your claim, that's exactly what happened. An incredible decrease in violence.

      It's this kind of blatent lying about life or death matters that makes it OK to lump the NRA in with the Ku Klux Klan.

    32. Re:Sun is to blame by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      UK has no civil wars, and violence in general has halved since private ownership of handguns were banned. Murder has reduced too. And that'd from rates that were already a quarter of gun loving America.

      And still most police don't carry firearms in the UK. Sadly the terrorism FUD has made them carry guns at airports and the like, but other than that they mostly don't carry

    33. Re:Sun is to blame by prockcore · · Score: 1

      The UK has a higher crime rate than the US (85.6 crimes per 1000 people versus 80.1). It has double the burglaries per capita of the US, it has more car thefts per capita, and it has far more kidnappings.

    34. Re:Sun is to blame by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      UK has no civil wars, and violence in general has halved since private ownership of handguns were banned.

      Are you under the impression I was suggesting gun ownership causes civil war? Because I'm failing to read the above in any way that makes sense as a retort to what I wrote. Read it again:

      I said that the fact countries with guns are more violent is not surprising, because countries with guns would include virtually all of those in a state of war.

      Britain is unquestionably less violent than Sierra Leone or Somalia. This is not a function of the residents of the latter two having guns and residents of the former not, it's a function of the fact that the latter have governments that have collapsed. The fact the governments have collapsed is responsible both for the violence, and for the increase in gun ownership. Likewise, you would expect violence to be lower in a country where you can be arrested for assault by a mostly functional police force, which is the case in (most of) the United Kingdom.

      However, comparing like with like, Britain to a handgun-friendly functional democracy like, say, the United States, doesn't appear to show Britain in any position of peaceful superiority. Comparing the statistics is certainly difficult, given the different nature of violent crimes in both countries making a direct link difficult, as is the extra uncertainty brought about by the fact that most of the largest US cities have gun control laws to some degree or another, but certainly both countries are in the same ball park as far as violent crime is concerned. Murder rates, in both countries, are barely on the radar. The US somehow manages to avoid, for the most part, Britain's painful history of hooliganism, where enthusiasts of certain sports, and Nazis, give each other "Chelsea Grins".

      Really, whether you're a gun-toting NRA member who's worried that Obama is going to grab your guns (or even more unbelievably, Nancy Pelosi, who you guys always demonize but is actually against additional gun control laws), or someone who thinks that people who shoot innocent sheets of paper with circles on them are sick, sick, bastards, who need to be locked up, you need to knock it off with the abuse of statistics - or even the use of it, until you learn to actually understand them. Causation != correlation.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    35. Re:Sun is to blame by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, Britain's chocolate is excellent, it has nicer bread than the US (well, when bought fresh), good beer is also widely available and on tap in most pubs, the public transport system is usable in all but the most rural areas, and there are less rattlesnakes.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    36. Re:Sun is to blame by yyxx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The under the GPL licensed Java VM will become a much more proprietary platform then the C# from MS one.

      The GPL-licensed Java VM is already proprietary, it can't become any more proprietary than it is.

      I think every C# fan boy is so happy about this news, but can you please try a little harder?

      Don't use Java, it's a patent trap. That's all I can say. Personally, I use Python, Ruby, and C++ instead. If C# is your thing, fine.

    37. Re:Sun is to blame by yyxx · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not true at all. For example, that's exactly what Apache Harmony is: a clean room implementation that meets all the conditions.

      Stop lying. Apache Harmony does not meet the conditions.

      http://www.javaworld.com/community/node/4439

      The goal of the patent grant was clearly to avoid fragmentation.

      No, the goal of Sun's patent and licensing shenanigans was to gain control of key APIs in the industry. "Fragmentation" was merely a smokescreen.

    38. Re:Sun is to blame by carnalforge · · Score: 1

      All right and true. But is Oracle who is suing not SUN

      --
      :wq!
    39. Re:Sun is to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which realistically means both of them should be avoided, and that nokia is on the right track with meego. C++ and QT may be the only realistic way forward.

    40. Re:Sun is to blame by yyxx · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, it's not about whether Sun was good or evil, it's about having open source developers avoid being so gullible in the future. Companies fail and you can't rely on their supposed good will or track record. What matters is the licenses and patent situation.

    41. Re:Sun is to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So .NET, in the form of Mono, is actually SAFER to use than Java.

    42. Re:Sun is to blame by steveha · · Score: 1

      Carrying guns is far more offensive than lumping two disgusting organisations in with each other.

      Why? If I carry a gun correctly you won't even know it is there. Why is that offensive?

      Do you also find it offensive when people have fire extinguishers in their homes?

      Do you also find it offensive when people have baseball bats, tire irons, golf clubs, and similar lethal bludgeons? How about petrol: that has been used to burn down buildings with people inside. Is it offensive to possess petrol?

      Guns have been used to murder people. Guns have also been used to stop a violent crime. My claim is that law-abiding people with guns are not the source of violence in society.

      This is the trouble with the NRA, they tell lies like those.

      Actually, I was thinking of a book called The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy which has lengthy discussion about England. And I am mystified that you think it is a lie to call England a largely non-violent place.

      My claim is that England could get rid of its ban on handguns, and it would not become more violent as a result. Violence is a result of people, not of instruments, and the people of England are largely non-violent.

      violence has actually halved.

      I took a look at those statistics. According to those, only 19% of violent incidents involved a weapon of any kind. Yet all violence went down, not just firearm-related violence. Are you seriously claiming that a ban on handguns led to an immediate reduction in all forms of violence? If so, why hasn't it ever worked that way in the USA?

      that's exactly what happened. An incredible decrease in violence.

      References, please. As far as I know, there has been a steady decrease in violence in the past ten or fifteen years, while at the same time, gun control laws have been relaxing. The Brady law has sunset, and the majority of states now make it easy for law-abiding citizens to legally carry a handgun. According to your theories, shouldn't violent crime be increasing in the United States?

      And perhaps you can explain to me why there are more per-capita violent crimes in Washington D.C., where handguns are banned, than there are in Olympia, WA, where handguns are not banned? If I'm doing my maths correctly, there are over four times as many violent crimes per person in Washington D.C. than in Olympia. Since you don't seem to be a fan of the NRA, I got my numbers from the FBI: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_06.html

      And note that when you go to the FBI Uniform Crime Report web site, there is a caution against directly comparing cities to rank them in terms of violence. The caution lists many variables to consider. I submit to you that if you consider all those variables you are likely to get a better prediction on the amount of violence than if you just consider availability of firearms.

      It's this kind of blatent lying about life or death matters that makes it OK to lump the NRA in with the Ku Klux Klan.

      Is the FBI in on this blatant lying also?

      I suspect that I will not be able to persuade you of anything, so I will leave you with just two thoughts:

      0) Be suspicious of any overly-simplistic rule, such as "guns inevitably drive people to acts of violence". Society is more complicated than that.

      1) Remember that people who disagree with you might not be lying bastards worthy of your hate. It sounds like your views on firearms are rather different than my own, but I don't hate you, and I hope you don't hate me.

      steveha

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    43. Re:Sun is to blame by carnalforge · · Score: 1

      Well, SUN is good or evil is the subject of this thread BTW.
      As licenses and patents go, well. Too much shit all around and too much dinosaur companies that want to keep their revenue. Sad but that's reality.

      I think that GPL is the best option, but it's my opinion.

      When hydrogen cars come that will be the next best option.

      --
      :wq!
    44. Re:Sun is to blame by yyxx · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, SUN is good or evil is the subject of this thread BTW.

      Who cares? Sun is dead. We need to make sure this doesn't happen again.

      I think that GPL is the best option, but it's my opinion.

      And that's the problem: the GPL is not sufficient. Dual-licensing, lack of a clear patent grant, breaking promises, and requiring copyright assignment are red flags.

    45. Re:Sun is to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hogwash. Sun didn't fail because of "evil intent.' They failed because of markets, and because two of their traditional markets tanked (one of which was banking which no one saw failing) . The idea that it was obvious is only because you are letting your wants cloud clear judgment. Tech companies don't fail based solely on technologies; engineers have is all wrong. Lawyers rule the word. Deal with the reality of it.

  31. Serious questions raised by Oracle patent attack by FlorianMueller · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It will be hard to find out whether Oracle planned this kind of aggression when buying Sun, but it can certainly be stated that the free software/open source community hasn't benefited from the acquisition.

    There's a number of important questions that Oracle's patent attack raises:

    • Did Oracle try to resolve this amicably with Google (by way of a license deal) or is Oracle pursuing purely destructive objectives?
    • Will Google solve this patent problem in a way that the entire Android ecosystem (including the makers of Android-based phones and the authors of Android apps) will be reassured, or will Google only take care of its own risk?
    • Is Java less of an open standard now than C#? I don't really buy the argument that Oracle may only be suing because of deviations from the standards definition. This kind of patent attack is evil no matter whether Google adhere to certain specififcations or not.
    • Isn't this now the ultimate proof that the Open Invention Network doesn't really protect the Linux ecosystem from patent attacks? This is case of one OIN licensee (Oracle) suing another (Google).
    • Where are those FOSS advocates who said that Oracle's acquisition of Sun would be good for the cause and for the community? Some of them even claimed that it was important to have Oracle acquire Sun's patents. I've documented that on my blog.
    • Is it perhaps time to forget about the community's favorite bogeyman and recognize that IBM, Oracle and others are a much more serious threat to FOSS at this stage?
    • How can the so-called OpenForum Europe lobby the European Union for open source/open standards when its two most powerful members, IBM and Oracle, are patent aggressors against open source, especially in interoperability contexts?

    This is a patent dispute with very wide-ranging implications.

  32. All of a sudden iPhone looks like an open system.. by madsh · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Why did they choose the Java language? Because they needed a safe, statically typed, garbage collected language that people had experience with and that there were tools for. There is little else out there that fits the bill (C# wasn't an option at the time they started).

    Objective-C on iPhone is a pain to learn, but at least the iPhone will not go down in flames from companies fighting over rights to language, runtime, tools and access to application markets.

  33. Where are the Mono haters? by cyberjessy · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is going to get down voted to hell. But anyway.

