Slashdot Mirror
Legal Analysis of Oracle v. Google
snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Martin Heller provides an in-depth analysis of Oracle's legal argument against Google, a suit that includes seven alleged counts of software process patent infringement and one count of copyright infringement. 'Oracle's desired relief is drastic: not just permanent injunctions, but destruction of all copies that violate copyright (thus, wiping all Android devices), plus triple damages and legal costs. Also, it demands a jury trial,' Heller writes, and while this amounts mainly to saber-rattling, the Supreme Court's recent Bilski ruling did not completely invalidate software process patents despite their shaky ground due to prior art."
Where's Groklaw in all of this?
La vida vale puro chili
So, why doesn't Google publish the Android layer under the GPL licence? After all, it does float on top of Linux, which is GPL.
Everybody knows how to use Googles' services, but not everybody's had the displeasure of working with Oracle's often slow-as-shit Java databases. Oracle's balls in this case are a typical indication of its niche-but-top-heavy domination in the 'states.
I'll sum up the article:
1) Oracle is suing Java over Android.
2) Oracle hired a really good lawyer, so they must be serious.
3) I sure hate software patents.
4) Oracle would like all copies of Android destroyed, but this isn't likely.
5) Sun might settle out of court.
6) Did I mention I hate software patents?
7) You should try to make life harder for Oracle, since I hate software patents.
With all due respect to the author, half the posts on this Slashdot thread will probably have as much to say and contain as much useful information -- but really, maybe whoever wrote/published the article summary is more to blame for claims the article just doesn't live up to.
It wouldn't help with patent infringement, especially after the fact.
They'd also have to gpl every single android maker's software, which(htc comes to mind) they might not want to.
Groklaw has already started covering this, with more information than InfoWorld...
I'm not saying that Oracle has a legitimate case, but I don't see how Android being GPL'd would invalidate any of their claims if you assume they are valid to begin with.
If the idea is that making Android free eliminates Oracle's ability to litigate against it, consider that a stubborn enough man will insist on trying to get blood from a stone, and Larry Ellison is several orders of magnitude more stubborn than that.
The only thing "in-depth" about this article is the fact the author seems in over his head.
Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
I'd almost suspect they just bought Sun to use the cited patents in court. The patents are so broad and ill defined that if they uphold there are not many processes that do not violate them. (Heck -- my coffee-maker probably violates them!)
Wow... waste of time article there. I could read most of this in slashdot comments. I think that article lost its informative nature after the first four paragraphs. The speculation got deep and fast and ended with "if I were younger, I would..." and then completely forgot that he wasn't endorsing an Oracle boycott and said "are you ready to vote with your wallet?"
I think the editor fell asleep at the wheel on this one.
Damn, first time I read the article and results to be a waste of time.
Please, mod up the submitter. Submitting is his good right, and we should reward his efforts.
Please, mod timothy down for accepting a boring, not-even-a-story.
Please, mod the original author 'overrated', since his story should never have made it into infoworld in the first place.
so he would try getting blood from a asteroid, or fire.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100815110101756
Just read the first few paragraphs of this and it's 2:30 here... time for bed. But I got as far as what eerily described Sun's suit against Microsoft so long ago.
Sun sued Microsoft successfully for their embrace and extend of Java. They claimed it damaged the Java dream of single binaries that run everywhere. Most of us on slashdot agree with that notion as a Microsoft version of Java would make Sun's Java appear broken due to their huge distribution model.
Now we have Sun (Oracle America) making claims against Google. Not that they are violating a license or agreement, but in spirit may contain the same basic drives as described in the Groklaw article. "New-Sun" is, perhaps, trying to do what "Sun" did before -- successfully take down a giant a step or two. After all, what were the end results of Sun v. Microsoft?
I expected an analysis too and found nothing, even if I agree with the author. Here is a real analysis of the claim: http://blog.headius.com/2010/08/my-thoughts-on-oracle-v-google.html
GPL as such doesn't help. However, it is interesting to note that if Google had used Sun Java as starting point they would have had the GPLv2 implicit patent protection.
