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?"
There's more info on en.swpat.org at:
It's a publicly-editable wiki; feel free to help out.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
"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
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.
> The text of their lawsuit isn't available
Yes it is. I put it here:
Other info:
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
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.
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.
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).
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'?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Oracle is also alleging the Google violated its copyrights. So, if that is true (though I doubt it), it would invalidate the patent grant.
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.
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?
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
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
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
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!
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.
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.
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.