    Here is Miguel's opinion on this development.

    I hope the Mono hating will finally stop now.

    --
    Life is just a conviction.
    1. Re:Where are the Mono haters? by delt0r · · Score: 1

      I hate mono. ;)

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    2. Re:Where are the Mono haters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Just because Oracle are dicks doesn't mean Microsoft are suddenly nice. Just because Oracle sued first doesn't mean Microsoft will give everyone who bases their business on Mono a free pony and a lifetime's supply of chocolate. Mono is still dangerous, and Java (as in real Java that is covered by the terms of the free patent license) is still safe.

    3. Re:Where are the Mono haters? by miffo.swe · · Score: 1

      The day mono blasts past .Net in usage on Linux instead of on Windows, do you beleive for one minute Microsoft wont pull any legal string they can?

      Mono is in no better position than Java. I would say its in much worse position but since everybody avoids it like the black plague there is nothing for Microsoft to get worked up about. Just a notch in the "x-platform almost but not really compatible" tick on the PR material.

      --
      HTTP/1.1 400
    4. Re:Where are the Mono haters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So a pathetic development from an unexpected direction should make us stop worrying about a pathetic development from an expected direction?

      Look, I know Mono has its defenders and pleased users, but there are legitimate concerns with Mono. Saying "nothing bad will ever happen" is exactly what most Java folks have been saying (disclaimer, I've been writing enterprise Java for over 10 years). Now something bad has happened. There's no reason to believe MS won't pull shenanigans over Mono (or something else .NET related) down the road simply because Oracle did this.

      Actually I've always rated Oracle as bigger jerks than MS, the only company that beats them in my mind is Apple.

    5. Re:Where are the Mono haters? by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      One thing Miguel says in the article is that he thinks Google could migrate Android over to C#/CIL. Aside from the concerns others have from a legal standpoint, from a purely technical standpoint, instead of migrating all that existing code to C#, wouldn't it make more sense to use the Mono VM, but compile all the existing Dalvik code (that is, all the source written in the Java-like Dalvik high-level lanaguage) to the .Net bytecode (CIL), if you wanted to migrate to Mono, instead of trying to convert it all to C#? I realize that Java and C# have a lot of similarities, but also a few significant differences, which I think would make it a bit costly to convert and debug all that existing code?

    6. Re:Where are the Mono haters? by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      The difference is that one is pure speculation and the other is a fact.

    7. Re:Where are the Mono haters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah... And up until recently, they were both speculation. I think I will continue using neither java nor mono thank you very much.

    8. Re:Where are the Mono haters? by Cidolfas · · Score: 1

      No, we're still going to hate mono until Microsoft takes the mono/.net patents and changes them from "promise not to sue" to "legally unallowed to sue, for any implementation or use", preferably under the GPL. That being said, right now it's safer than java.

      --
      I am become /dev/null, destroyer of data.
    9. Re:Where are the Mono haters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is still enough reason to hate Mono, if alone for the idea to implement against a moving target. Only using the good stuff in the language is a way better approach, see for example Gnomes Vala.

    10. Re:Where are the Mono haters? by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      There wasn't much speculation on it happening to Java, so I would say that the patent-fearing speculators have a pretty poor record so far.

    11. Re:Where are the Mono haters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes there was. Too bad I don't get paid to educate you so you'll have to do your own research. Or you could just continue on in blissful ignorance.

    12. Re:Where are the Mono haters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Miguel is as usual delusional. C++ and QT will be the way forward, unless this brouhaha gets resolved in a good way. Meego will overtake android, and then Oracle can get stuffed.

    13. Re:Where are the Mono haters? by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      If you say so. There is a fine line, however, between, "do your own research" and "I don't have any citations".

  34. Interesting JAVA RESEARCH LICENSE by robmv · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just for the record: What Sun said (now Oracle still says) about reading Oracle Java source code and creating a clean room implementation: JAVA RESEARCH LICENSE FAQ Question 18

    18. Does the JRL prevent me from being able to create an independent open source implementation of the licensed technology?

    The JRL is not a tainting license and includes an express "residual knowledge" clause which says you're not contaminated by things you happen to remember after examining the licensed technology. The JRL allows you to use the source code for the purpose of JRL-related activities but does not prohibit you from working on an independent implementation of the technology afterwards. Obviously, if your intention is to create an "independent" implementation of the technology then it is inappropriate to actively study JRL source while working on such an implementation. It is appropriate, however, to allow some decent interval of time (e.g. two weeks) to elapse between working on a project that involves looking at some JRL source code and working on a project that involves creating an independent implementation of the same technology

    1. Re:Interesting JAVA RESEARCH LICENSE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just for the record: What Sun said (now Oracle still says) about reading Oracle Java source code and creating a clean room implementation: JAVA RESEARCH LICENSE FAQ Question 18

      18. Does the JRL prevent me from being able to create an independent open source implementation of the licensed technology?

      The JRL is not a tainting license and includes an express "residual knowledge" clause which says you're not contaminated by things you happen to remember after examining the licensed technology. The JRL allows you to use the source code for the purpose of JRL-related activities but does not prohibit you from working on an independent implementation of the technology afterwards. Obviously, if your intention is to create an "independent" implementation of the technology then it is inappropriate to actively study JRL source while working on such an implementation. It is appropriate, however, to allow some decent interval of time (e.g. two weeks) to elapse between working on a project that involves looking at some JRL source code and working on a project that involves creating an independent implementation of the same technology

      That will stop any copyright infringement claims against a reverse-engineered clean-room implementation. Without that, Sun and now Oracle could claim such an implementation was actually a derived work.

      It doesn't apply to patents. You can infringe a patent even if you could somehow prove that you had no knowledge whatsoever of the original implementation.

      It remains to be seen whether or nor Google's Dalvik infringes the patents Oracle now owns.

      I'm not sure why everyone is considering Google the good guy here - this is about who gets to charge for the $X consumers are willing to spend on a phone. It's just a pissing contest over money. There's no "good" or "evil" side here - they're just two huge corporations fighting over how to cut up the pie of the mobile market.

    2. Re:Interesting JAVA RESEARCH LICENSE by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't go so far to say one is "evil" and the other "good", but clearly Oracle is trying to suck at Google's teat.

  35. IMHO... by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oracle may win in court or force a settlement, but I don't think in the long view they will "win" because of this. Potentially they get some money out of "owning" Java, but they make that property less valuable in the process. Java having been picked for Android development is currently breathing a lot of life into the language -- for a while now Java has been one of the top choices for business app developments, but how long has it been since Java was associated with something cool? And what are the odds it'll be picked for something cool ever again now that people see how litigation-happy Oracle is about it?

    Being used for cool, high visibility projects buys language mindshare in a way few things do.

    *chop* *cut* There, take that, nose! That'll show my face.

    1. Re:IMHO... by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Oracle doesn't care about cool. They care about big business.

      By purchasing Sun, Oracle can now offer a complete solution for both database and web application servers:
      Hardware: Oracle SPARC
      OS: Oracle Solaris
      Software: Oracle Database or Oracle WebLogic (using either Oracle JRockit or Oracle JRE)

      Oracle also sells licenses for JavaME to mobile phone manufacturers. Strangely, despite using the Java language on their mobile, Google isn't paying Oracle a license fee. Which prompted this whole suit.

      No doubt, Oracle is angling that Google will think it's cheaper to settle out of court (paying Oracle for a license) than to fight this lawsuit.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    2. Re:IMHO... by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

      I agree with your conclusions; it's just my opinion that, in the long run, the cost to Oracle for this lawsuit will be greater than the financial gain by Oracle.

      A smarter move, I think, would be to push Java in a hundred ways that don't directly reap revenue (like letting it be the standard for Android development) and then to further refine Java/Oracle integration to the point where using Oracle as your database for a Java project is much faster and easier than anything else.

      But then, Oracle has always treated developers like abusive husbands treat the wives they beat.

      IMHO, in any practical sense, cheaper/free databases have marginalized Oracle's core business a hundred times more than, say, Linux has ever marginalized Windows as an OS -- and the day that a crack in Oracle's business marketing appears and more business decision makers start to realize this is the beginning of the end for Oracle's core business. Anything Oracle can do to forestall that day, I in Oracle's shoes would do.

    3. Re:IMHO... by ID000001 · · Score: 1

      The reason they are not paying oracle license is because they are not using any Sun's Java implementation. They just use the syntax, not the VM and the complier.

    4. Re:IMHO... by xiong.chiamiov · · Score: 1

      [H]ow long has it been since Java was associated with something cool?

      Well, supposedly they're cool right now. I just mentally s/Java/Ruby\/Python/ and s/.NET/Java/ when I watched that video, and it made much more sense.

    5. Re:IMHO... by carnalforge · · Score: 1

      True. They'll take some money, shareholders will be happy and such. But IMHO this move is as shorthanded as the RIAA's campain against "grandmothers file sharing".

      --
      :wq!
  36. mutatis mutandis by paiute · · Score: 1

    See this thing here? I promise to let you use it. No charge. Go ahead, be my guest.

    Unless you make a billion dollars with it. Then my lawyer is going to look up "promise" in his big dictionary of wiggle-room words and sue the crap out of you.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:mutatis mutandis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      See this thing here? I promise to let you use it. No charge. Go ahead, be my guest.

      Unless you make a billion dollars with it. Then my lawyer is going to look up "promise" in his big dictionary of wiggle-room words and sue the crap out of you.

      Tell your lawyer to also look up the word "estoppel" while he's at it. You know, the legal principle that says these kind of promises are binding.

  37. Re:All of a sudden iPhone looks like an open syste by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why did they choose the Java language? Because they needed a safe, statically typed, garbage collected language that people had experience with and that there were tools for. There is little else out there that fits the bill (C# wasn't an option at the time they started).

    Objective-C on iPhone is a pain to learn, but at least the iPhone will not go down in flames from companies fighting over rights to language, runtime, tools and access to application markets.

    They could have used python, and even reused Sugar.

  38. "The Java Trap" -- RMS has warned years ago.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Java should have been avoided, same goes with the Javascript.

    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html

  39. Mostly offtopic by Jade_Wayfarer · · Score: 1

    Extra points for doing it with a plush penguin?