There's only one way to fight Oracle here - refuse all contributions to the open source project space that come from people that receive a paycheck from Oracle. I'd even go so far as to back out any such changes that have come from such people.
The open source community needs to make it clear to Oracle that if it wants to use our stuff then it can't pull this kind of stunt and that if it does, the cost (to Oracle) of using open source software will go up because Oracle will need to maintain all of its own patches.
And when it comes to BTRFS, I think the Linux community needs to pull it out and reject it. After this, who wants Oracle copyright'd source code in their tree? Anyone? How do you know Oracle won't pull some nasty stunt further down the road when you've built an appliance based on BTRFS? I haven't looked at BTRFS source code to see what the license/copyright is, but I do know one thing: all employment contracts at Oracle give Oracle ownership of all intellectual property (copyright, patents, etc) that you develop related to their business activities.
Oracle needs to be excluded from open source until it plays nice with the community.
The open source community needs to make Oracle into the rich kid at school that nobody wants to play with because that rich kid always wants to be #1.
Get Oracle out of open source and do not let them in.
"Also demands a jury trial"
So you're going to grab a bunch of people 'off the street' and try to get them to understand what patents are, what software is and how this software infringes this patent. This will defentally give an honest and fair trial.
i hope oracle wins. if people would be told to destroy their android device they paid for, they might finally notice how patents ruin a lot of stuff
How does this work? would google have to hunt down every single android phone and destroy/wipe its software?
If so, they will have to extract my android device from Lary ellison's bum.
People, what a bunch of bastards
patents != copyright
GPL is a license which grants certain rights using copyright law. This has no bearing on patent infringement.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Sun sues Microsoft over Java = GOOD? Oracle sues Google over Java = BAD?
There's some confusion out there about how Google would be in a better position from a patent point of view if it had used existing Java code under the GPL (OpenJDK, phoneME). The Android ecosystem as a whole would have had other benefits (such as making it much harder for the makers of Android-based phones to keep important parts of their source code closed) but it wouldn't really help as far as Oracle's patent infringement allegations are concerned.
The GPLv2 (under which OpenJDK and large parts of phoneME are available) does not contain an explicit patent grant. Only an implicit one. As a result, any fork (derived/modified version) is probably not covered.
The InfoWorld article that this Slashdot story refers to talks a lot about forking as a possible strategy -- especially toward the end, where MySQL is also mentioned. I was very much involved with the debate over whether Oracle should get to acquire MySQL (together with Monty, MySQL's original author/founder, I opposed the deal). In that context, it was also a subject of debate whether MySQL forks would be safe from Oracle patent threats in the future. Eben Moglen, who was basically part of Oracle's legal team and had botched the patent aspect of GPLv2 (thus tried to fix the problem with GPLv3), argued that GPLv2 would take care of those forks. However, the European Commission, which (unlike Moglen) is impartial and has vast legal resources, concluded that the implicit patent grant does not -- at least not reliably, but probably not at all -- protect forks.
If you're interested in more detail on the question of whether Google would be or would have been better off with GPLv2, here's a link to the related part of a blog posting of mine. It discusses that question and right thereafter (or you can go there directly) explains that my work related to Oracle's acquisition of MySQL was not an effort to change MySQL's license away from the GPL to something else. I have meanwhile published documents from the process that serve as conclusive evidence that I argued vehemently against -- not for -- a license change. Still, the GPLv2's limitation concerning patent claims against forks is a fact.
I just posted further up an explanation as to why the GPLv2's implicit patent grant doesn't really help forks.
Well apple have 'remote detonation' abilities - so maybe Google have the same. Probably would offer a 'refund' then after X weeks disable it remotely.
But since this is taking place in America, what will happen is:
Party X will win. Party Y will file an appeal
Party Y will win. Party X will file an appeal.
And eventually one of them will either give up - or google replaces all its software to conform to standards.
"Covering forks" really isn't very meaningful. What that means is that you can't redistribute the software under the GPL at all since you can't meet the terms of the GPL. As a result, the GPL on OpenJDK (or any other patent-covered software) is really a sham.
(Heck -- my coffee-maker probably violates them!)
