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!
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.
Patent Minefields - helping drive innovation forward!
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.
"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
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
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!
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?
God, it's like SCO & IBM again.
Stepping on the toes of just one the world's largest corporations not enough for them?
> 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 :-)
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
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 ?
Isn't this exactly what Stallman warned when he suggested that Open Office should be forked because it used Java?
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.
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.
Boo Oracle! This could spell the end for Java.
...not to use Java.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
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.
...I would immediately make a large donation to PostgreSQL - the arch enemy for all Oracle database solutions. Just to spite them.
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!
- 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.
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.
I can see the news Headlines: "Google buys Evil"
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:
This is a patent dispute with very wide-ranging implications.
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.
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.
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
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.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
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.
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
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.
Nonaggression works!
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.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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/
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Oracle is also alleging the Google violated its copyrights. So, if that is true (though I doubt it), it would invalidate the patent grant.
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..."
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
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!
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.
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?
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
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.
it's in my head
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!