    By the way, who/what will resemble Google's ChromeOS, when they'll launch it? "Colored pill" doesn't look good next to window/penguin/apple/imp. Hmm...

    --
    Absence of proof != proof of absence.
    1. Re:Mostly offtopic by delinear · · Score: 1

      Maybe, with a minor tweak, Simon?

  40. Death of Java? by Zelgadiss · · Score: 1

    The chilling effects from the case might discourage Java use from here on new stuff.

    As someone pointed out on Reddit, Java is now "radioactive".

    Back to C/C++ I suppose, no one ever got sued for using those, C# is probably in no better shape patent minefield-wise.

    1. Re:Death of Java? by stanlyb · · Score: 0

      As long as you use Windows, no one will ever sue you. In fact, MS will be happy to give you any tools for "free" (free as a beer).

  41. Re:All of a sudden iPhone looks like an open syste by delt0r · · Score: 1

    Its not the language that infringes the patents. Its the implementation. Its common to develop applications for the JVM in languages other than java.

    --
    If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  42. time to move to C++ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just wonder about what this is going to do to java. what if they decided to charge? well java compared with other tools then will be a loser

  43. No, not even close... by mario_grgic · · Score: 1

    OpenOffice.org does not implement the JVM and java compilers and libraries. The law suit in question here is all about someone making something that claims to be Java but isn't.

    Let's simplify this completely. Let's say I invent a coffee cup with a lid and large handle, so it's portable and can be held by anyone. I call it Java. And I license my invention, so anyone can make a portable coffee cup, but to call it Java it must have a lid and a large handle.

    What Google has done, they created a coffee cup without lid, small handle and they want to call it Java, but it's not by definition.
    So, Google has 2 options. Make their implementation have all requirements of Java or stop calling their implementation Java.

    --
    As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
    1. Re:No, not even close... by WankersRevenge · · Score: 3, Interesting

      OpenOffice.org does not implement the JVM and java compilers and libraries.

      That is incorrect. Use of the JVM in OpenOffice.org is entirely optional at this point in time which is why a lot of people recommend disabling it to improve performance. A few years ago, OpenOffice was starting to rely heavily on Java with a lot of new features (such as wizards and templates), threatening to make the JVM a requirement. This is why Stallman suggested that the project be forked so people could strip Java out of the program. This was a brilliant move because it essentially prompted Sun to license Java under the GPL.

      What Google has done, they created a coffee cup without lid, small handle and they want to call it Java, but it's not by definition.

      Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe Droid was marketed as being based on the Java language as opposed to being an implementation of the Java spec. Whereas Microsoft took Java and poisoned the well by making platform specific additions to the language (thus negating, write once, run everywhere), I believe the makers of Droid built a Java like language from the ground up. To my knowledge, there have been no claims that standard Java programs can run on Droid. In fact, I believe a lot of standard classes in Java aren't even present on Droid. Again, I haven't developed on the platform so I don't know.

    2. Re:No, not even close... by xiong.chiamiov · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe Droid was marketed as being based on the Java language as opposed to being an implementation of the Java spec.

      Well, first off, Droid is a phone produced by Motorola, while Android is the platform that runs on it. Secondly, Android is an operating system, not a programming language; Dalvik is probably the term you wanted to use, but even that's not truly accurate, as it is a virtual machine. I'm not sure what Google refers to the primary language running on Dalvik as, but iirc they call it Java.

      My apologies for being pedantic, but this is Slashdot.

    3. Re:No, not even close... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Droid? I don't think Verizon is part of this patent fight.

  44. Software Patents Are in trouble by davonshire · · Score: 1

    Perhaps I'm overly optimistic, but this could be the very best thing to happen for programmers and computer science, since the switch statement.

    Software patents have hindered developers and companies for decades now. When SCO sued IBM it brought into public view the horrendous state of our patent system. But SCO is just a piddling little company that destroyed itself financially in one of the greatest self delusions of the last decade.

    But now we have 2 industry titans going at it, that will I'm fairly sure bring to light, how asinine IP and it's patentability can be. The down side will be, if software patents and such are finally set free. It will burst the bubble with such force it will unsettle a great number of industries.

    Just a thought.

    DS

  45. Complete FUD by mario_grgic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Java is a spec and NOT an implementation. You are free to make your own implementation of the spec (IBM, Apple and many others do). So, you don't have to rely on Sun/Oracle version or implementation.

    There is only one latest version of Java (i.e. only one spec). You can be on a Java spec. committee and vote on what goes into next Java version specification, and everyone who wants to make the next version of Java (the language and JVM) has to implement all the same things agreed to be able to call it Java.

    This is all to ensure Java's philosophy, write and compile your code once and run it on any platform. This does not mean just different operating system, but java virtual machine implementation from another vendor.

    This can work precisely because of the fact that Java is a spec. and to call something Java you must implement the spec fully. This allows me to write my Java code on Windows, compile it on Windows using Sun's JVM implementation and run the compiled code on Mac OS X, with Apple's implementation of the JVM (with no need for recompile or anything on OS X).

    This would not be true if Apple cheated and did not implement some part of Java spec (which is the case with what Google did).

    --
    As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
    1. Re:Complete FUD by TheSunborn · · Score: 1

      The problem is that java really is:

      1: A language
      2: A vm
      3: A standard class library

      Google have implemented 1 and 2 according to the specs. But they have not implemented the entire java standard library because much of it(Such as awt and swing) would be an insane waste of resources to include in a phone.

      But all that is needed for an Android phone to run standard java software is an implementation of the standard library included with jdk 1.6 but as I said nobody is insane enough to propose that. Not even Sun/Oracle is insane enough to propose that you should use the java standard edition on mobile phones.

    2. Re:Complete FUD by yyxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Google have implemented 1 and 2 according to the specs.

      No, Android does not implement the JVM. Android's Dalvik VM is a register based machine, just like the CLR. In part, that's probably because they wanted to minimize the risk of getting successfully sued by Sun. Let's hope they did their homework.

      Not even Sun/Oracle is insane enough to propose that you should use the java standard edition on mobile phones.

      No, instead they want you to license their embedded Java implementation, which isn't covered even by the hokey J2SE specs/licenses.

    3. Re:Complete FUD by TheSunborn · · Score: 1

      1: You are right. I forgot they made their own class file format.

      Would buying a license to suns embedded java implementation get Google of the hook, or does the license require that you skip their entire stack with no modifications?

    4. Re:Complete FUD by yyxx · · Score: 1

      The license requires whatever Oracle wants to put in there; these licenses are negotiated on a case-by-case basis.

      Presumably, that's not attractive to Google, otherwise they had agreed to it years ago.

    5. Re:Complete FUD by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      CLR is a stack machine, Lua is a register machine.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  46. Exploiting a loophole != "do no evil" by guidryp · · Score: 1

    "Most are saying that they are going after google's jme which is quite interesting since google built (Dalvik) themselves to get around these licensing issues"

    Oracle/Sun actually make money licensing JVM for mobile use. Google trying to use a technical exploit to escape licensing does seem like a dick move to me. I have no sympathy for Google on this one.

    It was clear from the beginning that Sun was agaisn't this, but likely lacked the resources to do anything about it. Sun tried to work with Google in 2007 to clear things up. Google thinking they had found a loophole to exploit, told Sun to go pound sand:

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-9817048-39.html

    Sun wants to work with Google to nip any problems in the bud. "We're really interested in working with Google to make sure developers don't end up with a fractured environment. We're reaching out to Google and assuming they'll be reaching out to us to ensure these platforms and APIs will be compatible so deployment on a wide variety of platforms will be possible," Green said.

    Google unrepentant
    Google didn't adopt a terribly conciliatory tone in its response, arguing that when it comes to Java fragmentation, Android is the solution, not the problem.

    To me it looks like Google said screw licensing. We are Google, we can do what we want...

    1. Re:Exploiting a loophole != "do no evil" by think_nix · · Score: 1

      I see your point , but the way I understand it google took the library which was not licensed buy former SUN (now Oracle) and basically built their own engine. I view it (from what I have understood) as competition for the mobile regarding Sun/Oracle lockin on jme for mobile platforms.

    2. Re:Exploiting a loophole != "do no evil" by spongman · · Score: 1

      isn't that what compaq did to IBM way back when? seem perfectly legit to me.

  47. Re:All of a sudden iPhone looks like an open syste by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you know C and understand basic OOP, neither Java nor Objective C is harder to learn than the other. I suppose if you learned Java first, unlearning all the bad parts of the language might make Objective C seem harder.

  48. Re:All of a sudden iPhone looks like an open syste by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    So you are saying that instead of developing Android Google should have bought Apple?

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  49. Not as clear cut. by guidryp · · Score: 1

    "I wonder if this could be as big and as interesting(for the geek community) a fight as SCO v Novell"

    Nope because this one is much more grey.

    I am on Oracles side on this one. Google tried to exploit a technical loophole to get around licensing. Dirty pool IMO.

    Every other mobile implementation is licensed, but Google thought they were special and could get around it.

    Sun tried to resolve this in 2007 and Google told them to go pound sand.

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-9817048-39.html

    1. Re:Not as clear cut. by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      I'm not on Oracle's side. The stuff they're leading with had prior art ages before Sun filed the stuff. They're NOT an injured party here and you shouldn't be painting them as such.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    2. Re:Not as clear cut. by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      Every other mobile implementation is licensed, but Google thought they were special and could get around it.

      Google went to the effort of developing a clean-room bytecode interpreter so they did not just game the rules as you imply. Let alone the question of whether patenting a computer language is inherently evil (it is).

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    3. Re:Not as clear cut. by guidryp · · Score: 1

      "Google went to the effort of developing a clean-room bytecode interpreter so they did not just game the rules as you imply. "

      And why did they do that?

      Oh yes to get around licensing. I don't care if they made more technical effort to do it, they are still gaming the rules.

      The intent of Java has always been to keep it to a standard, and the license is all about not subsetting/supersetting.

      Google gamed the rules, told Sun to screw off and will now face Oracle in court.