Foiled by the old Java patent
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Ahhhh shit! Time to learn another fucking language and 10 more over-engineered libraries! So much for time with the family.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Someone plz call Rick Deckard...
There's a fundamental error in the InfoWorld analysis referenced above:
Oracle simply asks for absolutely standard remedies in this situation. There's nothing evil about it, and it cannot be reasonably interpreted as a strategy to destroy open source as a whole or anything like that.
I'm saying this even though I opposed Oracle's acquisition of Sun. I just want to point out that if a case like this goes to court, the plaintiff will always ask for those kinds of remedies. There's nothing unusual about it. In fact, asking for less would be unusual and would probably confuse the judges as to what Oracle actually wants.
Intellectual property rights are exclusive rights. That's the way the law has designed them -- it's not a matter of Oracle being evil. Those IPRs entitle a right holder to enforce exclusivity. That necessarily means to ask for an injunction, and under such circumstances as the ones of this case (with copyright in play), also the destruction of infringing material.
The way to prevent that scenario from materializing is a license agreement between Oracle and Google. So it's up to the two parties to sit down and negotiate, and I believe we as a community should now expect both of them to be constructive. The court can't impose a license agreement on the two of them. If the court has to rule, it will -- if Oracle is right -- have to enforce exclusivity. That's sort of binary, whereas a license agreement would offer much more flexibility.
It's regrettable that they couldn't work this out before the matter was taken to court. But it's not too late until there is a final court ruling.
A very strict interpretation of the GPL would indeed be incompatible with today's legal framework. There's no such thing as a piece of software that's guaranteed to be patent-unencumbered. So there will also be some exposure to the risk as long as there are software patents (if it were up to me, there wouldn't be any). The whole notion of "free software" is a wonderful vision but as long as there are software patents, it can't materialize to the full extent.
Google likes control, like Apple they want the best of both worlds.
The tech buzz of been seen as open and having the world hunt bugs and give back. The MS side to burn, hide, exclude and control, airbrush out.
If its pure GLP to the hardware, anyone could run Linux and Google loses all tracking, ad lockin, long term cookies, ip to real person marketing. They dont want to be a hardware factory, Google wants to track you and your habits. GPL gives you too much freedom to say thanks for the phone and opt out.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
What if we say that our Android devices are running JAndroid, that happens to be very compatible with Java...
but of course is not Java...
----
You say tomatO, I say fsck you
How can I vote this article down? It's so insipid and lacks anything new I wonder why it was approved in the first place.
Groklaw did publish something useful and interesting, this piece of opinion is nothing new.
Actually the GPL3 has patent wavier in it so it isn't just a license to do with copyright.
Interesting posting, thanks. I still don't see how you can say that the implicit patent grant probably does not protect modified redistribution at all... The EU decision says
In other words only reimplementing Z or using it in a new context would trigger the infringement. That's still dangerous but totally different from your paraphrasing. What gives, have I misunderstood?
What you refer to is only a scenario where you take X amount of existing code and add Y amount of new code, without changing the existing code. The problem is that once you modify any part of the code on which the old patents read, it becomes "another use or implementation" of the patent claim. I believe Google would have had to make changes to many parts of the inner workings of the existing Java (OpenJDK, phoneME) code in its effort to optimize performance and take account of the specific characteristics of mobile devices.
However, as Oracle is the plaintiff in this case, one would suppose it is possible for Google to claim that Oracle had stated in earlier submissions that people could rely on the implicit patent protection of GPL v2 in respect of forks, and therefore Google could rely on the statement from the rights holder in this particular case ....
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Can Google buy Oracle extract the IP they want and later spin Oracle of again minus the bits its becoming apparent it would have been better Oracle hadn't got hold of in the first place?
Google is bigger and richer and they wouldn't be losing money taking over a profitable company, would they?