      Instead of abiding by the spirit and intent of the license, Google instead chose to ignore it entirely by exploiting a loophole. After that IMO all bets are off. If Oracle nails them because they didn't carry out their exploit cleanly, just deserts for attempting the exploit.

      If Google respected the license they wouldn't be in court.

      I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree and hence my point, this isn't as clear cut as SCO vs IBM. I think there will be plenty of people that once they read about how Google attempted to just use a technicality to avoid licensing will see the other side.

      BTW when the story first broke, my first reaction was "Those damn Oracle bastards", but after I read some back-story, my opinion changed to Google attempting and exploit here to get out of licensing.

      http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-9817048-39.html
      http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/110/

    4. Re:Not as clear cut. by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      Instead of abiding by the spirit and intent of the license, Google instead chose to ignore it entirely by exploiting a loophole.

      The spirit and intent of Sun's Java license has always been to lock users into what is less than best for them. Just as the spirit and intent of mobile carriers has always been to lock users into situations that are detestable for everyone but the carriers. Google managed to blow the cozy old mobile market wide open, and I fully support their intent to do the same for the Java market. In the end, users should make the rules, don't you agree?

      At the same time I applaud this misbegotten lawsuit by Oracle, if only from the point of view of making it abundantly clear that Oracle is not to be trusted with stewardship of important components of the open source ecosystem.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    5. Re:Not as clear cut. by guidryp · · Score: 1

      IMO licenses should be adhered to or you shouldn't use the technology. This applies to both closed and open source licenses, not just licenses we like this week because the benefit us.

    6. Re:Not as clear cut. by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      IMO licenses should be adhered to or you shouldn't use the technology. This applies to both closed and open source licenses, not just licenses we like this week because the benefit us.

      A fair license should be adhered to. In case of an unfair license, just obey the law, be ethical, be moral, then feel free to kick it to hell as it richly deserves.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
  50. stop making things up by yyxx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Java is a spec and NOT an implementation. You are free to make your own implementation of the spec (IBM, Apple and many others do).

    IBM and Apple have not "made their own implementations"; they have licensed Sun/Oracle's implementations and created derivatives.

    You are not free to make your own implementation of the spec; you need to pass Sun's compatibility tests if you don't want to get hit by patent lawsuits because Sun hold essential patents for creating a conforming implementation.

    For years now, there has been no implementation of Java conforming to the Java spec except for those derived from Sun's source code. That's not an accident: it's pretty much impossible to meet Sun's compatibility requirements without licensing their source code.

    This would not be true if Apple cheated and did not implement some part of Java spec (which is the case with what Google did).

    Google didn't "cheat", Google implemented their own platform and runtime; they just happened to use the Java language to do it. In principle, Sun/Oracle couldn't have done anything about that: Sun doesn't hold a patent on the Java language itself. But it appears as if the Android designers may not have been careful enough to avoid all of Sun's patents.

    1. Re:stop making things up by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      But it appears as if the Android designers may not have been careful enough to avoid all of Sun's patents.

      Or maybe they were careful to avoid any Sun patents that their lawyers consider enforceable and were expecting this and are ready for it.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:stop making things up by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      IBM and Apple have not "made their own implementations"; they have licensed Sun/Oracle's implementations and created derivatives.

      citation? I can't find any history on IBM's JVM. (IBM is notorious for keeping this kind of information locked away on the 9-net...) I dimly remember IBM announcing that they would develop their own JVM not based on Sun's JVM, but I certainly can't find any citation either.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:stop making things up by yyxx · · Score: 1

      citation? I can't find any history on IBM's JVM. (IBM is notorious for keeping this kind of information locked away on the 9-net...)

      http://www.devsource.com/c/a/Architecture/IBM-Extends-Java-License-with-Sun/

      (There's this little thing called Google, you know.)

      I dimly remember IBM announcing that they would develop their own JVM not based on Sun's JVM, but I certainly can't find any citation either.

      http://harmony.apache.org/contributors.html

      They have been fighting with Sun/Oracle for years now over licensing and certifying.

    4. Re:stop making things up by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      (There's this little thing called Google, you know.)

      Uh, neither of your links states that IBM JVM is made with Sun JVM. It just says IBM licensed Sun JVM, but not for what purpose. This doesn't mean you're wrong, but it means that you can't use these links as citations. I did google, and I couldn't find squat, and even Wikipedia doesn't say anything about its provenance, so clearly the information is not so trivial to find as it may once have been. Surely details were available at the time.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:stop making things up by yyxx · · Score: 1

      This doesn't mean you're wrong, but it means that you can't use these links as citations.

      IBM is shipping a closed source implementation and they have licensed Java, so therefore their closed source implementation is not proof of the existence of an independent implementation not created under license. How much code it shares doesn't matter, what matters is that IBM has a license and is bound by the terms.

      If you want to state that independent, conforming implementations exist, you need to show that some entity that is not a licensee has created a conforming implementation.

      For IBM we know anyway: just download the software https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/jdk/, read the licensing information, and then look through the class files and implementation-dependent parts.

    6. Re:stop making things up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From that it then follows that you needn't implement Java at all to violate the patents.

    7. Re:stop making things up by Rexdude · · Score: 1

      IBM and Apple have not "made their own implementations"; they have licensed Sun/Oracle's implementations and created derivatives.

      And just to add on, IBM supports the Apache Harmony project - which aims to provide a non encumbered open source JDK implementation. At some point IBM would also like to move away from Sun's proprietary implementation (currently they have to pay licensing fees to modify it to run on IBM platforms).

      --
      "..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
    8. Re:stop making things up by yyxx · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the Harmony project has not resulted in a conforming implementation yet; negotiations about that have been going on for years between Sun/Oracle and Harmony and have failed.

  51. Re:Serious questions raised by Oracle patent attac by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

    Did Oracle try to resolve this amicably with Google (by way of a license deal) or is Oracle pursuing purely destructive objectives?

    Given Ellisons hatred of anything with the word "cloud" in it, i assume he wants google dead worse then ballmer.

    Given how much google uses java for all sorts of stuff, they were idiots not to buy sun. With ellison at the helm of oracle/java, google might actually make a safer bet by moving all their stuff to .net... ballmer might be hell-bent on their destruction too, but contrary to oracle, microsoft has some incompetence to make up for the malevolence

    --
    People, what a bunch of bastards
  52. Re:All of a sudden iPhone looks like an open syste by lehphyro · · Score: 1

    They could have used python, and even reused Sugar.

    They *can* use python, have you heard of Jython? Or http://code.google.com/p/android-scripting/ ?

  53. Write Once, Get Sued Anywhere by theodp · · Score: 1

    Larry E.'s new Java slogan... :-)

  54. You ignore licensed implementations by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    because the only implementations that could meet those criteria were the ones passing their compatibility tests and (in practice) only those based on their licensed source code. That makes Java a highly proprietary platform.

    There are alternate implementations - you are complaining because they have to pass a test suite? Come on, how else can you be sure the VM works!! It's not like any aspect of how the Java VM is supposed to work is not well documented.

    Two licensed (meaning safe from lawsuit) implementations:

    Harmony (From Apache)

    Goldencode - J2SE for OS/2

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:You ignore licensed implementations by yyxx · · Score: 1

      There are alternate implementations - you are complaining because they have to pass a test suite? Come on, how else can you be sure the VM works!!

      I'm complaining because they have to pass a test suite or else face patent infringement claims from Sun. Furthermore, the test suite itself is only available under restrictive terms. That's not an open platform.

      Two licensed (meaning safe from lawsuit) implementations

      If they are licensed, they are not independent implementations. Open platforms don't need to be licensed and aren't controlled by any one entity.

      Harmony [apache.org] (From Apache)

      Are you living under a rock??? Harmony isn't licensed, it hasn't passed the JCK, and you cannot run the JCK on it without violating the JCK license. That charade has been going on for years now.

      Goldencode - J2SE for OS/2 [goldencode.com]

      Yes, a derivative of Sun's source code.

  55. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somebody set up us the bomb...

  56. That had nothing to do with Mono issues by SuperKendall · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The article was very informative - but said nothing whatsoever about Mono's own patent exposure from Microsoft.

    If anything this whole thing should make you MORE wary of Mono.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:That had nothing to do with Mono issues by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      The problem with your theory is that you can probably violate most of MS patents that relate to .Net without cloning it. They didn't limit the scope to .Net in the patents.

    2. Re:That had nothing to do with Mono issues by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      The article was very informative - but said nothing whatsoever about Mono's own patent exposure from Microsoft.

      If anything this whole thing should make you MORE wary of Mono.

      Your post is clearly not flamebait.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
  57. No, I didn't miss it by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    The difference is that Android's Dalvik VM doesn't claim to be a JVM. Microsoft claimed that it did implement a standard JVM when, in fact, it violated the IP licensing agreement by corrupting the standard API with non-standard functionality.

  58. Googlegres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if Google put $$$$$$ into Postgres and FreeBSD?

    Just sayin.

  59. Main point by TRRosen · · Score: 1

    There not getting sued for using java. they're getting sued for not using Java.

    The Tech world should be behind this what it is really about is using open standards technology to damage the standard. Java is useless if its not universal. Thats sort of the whole point of the language.

    Android is built almost entirely on Java but doesn't run it.

    1. Re:Main point by bigpat · · Score: 1

      There not getting sued for using java. they're getting sued for not using Java.

      The Tech world should be behind this what it is really about is using open standards technology to damage the standard. Java is useless if its not universal. Thats sort of the whole point of the language.

      Android is built almost entirely on Java but doesn't run it.

      Obviously you are not a Java developer. Sun forked Java years ago. Java is not a universal platform in any sense of the phrase. There are SE and ME versions as well as various major versions which are partly or completely incompatible with one another depending on how you compile your stuff or what libraries you use.

      Having Google create an android OS with its own requirements is not forking the Java platform. Because it isn't the Java platform. The problem is that Sun called both their platform and language "Java" as if it were the same thing.

      Using Java Syntax and then compiling it into different byte code than the JVM can run should be completely fine.

      This is completely different than the MS/Java issue back in the 90s. Where Microsoft was saying it was a java compatible platform but it wasn't working the same as the real JVM. That is bad because you expect your application to run the same, but then you try to run it under Linux or MacOS and it doesn't work. No one would be under any illusion that an android app would work on another platform.

    2. Re:Main point by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Actually, nobody was under any illusion that J++ apps would run perfectly on Linux or MacOS back in the day. That was just fodder for the court's benefit. Developers who wanted to target Linux or the MacOS weren't developing using Windows and MS tools anyway.

    3. Re:Main point by bigpat · · Score: 1

      But were they calling their apps "Java Apps"?

    4. Re:Main point by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      No, because their customers didn't care what language the application was written in.

  60. Uh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So one company using "its" patents should stopping us worrying about another company using "its" patents exactly why?

    If anything this is a reinforcement that working with technology tainted by association with companies that actually threaten to use soaftware patents is not a wise idea.

  61. Thanks Oracle for one thing.... by gral · · Score: 1

    I would like to thank Oracle for one thing. They sued Google directly. They didn't go after HTC, or Motorola, or some other user of Android, like some other companies have done.

    --
    Scott Carr
  62. Can someone clarify this for me? by bluemeany · · Score: 1

    Is Oracle saying this? Anyone who writes and distributes a JVM, cannot provide just a JVM, but must instead provide the accompanying Sun libraries. or this? If you are providing the Sun libraries with your JVM, you must provide all of them.

    1. Re:Can someone clarify this for me? by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Is Oracle saying this? Anyone who writes and distributes a JVM, cannot provide just a JVM, but must instead provide the accompanying Sun libraries. or this? If you are providing the Sun libraries with your JVM, you must provide all of them.

      Google is claiming that Dalvik is not a JVM. Oracle responded with something like "Not a JVM, eh? OK, then it's infringing on patents A, B, C, etc..."

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    2. Re:Can someone clarify this for me? by bluemeany · · Score: 1

      Ok, so it's nothing to with not providing a complete Java platform then. Being able to write Java programs that run on Dalvik is really no different to writing Java programs for the .Net platform. The question is, what patents does Dalvik infringe on? I'd have thought that Google were fairly carefull not to infringe any of the patents, or at least regarded the patents as not easy to uphold, when they wrote Dalvik. After all the whole point of writing it was to provide a platform different from Sun's. Perhaps Oracle will start looking for patent infringements in the .Net CLR too.

  63. Re:All of a sudden iPhone looks like an open syste by codepunk · · Score: 1

    No it takes about 20 minutes to learn objective C not that you ever have to use any of it I write nearly all of my iphone code in C and others in C++. There is nothing earth shattering new about objective C. More to the point it lets you take full advantage of the minimal processing power of these devices.

    --


    Got Code?
  64. Count VIII is a copyright complaint by Troy+Roberts · · Score: 2, Informative

    Oracle is also alleging the Google violated its copyrights. So, if that is true (though I doubt it), it would invalidate the patent grant.

  65. Does this apply to today's story? by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 1

    Was Google making use of the JAVA RESEARCH LICENSE?

    How does this apply to today's story?

    1. Re:Does this apply to today's story? by robmv · · Score: 1

      That is not my point. to use JRL was only needed to download the source code, even before OpenJDK, and say Agree to the JRL. I think it is pretty obvious that Sun allowed people to download the full source code, learn from it and create an "independent" implementation (no copy & paste), they only recommend to wait a few weeks after you studied the source code to start working in your implementation. That is the point I am making

  66. Larry Ellison is the Rupert Murdoch of Technology by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A powerful, mean and hateful man - who's wealth and power have brought no comfort to his cramped and ugly little self. The paucity of his humanity is demonstrated with every pathetic grab he makes.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  67. Re:Serious questions raised by Oracle patent attac by zr-rifle · · Score: 1

    A sincere question: why not fully embrace Python? It's not as popular as Java, i.e. one of the main of the main reasons to make it the primary platform, but it's still widespread, especially within Google itself. Maybe performance issues; even when the interpreter is reimplemented with a subset of libraries? I'm curious...

    --
    Hack your mind out of its sandbox.
  68. Little more effort required... by Theaetetus · · Score: 4, Informative

    What follows is a short association to each patent where I already heard of it (so like 10 minutes / patent .. something the patent office obviously wasn't able to do .. )

    The legal standard for denying a patent application isn't "I totally heard of something like this, here's a mention of something that may possibly be related, but I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine."
    The legal standard is that:
    (i) a claim is anticipated under 35 USC 102 if each and every limitation as set forth in the claim appears, either explicitly or inherently, in a single prior art reference; or
    (ii) a claim is obvious under 35 USC 103 if a combination of prior art references teach or suggest each and every limitation as set forth in the claim.

    The reason it takes longer than 10 minutes is you have to through every word of each claim and find it in the prior art.

    So, looking at your first one:

    -- cut 6,125,447 / 1997 -- 1. A method for providing security, the method comprising the steps of: establishing one or more protection domains, wherein a protection domain is associated with zero or more permissions; establishing an association between said one or more protection domains and one or more classes of one or more objects; and determining whether an action requested by a particular object is permitted based on said association between said one or more protection domains and said one or more classes. -- end cut -- -> This is C++ private / protected -- cut evidence 1983 -- C++ (pronounced see plus plus) is a statically typed, free-form, multi-paradigm, compiled, general-purpose programming language. It is regarded as a "middle-level" language, as it comprises a combination of both high-level and low-level language features.[2] It was developed by Bjarne Stroustrup starting in 1979 at Bell Labs as an enhancement to the C programming language and originally named C with Classes. It was renamed C++ in 1983.[3] -- end cut --

    I don't see "protection domains" in your quote, nor do I see each protection domain associated with "zero or more permissions". I also don't see any associations between those protection domains and classes. I also don't see any determinations based on the associations.
    If your answer is "but that's how C++ works," that's fine, but you have to actually show each and every element in the claim in the reference... Not just mention that the reference exists. That's why it takes more than 10 minutes.

    1. Re:Little more effort required... by russotto · · Score: 1

      (i) a claim is anticipated under 35 USC 102 if each and every limitation as set forth in the claim appears, either explicitly or inherently, in a single prior art reference; or
      (ii) a claim is obvious under 35 USC 103 if a combination of prior art references teach or suggest each and every limitation as set forth in the claim.

      Which is, of course, an idiotic standard. It means that a patent on a specific application of a general technique is not invalidated by prior art about the general technique. Thus

      1) A method for driving a nail into a piece of wood by striking it with a hammer, where said nail is made of a composite consisting of carbon fiber and steel.

      is not anticipated by all the prior art about driving metal nails, ceramic nails, wooden pegs, etc. And it gives the patentholder a monopoly on driving CF/steel nails.

      Using a patent to carve out a proprietary exception within a well-established field of knowledge is NOT what patents are supposed to be for.

    2. Re:Little more effort required... by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      (i) a claim is anticipated under 35 USC 102 if each and every limitation as set forth in the claim appears, either explicitly or inherently, in a single prior art reference; or (ii) a claim is obvious under 35 USC 103 if a combination of prior art references teach or suggest each and every limitation as set forth in the claim.

      Which is, of course, an idiotic standard. It means that a patent on a specific application of a general technique is not invalidated by prior art about the general technique. Thus

      1) A method for driving a nail into a piece of wood by striking it with a hammer, where said nail is made of a composite consisting of carbon fiber and steel.

      is not anticipated by all the prior art about driving metal nails, ceramic nails, wooden pegs, etc. And it gives the patentholder a monopoly on driving CF/steel nails.

      Using a patent to carve out a proprietary exception within a well-established field of knowledge is NOT what patents are supposed to be for.

      Notice how there's an "or" between legal standard (i) and legal standard (ii) above? That means you can't stop at the 102 question of whether something is anticipated, but also have to look at whether something is not anticipated, but is obvious.

      Here, yes, it's true - if no one anywhere has ever driven a nail made of carbon fiber, then, no, the method is not anticipated. However, it's still obvious because plenty of art exists that shows "driving a nail into a piece of wood by striking it with a hammer" and other art shows "composite consisting of carbon fiber and steel" and one of ordinary skill in the art could combine the existing art in a predictable manner to get the claimed invention.

      So, no, it's not the standards that are idiotic, but your failure to read the second line.

    3. Re:Little more effort required... by russotto · · Score: 1

      Here, yes, it's true - if no one anywhere has ever driven a nail made of carbon fiber, then, no, the method is not anticipated. However, it's still obvious because plenty of art exists that shows "driving a nail into a piece of wood by striking it with a hammer" and other art shows "composite consisting of carbon fiber and steel" and one of ordinary skill in the art could combine the existing art in a predictable manner to get the claimed invention.

      At which point you claim "Oh yeah? If it's so obvious, why hasn't anyone done it yet? Patent approved."

      The prior art rule you describe invites patents covering a minor variation of a known technique just to prevent compatibility. And since those restrictions on claims tend to evaporate into thin air when infringement cases come by, it also allows making a narrow patent and then enforcing it broadly. Thus in my example the patent holder would successfully sue someone using a hammer to strike an aluminum alloy nail on the grounds that its pretty much the same thing as their patented method. This despite the fact that a patent which failed to specify the material of the nail would have been anticipated by the prior art.

    4. Re:Little more effort required... by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      At which point you claim "Oh yeah? If it's so obvious, why hasn't anyone done it yet? Patent approved."

      Yeah, it doesn't work that way. You can make the claim, but that's not going to be enough.

      The prior art rule you describe invites patents covering a minor variation of a known technique just to prevent compatibility. And since those restrictions on claims tend to evaporate into thin air when infringement cases come by, it also allows making a narrow patent and then enforcing it broadly. Thus in my example the patent holder would successfully sue someone using a hammer to strike an aluminum alloy nail on the grounds that its pretty much the same thing as their patented method. This despite the fact that a patent which failed to specify the material of the nail would have been anticipated by the prior art.

      No, they don't, because arguments you make to overcome the prior art delineate the bounds of the invention. If you say "yes, nails are known, but not this super special carbon fiber nail," then you're going to have a really tough time having that limitation go away under the doctrine of equivalents.

      Look, I understand - you don't have any patents, you don't have any litigation or prosecution experience, and your understanding is limited to Slashdot articles, but it really doesn't work the way you think.