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
I for one do not welcome our new java overlords
It's an interesting thought, I admit, that someone would be able to hold Oracle's claims in the Sun merger control context against them now. But even if Google had forked on a GPLv2 basis and tried this now, the problem is that Eben Moglen made those statements in his effort to support Oracle. He denied that Oracle paid him for that particular effort but admitted that his Software Freedom Law Center (which is consipicuously silent on Oracle vs. Google) received "no more than 5%" of its funding from Oracle. So formally, Oracle can say that Eben Moglen acted independently. From a common sense point of view, everyone familiar with the EU process obviously knew that Eben Moglen was in Oracle's camp. But it couldn't be used legally against Oracle.
Google's market capitalization as of now is around 150 billion dollars, Oracle's around 115 billion dollars. So it wouldn't be easy for Google to just gobble up Oracle. Theoretically, if Google bought Oracle, it could solve the IP problem. But these two companies are more or less on an equal footing in financial terms (although the $35 billion difference in market cap is nothing to sneeze at in absolute terms ;-)).
Google is big, but Google is not big enough to just buy Oracle. Their market caps are pretty close: Google at ~$150bn, Oracle at ~$115bn.
I can't remember
Did Oracle submit Ebens opinions to the EU themselves, or did Eben submit them directly?
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
The way I read the European Commission's decision, Oracle submitted Eben's paper as a supporting document along with its reply to the Commission's Statement of Objections. Attaching a supporting document is not the same as making a claim in one's own name. For an example, companies routinely attach market research from the likes of IDC and Gartner to their submissions, and that doesn't mean that they necessarily claim all of what's stated in those reports. (Of course, the way it was used calls into question Eben Moglen's independence by any reasonable standard, but not necessarily formally.)
Also, those merger control processes are pretty confidential. Oracle's response to the Statement of Objections was never published in its entirety. All that's publicly known is what the Commission's published decision states.
If the recording of the hearing were public, it would actually be a real problem for Oracle because of what they (several of them, not just Eben Moglen in his formally independent capacity) said about how to interpret the GPL in general, but I'm not allowed to disclose what exactly they said because the hearing took place behind closed doors and on a confidential basis.
Actually the GPL3 has patent wavier in it so it isn't just a license to do with copyright.
Unless Sun/Oracle released the code under GPLv3, Google can't waive Oracle's patents.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
I've done two other analyses of Oracle v. Google:
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Maybe Oracle and Google have secretly agreed to create this circus in order to show the world how stupid software patents are?
If this ever makes it to the supreme court, the most likely result is the invalidation of the whole software patents idea. Specially after the media has gone over it again and again and people is educated about how stupid software patents are, judges included.
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
> They'd also have to gpl every single android maker's software
Not so. And where there's doubt, they could just use the Classpath exception, just as Sun used for OpenJDK (distributed under GPLv2 plus the "Classpath exception").
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
To be defend-able, doesn't a patent need to be somehow novel and its invention non obvious?
Just because a patent is filed doesn’t mean it is defendable in a court of law. Looking in the details of some of these patents listed in the article, they don't strike me as particularly novel nor non-obvious:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6,910,205.PN.&OS=PN/6,910,205&RS=PN/6,910,205
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=RE38,104.PN.&OS=PN/RE38,104&RS=PN/RE38,104
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7,426,720.PN.&OS=PN/7,426,720&RS=PN/7,426,720
etc...
That reminds me:
"IBM sued [us] over a RISC patent that asserted that 'if you make something simpler, it'll go faster.'...and we lost." -James Gosling
In hindsight, $7.4 billion for Sun would have been a bargain for Google.
"but destruction of all copies that violate copyright (thus, wiping all Android devices)"
That has to make you wonder what role Apple might be playing in this... perhaps putting Oracle up to it in some way...
I propose a new logo for Oracle stories on Slashdot. As Oracle is obviously The Evil Empire, it should get a Death Star as its logo.
Actually the GPL3 has patent wavier in it so it isn't just a license to do with copyright.
hmm... wavy patents... gotta patent that!
All of Oracle would be too much of a stretch for Google, but maybe Oracle just wants to spin off a part of the business, like Java, and is trying to create an opportunity for Google to make this case go away by paying over the odds for it. They may even have some bidders lined up from the dark side, for instance Canopy Group, to increase the price further.
Is Oracle the new SCO?
>>Actually the GPL3 has patent wavier in it so it isn't just a license to do with copyright.