  69. it says there's *no* grant by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 2, Informative

    Reading a bit further, I don't think this is relevant. Here's the only mention of patents, and it's saying there's *no* grant:

    B. Residual Rights. If You examine the Technology after accepting this License and remember anything about it later, You are not "tainted" in a way that would prevent You from creating or contributing to an independent implementation, but this License grants You no rights to Sun's copyrights or patents for use in such an implementation.

    Am I missing anything?

    1. Re:it says there's *no* grant by robmv · · Score: 1

      Right there is no patent grant, we still do not know if Dalvik use those patents, of if they are enforceable/valid, The JRL just tell you Sun had no problem with people learning from Java and using what they learned from it (from memory no copy & paste), so the Oracle copyright claims sound a little fishy to me (not talking about the patent claims). I will wait the time when Google ask them "OK what copyright code are you talking about?", and see if Oracle shows it or do an SCO stunt and say nothing

  70. Re:All of a sudden iPhone looks like an open syste by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

    It does seem strange that Google, rather than using Python, whose creator (Guido van Rossum) is employed by Google, they chose to use Java....

    --
    GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  71. I dont think Sun/Oracle cares about embedded java. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They certainly weren't interested in selling their Power PC version to us.
    Took about 6 months to work through contracts with them, then I sent
    the sales engineer one bug report and they came back and said "OOPs,
    sorry, we're not selling that any more".

    Wonderful.

  72. Re:Serious questions raised by Oracle patent attac by azmodean+1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    tl;dr summary since I got pretty long-winded: The problem is that Java was never open in the first place. Users of FOSS need to learn to decide for themselves when technologies aren't really open, and avoid using them.

    It will be hard to find out whether Oracle planned this kind of aggression when buying Sun, but it can certainly be stated that the free software/open source community hasn't benefited from the acquisition.

    There's a number of important questions that Oracle's patent attack raises:

    * Did Oracle try to resolve this amicably with Google (by way of a license deal) or is Oracle pursuing purely destructive objectives?

    Does this really matter? It would have been good for PR, but is anyone really under the illusion that Oracle wants to play nice with anyone? Personally I'd rather companies make it clear when they intend to swing around the "government-sanctioned monopolist hammer" instead of pretending that they're really quite reasonable, but that you do owe them quite a bit of money for using that technology they insisted was really open. Regarding PR, this kind of activity does put companies in my, "prone to dangerous legal demands" category, but frankly, Sun and Oracle were already both in that category.

    * Will Google solve this patent problem in a way that the entire Android ecosystem (including the makers of Android-based phones and the authors of Android apps) will be reassured, or will Google only take care of its own risk?

    Valid and important question, but as a non-Android and non-Java developer, I'm not interested in the answer.

    * Is Java less of an open standard now than C#? I don't really buy the argument that Oracle may only be suing because of deviations from the standards definition. This kind of patent attack is evil no matter whether Google adhere to certain specififcations or not.

    I wouldn't say Java is "less" open than C#. I do and always have put them in the same boat, which is "IP minefield, never develop in these environments." Also, this action changed NOTHING. Java has ALWAYS been an IP minefield just as much as C#, it's just that Sun managed to fool quite a few more people about it than Microsoft could. The only good patents are patents that are effectively neutered by PERMISSIVE patent grants. Sun's patent grant has always been a joke.

    * Isn't this now the ultimate proof that the Open Invention Network doesn't really protect the Linux ecosystem from patent attacks? This is case of one OIN licensee (Oracle) suing another (Google).

    Another interesting question, OIN's license only grants acces to patents specifically related to the Linux System as defined by OIN. After a quick look through the listing, the Java SDK itself doesn't seem to be there. There are several components that rely on Java (ant, an eclipse java compiler, a gcc Java runtime), but if those packages don't exercise the patents in question, then Oracle is acting exactly as the OIN is designed to allow them to act.

    I don't see this as a failing of OIN. The way I see it, the fact that the Java SDK isn't considered a part of the "Linux System" by OIN means that Oracle doesn't consider Java to be open, which means to me that I don't want to use or rely on Java. It's nice for PR to say things like, "OIN protects licensees from patent threats related to Linux", but if you're going to be doing business based on that assurance, you should definitely be checking the definitions and making sure that what you think is covered is actually covered.

    After putting in a bit more thought before posting, I have to say that while my previous comments are valid, your point is also valid. The "Linux Ecosystem", a more broadly defined set of software than the quite narrowly-defined "Linux System" according to OIN, is not at all fully covered

  73. Will drive FUD by fishbowl · · Score: 1

    I'm afraid that this story is going to drive FUD against Java, Oracle *AND* Google, and it's going to make things difficult for me at work.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    1. Re:Will drive FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and Javascript. Seriously.

  74. Re:Larry Ellison is the Rupert Murdoch of Technolo by alexborges · · Score: 1

    +10^1000000000

    TRUDAT

    --
    NO SIG
  75. bye-bye, Java by freelunch · · Score: 1

    So bye-bye, Java goodbye
    Drove my Dalvik to the levee,
    but the levee was dry
    And them Oracle boys were drinkin' whiskey and rye
    Larry Ellison was obviously really high
    Singin', "this'll be the day that java died..
    "this'll be the day that java died."

  76. This is the real point of the story by Concern · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People will draw conclusions about Sun, Oracle and Google, about Android and Java, but this is all missing the point.

    This is about software patents, which cannot coexist with a functioning software industry.

    There are hundreds of thousands of them. No one can read them all, let alone remember them all. Not even Microsoft, Google and Oracle can do it, so they infringe thousands of patents at the end of each day of work. Even if the baby jesus came came down from heaven and granted them perfect knowledge of all patents today, there will be a thousand new ones filed by tomorrow. The entire thing is a money making scam for attorneys and an alternative to free-market competition for some of the larger, more unscrupulous companies. The scheme was invented in a courtroom rather than in Congress. It's so ridiculous on its face that the entire rest of the world refuses to recognize these types of patents, despite years of fevered bribery- I mean, lobbying, on the part of the scammers abroad.

    Trying to keep score between Java and .Net on who's playing the patent game better is like arguing over who's burning brighter in a room where everyone is on fire.

    If this stuff bothers you, donate time and/or money to the people doing the hard work of organizing a fix, and we can end this practical joke on the software profession. We have enough problems with our economy as it is.

    --
    Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
  77. Re:Serious questions raised by Oracle patent attac by Pengo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From what I'm reading, it could be python Syntax and it just wouldn't matter. It's the running of code in a bytecode virtual-machine where the patents seem to have bite.

    Interpreted scripts are going to be a hard sell to developers, it either needs to natively compile or at least compile into a bytecode blob.

    I personally would be resistant in investing hundreds of hours, or millions of dollars in marketing and development for a big title to only have Python scripts being passed around for the world to take and use.

  78. So don't use Java by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Or at least, fully support native binary apps right now, at the same time as trying to clear up Dalvik's legal situation. Java is actually an idiotic choice for mobile devices. Running on an interpreter means it uses many times the battery power to get things done compared to native apps. Just expose a native app loader so folks who want to build native apps don't have to jump through demented JNI hoops.

    Java may have its advantages - mainly, a garbage collector, which is also a disadvantage - but C++ apps run way faster, even if Java is JITted. And a JIT sucks battery life too, as well as introducing annoying, user-visible startup latency and imposing a huge memory footprint. Just take a deep breath and go native, it's the best solution for everybody.

    --
    Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    1. Re:So don't use Java by cs02rm0 · · Score: 1

      Java is actually an idiotic choice for mobile devices. Running on an interpreter means it uses many times the battery power to get things done compared to native apps.

      I'd contend that view is outdated, partly because hardware's moved on just enough to allow for a software layer with extra fat, but mostly because the market's shown that android has been hugely successful - with good reason. We can argue over what the reason might be, but is it idiotic to find a solution that sells so well in spite of increased power consumption? I can't agree with that.

    2. Re:So don't use Java by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      Java is actually an idiotic choice for mobile devices. Running on an interpreter means it uses many times the battery power to get things done compared to native apps.

      I'd contend that view is outdated, partly because hardware's moved on just enough to allow for a software layer with extra fat, but mostly because the market's shown that android has been hugely successful - with good reason. We can argue over what the reason might be, but is it idiotic to find a solution that sells so well in spite of increased power consumption? I can't agree with that.

      I would content that my views about software efficiency and battery life are far from outdated. Battery life is one of the big influences on purchase decisions btween phones of similar capability, even when deciding between Iphone or Android. That and signal reception quality :-)

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    3. Re:So don't use Java by rveldpau · · Score: 1

      Do you understand the point of the VM? The VM is there so that you don't have to recompile for every different chipset and operating systems used by the phone manufacturers. This is becoming less and less important as phones seem to be merging into the same OS's anyways, namely iOs and Android, but there are still phones running on proprietary Operating Systems developed by Motorola and the like. The Java VM was a way to develop once and run across all phones. This does not hold true anymore, since Android runs Davlik, and not Java ME, and iOS doesn't support Java at all.

      Also, Java has many more advantages than just a garbage collector. It has a vibrant library community, amazing build tools and an evolving compiler, which with the release of JDK 7 will allow for Polyglot programming.

      But, in the end, this may be all for not, since with this action, Oracle has deemed that Java is not as open as it once was...

  79. wlc51 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Best foto-comment to this issue:

    http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4305/javalarry.jpg

    pass it around plz

  80. Hmm by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    Wasn't it supposed to be MS and .Net that was the trap?

  81. Oracle Lawsuits by helix2301 · · Score: 1

    Oracle does not play around when it comes to lawsuits if I was Google I would be careful about this fight. Oracle usually wins a lot of there lawsuits. Oracle has been buying up a lot of open source products to hurt there competitors this is not the first time this will happen with Oracle not with the way they are buying up companies.

  82. Re:Larry Ellison is the Rupert Murdoch of Technolo by the_womble · · Score: 1

    Sounds like you could be describing half the CEOs in the industry.....

  83. Maybe VALA will gain speed from this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Gnome project has designed a rather nice language that is very similar in syntax and ideas to both C# and Java.. (well closer to C#) but using the GObject base class system. Part of the motivation, IIRC, was specifically to have something alternative to Mono due to precisely these types of concerns. It's cross-platform, and compiles directly to native code rather than a JIT model.