>Unless Sun/Oracle released the code under GPLv3, Google can't waive Oracle's patents.
You're both wrong. The GPL has had a patent waiver clause since version 2. It states that if you use or distribute code under it you explicitly give a zero-royalty patent permission to all users who receive it under the license. Sun released OpenJDK under GPLv2 so indeed no patents SUN had on OpenJDK code can be asserted on it or anything derived from it (as explicitly required by the license). The fact that the patents changed ownership should not invalidate this in the least - since the licensee of the copyright was also the patent owner at the time - and granted the explicit patent license, the new owner cannot revoke it unless it can show breach of contract.
What GPLv3 did was to EXPAND the patent clause to cover things like the Microsoft/Novell deal - whereby if a company distributes any GPLv3 code - and obtains or purchases patent protection from third party (as Novell did) it HAS to offer this patent protection free of charge to all recipients of the code regardless who they got it from. If they are not willing to do so - they may not distribute (or derive from) the code, or alternatively they can refuse to sign such a deal - but what it basically did was make sure nothing with a GPLv3 license can be in Suze Linux unless Novell manages to convince Microsoft to change the patent protection deal so it's free to all users of said code.
As it turned out - GPLv3 effectively killed the Microsoft patent racket and no distro has signed up for it since Xandros several years ago now.
Either way it wouldn't be google waiving Oracle's patents - SUN already waived them, themselves for any OpenJDK derivatives. The trouble is Google didn't use OpenJDK - in fact technically speaking Android doesn't run java AT ALL.
It doesn't run Harmony either - it contains no JVM whatsoever (the Oracle Lawyers are obviously confused).
Dalvik is NOT a JVM. It does not, indeed CANNOT, run Java Bytecode. It has it's own bytecode format. Google just provided a toolkit that let you compile Java sourcecode to Dalvik Bytecode rather than Java Bytecode. This compiler used the much of the classpath code from Harmony to ensure it was compatible with Java source code as far as possible - but that's the extent of it.
I think Oracle is in for a major shock - Google had originally planned to use an adapted JVM but since SUN wouldn't give them what they needed from one, and Java had patents over it, they chose not to. They instead did a clean-room implementation of their own VM that just happens to have a compiler that can convert Java code (and Bytecode) to it's own. In fact, the technique is identical to the way IKVM runs Java on .net. .net, over java, hell even over Python (beca
That's the real issue here - if Oracle can somehow convince a judge that what Google did DOES in fact violate their patents (unlikely since it's not even a replacement technology or even a compatible one, it merely contains a compatibility layer but Dalvik native Bytecode can in theory be compiled from any language you write a compiler for) then that means Oracle can sue Microsoft next and win under case-law.
They'd control not only Java but essentially all VM-executeable software development ! I sincerely doubt that the patents they have can cover widely enough to give them that (unless the judge is REALLY stupid and Google really REALLY mess up their defense) but I think Larry thinks the possible pay-off is worth the risk of failure.
Look at the damages sought- it includes WIPING EVERY ANDROID CLEAN ! Regardless that these devices belong to CONSUMERS - not to google ! If Oracle can convince the court that any JVM capable of running code translated from Java Bytecode violates it's patents - then wiping every Android at will is the kind of power they will gain, not just in mobile but over all programming. Over
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
You realize all of those links have rel="nofollow" on them?
Okay, let's follow this train of thought:
- Oracle wins, forcing destruction of all copies that violate copyright.
- This means _all_ Android handsets must be not only factory reset, but zapped entirely. This also includes _all 3rd party_ apps and services from the professional and recreational community. That's _a lot_ of software.
- All Android users will be up in arms.
- Hundreds of thousands of Americans will file a class action law suit (but against whom, Google or Oracle?).
- Hundreds of thousands of non-Americans will (AFAIK?) not be able to participate in that American lawsuit, but there will most likely be a similar suit on EU-level (by users or by a trade commission).
In the end, the big loser will be the many individuals who were not able to partake in, or did not benefit from, any of the lawsuits, and/or(!) relied upon (as in: have stored data in) apps for which no other alternative exists, or whose data cannot be migrated.