  84. Re:Larry Ellison is the Rupert Murdoch of Technolo by segedunum · · Score: 1

    Yer, leopards spots and all that. Basically, what he's trying to do is to get whatever is left of Sun making some money so that it doesn't drag Oracle itself down. Grabbing a slice of Android and the mobile market without having even entered into it seems like a decent idea. Sun never made enough money from Java. I'm not justifying what they're doing but needs must at the moment. The Sun takeover is taking its tole and it had more to do with Ellison's ego over going up against IBM than anything else.

  85. Re:Serious questions raised by Oracle patent attac by Svartalf · · Score: 2, Informative

    Considering that there is very much PRIOR ART, that dates back to the 1966 and again in the early 70's on that act in question , I don't think that what Oracle's doing is a wise move on their part. They're taking on someone that can actually afford to litigate that position and win- with the end result of Oracle eating the expense of the lawsuit and losing a handful of patents in their portfolio.

    I can't imagine what's going through Ellison's mind right now that he'd play this move this way.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  86. All to Benefit Steve Jobs by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    As I see it, this is simply Larry Ellison doing what he can to benefit his friend Steve Jobs. Totally underhanded and completely unprovable. Anything to stop, hassle, or hinder Android's momentum by threatening court action that is going to take years to resolve. Just what cell phone does Larry himself carry?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  87. Yes, Google failed to meet the terms of the grant by ChaseTec · · Score: 1

    You don't even need a lawyer to read it. No supersets or subsets. "Java" on android doesn't implement the complete Java SE API so no grant. Google was trying to avoid having to license Java ME by only using the Java language and not a JVM. That grant clause is from the language spec so it's a pretty bone-headed move on Googles part to think they can repurpose the Java language. Microsoft didn't get away with making incompatible Java implementations with Visual J++, why should Google? If Google would have just licensed Java from the get-go, Android wouldn't just now be getting the speed boost of using a JIT.

    --
    My Hello World is 512 bytes. But it's also a valid Fat12 boot sector, Fat12 file reader, and Pmode routine.
  88. Re:All of a sudden iPhone looks like an open syste by MikeFM · · Score: 1

    Obj-C isn't especially difficult to learn but it's definitely not like working in something like Python. I'd like to see Apple offer a bit cleaner language to code in especially if they could make it interlink with C/C++/Obj-C well. (Something like built-in Prolog would be awesome too.)

    I've experimented with my own pet Pythonic language that translates to Obj-C and it seems to not have any major issues over hand written Obj-C so I'm not sure why Apple would have any reason not to offer such a language.

    Still learning to program for iOS isn't any more work than learning to program for Android.

    --
    At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  89. Here's one patent they list that's totally bogus by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    # 6,910,205 - Interpreting Functions Utilizing A Hybrid Of Virtual And Native Machine Instructions

    - the 205 patent ... filed in 2002, granted in 2005

    Pretyy much very interpreted language for decades does this. Additionally, back in the 60s people were writing programs to do exactly this to try to enable run-time decompiling/recompiling of binaries from other systems. Nothing much new under the "Sun" here ...

  90. This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Darl McBride hired by Oracle as a special consultant in the suit...

  91. Re:All of a sudden iPhone looks like an open syste by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

    It does seem strange that Google, rather than using Python, whose creator (Guido van Rossum) is employed by Google, they chose to use Java....

    Python runs as slow as molasses in January. Mind you, not as bad as it once was but still very bad.

    --
    Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
  92. Re:Serious questions raised by Oracle patent attac by Troed · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They're taking on someone that can actually afford to litigate that position and win- with the end result of Oracle eating the expense of the lawsuit and losing a handful of patents in their portfolio.

    Thanks. I've been going through post after post wondering when someone would mention this. No owner of software patents WANT to appear in court - it's just too risky.

  93. Re:All of a sudden iPhone looks like an open syste by PipsqueakOnAP133 · · Score: 1

    I thought Android wasn't started by Google, but purchased from a small startup? (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2005/tc20050817_0949_tc024.htm)

    So it was logical to continue the startup's plan instead of, you know, commit suicide like WinMoPho7?

  94. Re:Serious questions raised by Oracle patent attac by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 2, Informative

    running of code in a bytecode virtual-machine
     
    The first thing that springs to my mind when I read those words is the Infocom Z-Machine, which has been around since 1979 and I'm sure there are examples of lots of stuff like it even earlier than that.
     
    In other words, this virtual machine stuff has been around and been well-known for quite a while.
     
    Is this another 1-click style patent fight?

    --
    If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
  95. Re:Larry Ellison is the Rupert Murdoch of Technolo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He also likes to wear girl's kimono. The freak.

  96. Re:Yes, Google failed to meet the terms of the gra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you're confusing "Java" and "Java". Java the syntax/language is not patentable in the same way that Esperanto isn't patentable (lets be honest even if it was I think C++ and C would count as prior art FFS). Java the virtual machine may contain methods and processes that are patentable, patents certainly have been granted. Android does not have a Java virtual machine it has a Dalvik virtual machine, the bytecode is different and much of the internals are different. But the main development systems for Android use Java as a language to produce the Dalvik bytecode. From what I can see Oracle are suing Google for implementing their Dalvik virtual machine in a way that treads on their patents for Oracles Java virtual machine. The use of Java as a language is pretty irrelevant and the suit would be little different, albeit less obvious, if people programmed for Android using pLucid.

    Microsoft were sued by Sun because they were creating an incompatible virtual machine with proprietary extensions and still calling it "Java". It was really a trademark infringement. Google do not call their system Java they simply say you can program for it using the Java language/syntax.

    If Google had just licensed Java from the get-go, Android wouldn't just now be getting the speed boost of using a JIT, it would probably already of crashed and burned because of much slower take up by handset manufacturers who didn't like the idea of paying Sun/Oracle licensing fees for every phone they produced. Not to mention Google suddenly having Oracle in their food chain, I'm sure we can all see why Google don't like that idea.

    If the patents are enforceable (they look like duds to me but IANAPL) the question is does Googles Dalvik VM infringe them and is that infringement deliberate and/or malicious? Java licensing just seems like a big read herring.

  97. Re:Serious questions raised by Oracle patent attac by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 1

    Given how much google uses java for all sorts of stuff, they were idiots not to buy sun.

    Or they realized they were safe using Java as they are now. They'll spend less defending this than they would buying Sun, and once they get a ruling on their side they're good to go. Oracle is just picking up the torch where SCO dropped it.

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
  98. Javascript collateral damage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now some company PHBs are now scared of getting sued by Oracle now for having embedded JavaScript/JIT engines.

  99. Re:Larry Ellison is the Rupert Murdoch of Technolo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A powerful, mean and hateful man - his wealth and power were bestowed by the CIA after an early life of hardship; his formative years in the industry were during the horror in Chile.

    A million possible reasons for his paucity of humanity are demonstrated with every pathetic revelation about the complicity of his masters in aiding the death of hundreds of thousands of Chilean civilians while Ellison was coming into his power.

    You don't need confidential leaks to look up ITT, Ampex, any of the iterations leading up to Oracle, or Cybersyn, the Chilean project that triggered a flotilla of American technology companies to become complicit in the overthrow of a sovereign state and the massacres that followed.

    What did you expect him to become? You don't fight men like this through condemnation; make them fear irrelevance instead.

  100. Re:All of a sudden iPhone looks like an open syste by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    They could have used python, and even reused Sugar.

    They *can* use python, have you heard of Jython? Or http://code.google.com/p/android-scripting/ ?

    Yes but I think jython would be a bad move under the circumstances.

  101. Wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IBM has multiple, complete re-implementations of Java (i.e. complete VM and complete class libraries, all clean room re-implemented from scratch by IBM employees). I know because I once worked on one of them and even though I've moved on to a different employer, I still know a lot of people who work on these.

    IBM has *also* licensed the standard implementation from Sun/Oracle for other purposes. Remember, IBM is a huge company with hundreds of thousands of employees. It does a LOT of Java stuff. IBM is heavily invested in all sorts of Java stuff, but even if this lawsuit has a chilling effect in the open-source world IBM will probably not be affected by it much because they can afford to employ hundreds of people to develop any libraries, etc. that they need, rather than depending on the open-source community to write it all for them. IBM actually pays plenty of developers to write Java code which later ends up being open source.

  102. Re:Larry Ellison is the Rupert Murdoch of Technolo by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    Ellison owns the "Her" in "Herpes".

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  103. Sign a petition by ruewan · · Score: 1

    Members of the Java Community should protest this. I don't see this lawsuit doing anyone any good, not even Oracle. sign the petition! http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/oracledropgooglelawsuit/

  104. Re:Serious questions raised by Oracle patent attac by gmueckl · · Score: 1

    Python isn't ready in the same way that Java is. There is no really stable just in time compiler that I'm aware of (I might miss something here, though). Then there is the hampered threading support in CPython because of the nasty Global Interpreter Lock. At least on multicore CPUs you can't expect to get much out of a single Python process, even if you're doing multithreaded programming. And the CPython VM is sloooow compared to Java. Most of that comes from the extreme extreme dynamics that Python allows at runtime - they incur a huge overhead because any kind of static analysis on Python code is basically impossible and therefore optimizations are extremely hard to do.

    I wish I wouldn't have to say any of this. I like Python.

    --
    http://www.moonlight3d.eu/
  105. This is not about Java by symbolset · · Score: 1

    And it's only marginally about Android. It's not about any intellectual property Oracle acquired from Sun.

    It's about the launch of Windows Phone 7 coming up in a few weeks. Bill and Larry are co-billionaires for charity now. They're playing on the same team - for the children, for their legacy. That doesn't mean they've given up playing dirty. Far from it: it gives them a moral certitude that they're working toward a worthy end that justifies almost any means. Bill may not be CEO of Microsoft any more, but that's where the bulk of the billions he's giving to charity come from so that's the lever he's got to work.

    Microsoft needs to sow some Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt in the mobile and tablet markets so that they can market their products as being free of that taint and so gain an opening that frankly isn't there otherwise. If they can't get a leg up here they're facing barriers to entry that are insurmountable. People Luurve their iPhones and iPads - 95% of owners would recommend the product and they sell them as fast as they can make them. Android is swinging up with a market share growth that defies gravity and owner satisfaction ratings that are nearly as high. Android is utterly crushing everything that isn't an iPhone - partly because it's got a diverse manufacturer base that's spread out so people have choices and it's harder to block the supply chain for diverse hardware platforms. Without a rash of IP suits against iOS and Android, some legitimate security disasters there, a puppet press that takes minor antenna issues hyperbolic and so on, Microsoft has just got almost nothing going for it with WP7. It's just a product that on its face would have been really cool four years ago, that doesn't have any apps or developers, that lacks features that are not optional on a modern device.

    The Virtnet lawsuits are about the same thing, by a different route. Given a near certain loss in the lawsuit but the potential for a long delay, it's easy to see the negotiating team work out a settlement that goes something like "Look, we could tie this up in the courts with appeals and whatnot for another decade or so... or we could settle for a decent figure NOW as long as you agree to go after our preferred target next." The settlement was probably cheaper than their ad budget for Windows Phone 7, and Microsoft is not one to shy away from pouring money on the bonfire in the name of strategy. So now we have Virtnet suing block Apple and Android from using VPN over wireless - and so preventing them from being enterprise worthy.

    There will be more of these suits filed from every angle. And the puppet press will cover each one from the same "Evil Google, Evil Apple" point of view. They're all bunk. Larry will of course get some reciprocal backscratching in return, though of course it will likely be indirect. An Oracle optimized Windows Server cluster with special flex licensing? Who knows. At least Virtnet is already paid in full.

    Windows Phone 7 is still crap. None of these lawsuits change that. Most everybody who buys it will regret it. But because of these suits more people will buy it than would have otherwise.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  106. Watto Ellison by game+kid · · Score: 1

    sign the petition! http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/oracledropgooglelawsuit/

    Larry Ellison's a Oraclarian. Internet petitions don't work on him, only money.

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  107. Re:Serious questions raised by Oracle patent attac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm currently learning/developing in Java. I too fell for Sun's lies into thinking that Java is an open platform. As a future OSS developer, who intends to develop primarily for Linux and Windows platforms, which language would you recommend that I invest (time/money) in?

  108. Backup plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thankfully, they've got a backup plan (sort of):-
    http://developer.android.com/sdk/ndk/index.html

  109. Oracle sues Goolegator over a cup of Java by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when they start suing, does it mean they are fresh out of ideas and need legal man to step in to generate income?

  110. Re:Larry Ellison is the Rupert Murdoch of Technolo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "whose wealth" not "who's wealth"

  111. The Java Trap; now what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We listened for years to McNealy's arguments for Sun maintaining its position as a standards bearer of Java: McNealy posited that the language would fork without Sun's vigilant application of language validation (the Java Community Process). Many in the Open Source community knew this was a ruse, an effort to stealthily spring a licensing "trap" at a later date.

    Based on the legal developments of the past week, it would appear that those who had warned for years of a Java Trap have been proven right. Even though Mr.McNealy never guaranteed that he would personally continue to oversee and steward a Java development ecosystem, surely he knew what the consequences were going to be of turning over the legal rights for Java to Mr.Ellison; Mr.Ellison's track record of software standards beneficence to date had not been exactly inspiring.

    Granted, both IBM and Google had an opportunity to acquire Java outright and insure its continued licensing stability across all platforms and implementations; but clearly they did not choose to do so for economic reasons (and they may now come to rue their faulty business reasoning...)

    But where does all this leave us, the developers who advocated to our clients reliance on the Java framework? What now are our options, not only for our legacy web applications, but for web development projects coming down the line?

    We know that Ruby and PHP are great tools fo agile development; PHP and Ruby's readability and maintainability are good; but many of us sometimes turned to Java-based web applications (deployed through Tomcat or Websphere) not for straightforward projects, but for larger ones where we knew or suspected that the business logic was going to get gnarly down the line. We felt relieved knowing not only the large sample codebase that existed for us to mine, but also the tremendous number of APIs and toolkits that facilitated rapid application development.

    Some have pointed to Lisp as an alternative; I know that Lisp's non-procedural approach is not an intuitive one for many developers; and the depth and breadth of its sample online codebase pales in comparison to Java's.

    So what have we left for implementing client/server web applications that can step up to possibly complex business logic at some point and yet will not be the software licensing trap that Java has evidently become?

    I am posting this to lobby others in the development community for what I think is the best alternative out there for affording robust business logic implementation and scalability:

    Server-side C++ modules for Apache web server
    +
    Ample SDK that implements XUL in (transitional) XHTML

    C++ supports complex business logic and facilitates high speed code. By using Gnu's (gcc) or Intel's C++, licensing limitations can be addressed, quantified, and accounted for. By adhering to the ANSI C++ standard (a compiler option checks conformance..), portability issues are mitigated. The APIs and toolkits for C++ make for an impressive number. The only downside of C++ versus Java is that C++ addressing can sometimes make for hazardous run-time code; but once one takes into consideration the licensing minefields yet to rear their heads on the Java platform, the tradeoff in improved performance over Java makes it worth the trouble of testing more than you normally would with a Java web application,and using debug libraries to vet that that one's code base is reliable.

    The Ample SDK simplifies web form/interface generation by server-side Apache C++ modules. Using simple Axis libraries in C++, an Apache web server can deploy forms using server-side XML text files; adjustments to the XML form configuration files on the server do not necessitate a recompile, provided one performs mappings of the XUL elements to SQL table columns (fields).

    The performance gains in scalability to be realized by such a client/server web development model are huge. Th

  112. You guys seem to be forgetting... by kko · · Score: 1

    Google has recently started its foray into services for governments: Google Apps for Governments. Oracle is quite well entrenched in the market. Oracle would rather have the place and time of their choosing for that fight than allow Google (or anybody with half a brain) fight them where it actually counts.

    --
    No, seriously, I just come here for the articles.
  113. Can Slashdot please let my post stay up??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We listened for years to McNealy's arguments for Sun maintaining its position as a standards bearer of Java: McNealy posited that the language would fork without Sun's vigilant application of language validation (the Java Community Process). Many in the Open Source community knew this was a ruse, an effort to stealthily spring a licensing "trap" at a later date.

    Based on the legal developments of the past week, it would appear that those who had warned for years of a Java Trap have been proven right. Even though Mr.McNealy never guaranteed that he would personally continue to oversee and steward a Java development ecosystem, surely he knew what the consequences were going to be of turning over the legal rights for Java to Mr.Ellison; Mr.Ellison's track record of software standards beneficence to date had not been exactly inspiring.

    Granted, both IBM and Google had an opportunity to acquire Java outright and insure its continued licensing stability across all platforms and implementations; but clearly they did not choose to do so for economic reasons (and they may now come to rue their faulty business reasoning...)

    But where does all this leave us, the developers who advocated to our clients reliance on the Java framework? What now are our options, not only for our legacy web applications, but for web development projects coming down the line?

    We know that Ruby and PHP are great tools for agile development; PHP and Ruby's readability and maintainability are good; but many of us sometimes turned to Java-based web applications (deployed through Tomcat or Websphere) not for straightforward projects, but for larger ones where we knew or suspected that the business logic was going to get gnarly down the line. We felt relieved knowing not only the large sample codebase that existed for us to mine, but also the tremendous number of APIs and toolkits that facilitated rapid application development.

    Some have pointed to Lisp as an alternative; I know that Lisp's non-procedural approach is not an intuitive one for many developers; and the depth and breadth of its sample online codebase pales in comparison to Java's.

    So what have we left for implementing client/server web applications that can step up to possibly complex business logic at some point and yet will not be the software licensing trap that Java has evidently become?

    I am posting this to lobby others in the development community for what I think is the best alternative out there for affording robust business logic implementation and scalability:

    Server-side C++ modules for Apache web server
    +
    Ample SDK that implements XUL in (transitional) XHTML

    C++ supports complex business logic and facilitates high speed code. By using Gnu's (gcc) or Intel's C++, licensing limitations can be addressed, quantified, and accounted for. By adhering to the ANSI C++ standard (a compiler option checks conformance..), portability issues are mitigated. The APIs and toolkits for C++ make for an impressive number. The only downside of C++ versus Java is that C++ addressing can sometimes make for hazardous run-time code; but once one takes into consideration the licensing minefields yet to rear their heads on the Java platform, the tradeoff in improved performance over Java makes it worth the trouble of testing more than you normally would with a Java web application, and using debug libraries to vet that that one's code base is reliable.

    The Ample SDK simplifies web form/interface generation by server-side Apache C++ modules. Using simple Axis libraries in C++, an Apache web server can deploy forms using server-side XML text files; adjustments to the XML form configuration files on the server do not necessitate a recompile, provided one performs mappings of the XUL elements to SQL table columns (fields).

  114. Re:Serious questions raised by Oracle patent attac by azmodean+1 · · Score: 1

    Sorry for the rather late reply, I don't tend to hit /. all that much on the weekends.

    My understanding (not a ridiculously well-founded one, so I'd advise looking around some more as well) is that C, C++, Perl, PHP, Python, Lua, TCL... in other words pretty much every major language with the exception of Java and the .Net family, are substantially* free of this kind of problem. Personally I recommend C and Python, but I keep trying to grok lisp because of how awesome people keep saying it is ;)

    *I say substantially because I do know that there are fully proprietary implementations of some of these languages, there are many compiler writers with a long history of "Embrace, Extend, ..., Profit!" in the C and C++ family, and some of the others may be subject to this as well, but the languages I listed, unlike Java/.Net have standard compilers and/or interpreters that ARE fully open.

  115. Java vs Android by LinuxFreakus · · Score: 1

    Begun, the clone war has.

  116. Oracle as troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny, in all of the media reports about this, nothing that I have read has referred to Oracle as a "patent troll." However, you can be sure that, if a smaller company had filed a patent enforcement suit to protect patents that it had recently acquired, everyone would immediately denounce it as a troll. It shows that there is a pretty strong double standard, and that a troll is in the eye of the beholder.