"Good news, everyone!"
'How does this work? would google have to hunt down every single android phone and destroy/wipe its software?'
http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2010/06/exercising-our-remote-application.html
"After the researcher voluntarily removed these applications from Android Market, we decided, per the Android Market Terms of Service, to exercise our remote application removal feature on the remaining installed copies to complete the cleanup...The remote application removal feature is one of many security controls Android possesses to help protect users from malicious applications. In case of an emergency, a dangerous application could be removed from active circulation in a rapid and scalable manner to prevent further exposure to users. While we hope to not have to use it, we know that we have the capability to take swift action on behalf of users' safety when needed."
They can pry my Android device from my cold, dead hands.
For the love of all things pure, please learn to use more punctuation! You make a somewhat valid, or rather interesting point, but 90+ words without a single comma is really taking the piss...
cat:
A jury of android users will slap Oracle down. A jury of iPhone users will ban all Android.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Old English legal saying. If you are guilty (or have a bad civil case) choose a jury. If you have a strong case or are innocent, choose a judge. If Oracle had any kind of strong case, they would obviously want a trial without jury because it would be over faster, their costs would be lower and they would get redress quicker. So? So this looks like a classical Von Falkenhayn Battle (after the German WW1 Minister who wanted a battle that would be inconclusive but would go on a long time, so as to wear out the French. Unfortunately, just as with SCO, he wore out the Germans as well.)
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Noone cares what the EU decides
The problem with your really long comment is that even though Sun released OpenJDK under GPL, Google did not use any of its code. Google has called Dalvik a clean room implementation of a register based VM. It's not even byte compatible with JVM.
Since Dalvik is not derived from OpenJDK it can not enjoy its GPL protections.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Yes, I said that in my post.
I started by correcting the statements about the GPL - then I specifically indicated that this does NOT however apply to Google because they didn't USE the GPL'd code from SUN at all.
In fact I said everything in your correction - and then some.
The real problem with my long comment is that you didn't read it.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
"... and represented former vice president Al Gore in the disputed 2004 U.S. election results."
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
So the problem with his long comment was that it wasn't short like yours?
Pizza-pizza!?
WIPING EVERY ANDROID CLEAN
What company would be suicidal enough to piss off that many people all at once?
'Oh oracle those are the dipshits who screwed up my cool *expensive* phone'. Yeah that would end well.
Even pulling this stunt makes oracle a piraiah to deal with. This could have a serious effect on Oracle of cratering its other mainline business of selling database servers.
There is such a thing as bad news.
that removes apps only, not android itself.. i would find it very hard to believe google would build in a self-wipe function
People, what a bunch of bastards
The term 'intellectual property' is designed to confuse us about patents and copyright concepts. Basically you can not own ideas, but in the interest of stimulating innovation and sharing ideas, lawmakers provide a temporary, exclusive right to your ideas via patents and copyright. As opposed to land and other property that is for exclusive use in perpetuity.
Besides that, the problem is not what they ask but why they ask it. Basically Oracle thinks Dalvik is an illegal copy/clone/implementation of Java and Google doesn't. In my mind, Oracle is wrong.
The Android SDK transforms java classes that make up your Android app into special Dalvik bytecode.
The tools in the SDK are Java programs. The compilation output is not Java or Java bytecode.
If Oracle goes after this, what prevents them from going after annotation enhanced classes used in Spring, Hibernate,... that basically do the same stuff? E.g. Hibernate transforms Java classes into SQL-statements that run on a DB instance. They can even sue themselves because they did those things before buying Sun.
I fail to see how this will benefit anybody - especially Oracle - in the long run. It would be smarter to join Android, try to get their Java brand on it and profit from the free publicity.
Maybe because it was too long... ;)
I did read it, but the assertions you made in the rest of your comment showed a lack of understanding of how this legal process works.
Patents are not copyrights and it doesn't matter if Google used Oracle's code directly. Except that ironically if Google did they would have a better case to defend themselves.
The absurdity of patents is the fact that you only have to make something that does something similar to be in violation of a patent. To use a slashdot car metaphor/story - Robert Kearns invented the intermittent wipers and was granted a patent. He went to the big three automakers and they refused his offer to sale them the right to use them. Ford motor company decided that they could make their own intermittent wipers, and eventually Robert Kearns sued Ford for patent infringement. Ford settled the case for $10 million. Kearn subsequently sued Chrysler and ultimately won in court a judgement of $30 million. This was even with the auto makers arguing that the patent needed to meet some standard of originality and novelty.
Sun was granted these patents as they relate to virtual machines. Google appears to have created a clean room implementation that mimics the behavior described in those patents. Oracle the purchaser of Sun feels like they have case for patent infringement against Google and sued. Google can not refer to Microsoft's ".net" as a counter example, since Microsoft and Sun entered into a cross licensing agreement in 2003 as part of the settlement of the long dispute over Microsoft's handling of Java. Both sides have sufficient money to make this a long and drawn out court battle. Google has more to lose than Oracle. Oracle understands this and upped the ante with the severe damage relief being demanded.
I will not be surprised in the end that this is settled without a court judgement with an establishment of cross licensing agreement and some money heading Oracle's way. It's not about "right" or "wrong"... it is all about the Benjamins...
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
From the official site - 'Android is a software stack for mobile devices that includes an operating system, middleware and key applications.'. There are several key applications which, if disabled, would effectively cripple the device (on my phone, even 'Android System' is listed as an app, though I've no idea if Google has the ability to disable it remotely). Are any of these apps potentially subject to Oracle's patent attack?
The remedies Oracle is requesting almost certainly amount to saber-rattling, because I doubt they could get an injunction under the criteria the Supreme Court set in MercExchange
It would be interesting to see how the stock holders would move if Google made an offer.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Jury selection should be amusing... "have you ever heard of Google, ...sorry you're dismissed"
Maybe because it was too long... ;)
I did read it, but ...
TL;DR ;)
pariah. learn to fucking spell.
Generally companies ask for a lot up front so they can get what they really want in a settlement. I'm sure Oracle would be just as happy with a settlement that involved a licensing fee for every Android device sold.
Besides, even if they were somehow to convince a jury to let them wipe all of the Android phones out there, I don't think it would hurt them as bad as all that. The people that make the decisions to buy stuff like Oracle are at the executive level, and most of those people are still using Blackberries, not Android phones.
I agree the article is low quality journalism.
The Oracle vs Google suit described is yet another Kabuki play that re-enacts how patent and copyright litigation gradually clears the business playing field of all the small players.
The scenario resolves like this: Gradually the big players exclusively cross license each other. Exclusive cross licensing allows the big players to keep playing and it pushes the smaller players to go do something else.
This is the pattern. I read this basic description in my father's machine shop in the 1960's in a book titled "How to patent your invention" or some such title.
The GPL is a brilliant demonstration that non-exclusive cross licensing is ethically, socially and culturally a superior form of copyright and patent rights assignment. Part of the brilliance of the GPL is the same license terms are provided to all. It happens to have a $0 price also.
Approaches to patent system change built around the damage to the public good caused by "exclusive" as a term in cross licensing.
This approach says, modify contract law to alter the toxic results of one patent being issued with different license terms to different parties.
(For instance, calling all lawyers...)
Replace exclusive cross licensing devised by lawyers with defined by law licensing method that is not exclusive.
Remove the duopoly cost savings advantages from cross licensing by requiring each item to have an enumerated per use price. Taxable as income and as a cost of goods used.
Make exclusive cross licensing that is too tight an anti-trust violation.
Require that a patent holder or copyright holder license the use at one price for all. No exchanges. No triple damages. No blue sky estimates.
Make cross licensing agreements taxable transactions.
Remove the usage of cross licensing as a practice of building business oligarchies. Make patent licensing the same price for all. Make it with no fixed annual charge and only payment per physical object manufactured only.
I know I'm a bit late, but what does the story submitter mean by "the Supreme Court's recent Bilski ruling did not completely invalidate software process patents despite their shaky ground due to prior art"? This doesn't make sense. Bilski relates to patent-eligible subject matter. If something is not patent-eligible subject matter, then it doesn't matter how new or non-obvious it is, you can't get a (valid) patent. Prior art is used when arguing that an invention is not novel (i.e., it has already been done before) or is obvious (i.e., it has not been done yet, but it is too close to what has already been done to be patentable). Did the submitter mean something that I do not understand, or did the submitter just string together legal jargon randomly?
As Oracle get ready to close Sun's doors, they are looking for that quick money hit. How convenient that they own Java and can sue whom ever they desire for any reason seeing that a large percentage of web apps are written in Java. One evil company vs the other evil company, does the final resolution really matter?
"The Brady Bunch is back...working homicide"
parent, in a long winded effort, is attempting to communicate the obvious.
Oracle's lawyers are big asshole lickers, as big as any that existed, and they aren't asking any more then the usual asshole lickers are.
In other words, we've accepted a broken legal system long ago, we shouldn't point it out any more.
parent poster needs to wipe the Oracle smegma off his face.
Sounds as if once the SCO case went bust, the lawyers went shopping for a new source of revenue and successfully appealed to Ellison's ego. Rather sad that Oracle has decided the first thing they would do with Sun technology is to kill Java as a platform of choice for developers. The damage that human ego and greed can do continues to amaze me. The irony is that Java may do for Oracle what it did to Sun. The temptation of "run everywhere" being translated into "control everywhere" is just too much for some to think through the consequences. The longer the case goes on the greater the damage to Oracle's reputation as a vendor that can't be trusted to do anything but grab the gold. For a database vendor that is probably over time the kiss of death.
LOL!
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Intellectual property rights are exclusive rights. That's the way the law has designed them -- it's not a matter of Oracle being evil. Those IPRs entitle a right holder to enforce exclusivity.
In the case of many kinds of patents, and software patents in general, those exclusive rights cause far more harm than good. Congress should rewrite the whole system from the ground up.
(1) Patents should be restricted to a handful of fields.
(2) Patent licensing should only be allowed to recover documented, non-overlapping R&D expenses associated with that patent plus perhaps a 100% gross margin.
(3) Patent licensing should be mandatory at government regulated rates in line with that.
(4) When the licensing recovery is reached, the patent should auto-expire
With rules like that, patents might actually promote the progress of the science and the useful arts, rather than grossly hindering it.
Coffee-coffee..
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
They will have to take my android from my cold dead hands
-- dnl
The article's author suggests boycotting all Oracle products and moving to alternatives.
Which begs the question: Who here is not already boycotting Oracle b/c of their shittyness and horrible documentation?
Free Manning, jail Obama.
Yes, you can make that argument that the GPL never allows redistribution because you can never be sure that something is patent-unencumbered.
However, intent matters. The intent of the GPL is pretty clearly that you can redistribute unless there are clear and known reasons against it. As far as Java is concerned, there are now.
I would laugh until I cry if the winners in this turned out to be the Regents of UCSD who probably hold the rights to UCSD Pascal P-System, which is in my opinion the prior art for all this stuff. I assume the average slashdot user recognized at the beginning of .NET that it sounded like P-System all over again. Lets invent a P-Machine (VM), write a compiler for a popular language so it emits P-Code, and voila you have architecture independent source code. Write once compile once, run anywhere (anywhere a p-code interpreter exists. Of course clever programmers with too much time on their hands can convert any one pcode into another. The regents could begin by asserting that ECMA standards/documents were really just reheated P-system, then create derivative lawsuits from there. IANABCL, but as a human with some common sense, I have been wondering since .NET 1.0 why it was any more magical in theory than the p-system, except that it was Microsoft's version and therefore subject to extension and extinguishment.
>Besides, even if they were somehow to convince a jury to let them wipe all of the Android phones out there
So basically all google has to do is during Jury selection limit their criteria to "do you use an android phone" - if they can get just 5 or so android users on the jury there is no way in hell that the jury will reach a decision that gets their lovely smartphones wiped ! :P
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
LOL! Understood. :p
Not to mention better in other ways too, for example considering what Oracle did to Sun.