The Case For Oracle

An anonymous reader writes "In a lucid writeup, InfoWorld's Neil McAllister takes a different angle on the Oracle-Google lawsuit, giving an explanation why Oracle was right to sue Google. McAllister argues that Google is splintering the Java platform, just like Microsoft was doing back in the 90s, and should be held up to the same standards. He further cites Google's Josh Bloch calling for Oracle to take a lead role in steering Java, concluding that Bloch maybe 'should have been more careful what he wished for.'"

Comments

If they can do it to Google, they can do it to you

[ciaran_o_riordan]

Problem is, if they can do it to Google, they can do it to any distributor of a free software JVM.

To be safe, you have to either follow the Java Language Specification exactly (no subsets or supersets), or build your software on the OpenJDK software that Oracle distributes under GPLv2. Here's what info swpat.org has gathered so far about this case and its implications:

• Oracle v. Google (2010, USA)
• Java and patents
• Comparison of Java and C-sharp
• GPLv2 and patents
• Oracle

Re:Dalvik is not a Java VM

[Haxamanish]

From wikipedia:

Specifically the patent infringement claim references 7 patents including US Patent No. 5966702 "Method And Apparatus For Preprocessing And Packaging Class Files", and US Patent No. 6910205 "Interpreting Functions Utilizing A Hybrid Of Virtual And Native Machine Instructions".[15] It also references US Patent No. RE38104 "Method And Apparatus For Resolving Data References In Generated Code" authored by James Gosling [...]

As I understand it (disclaimer: I'm a philosopher in Belgium), not using Java on Android would not solve the problem, since Oracle is attacking the Dalvik VM. So, even if it were running JavaScript, Python, Go or C#, Dalvik would according to Oracle violate the Java VM Patents.

Solutions would thus be:
- Prove those patents are not applicable to Dalvik
- Find prior art to invalidate the patents (any lawyer-hacker who is familiar with, say, the inner workings of UCSD Pascal?)
- Reform the US patent system, the most drastic reform would be the abolishment of all "intellectual property"
- Move out of the US
- Pay Oracle or make another deal with them like swapping some patents and/or technologies

Re:I think Oracle is right

[LingNoi]

It's not targeted at systems level programming it's the beginnings of a completely new type of language. The fact that it's used mostly for console based stuff is simply because there aren't enough libraries re-written in the language.

http://golang.org/doc/go_faq.html#What_is_the_purpose_of_the_project

Re:History Repeating Itself

[Rob Y.]

I think when Microsoft implemented J++, Java wasn't free software, and MS was in violation of a licensing agreement they had made with Sun to use Sun's code. Whether that makes a difference legally in this case, I can't say. But the situation seems different to me.

Re:If they can do it to Google, they can do it to

[DrXym]

The problem with Android is that it does implement a load of the java.* namespace, but it is not a complete implementation. This means that code written using portable Java will not always work on Android. I don't think they add anything in the java.* namespace, so you can port apps from android unless they use the android.* stuff.

That isn't the problem at all. Android / Dalvik has never claimed to be an implementation of Java so its irrelevant how much or how little of the standard namespace it has implemented. It could have implemented all 100% and Oracle would still be pissed.

The reason why they're pissed is because Google chose to deliberately make a Java-like environment, one which benefited from the Java programming language but wasn't actually Java and never claimed to be. Therefore it was not subject to Oracle's licensing terms or directional interference. Since Google never claimed it was Java (as did Microsoft when they produced a bastardized version), Oracle cannot sue for licence or trademark infringement.

All they can do as they have done is rummage around for some patents that were violated in the process. The patents look pretty weak, and some of them don't even cover Android OS, just the SDK. I think what is likely to happen is that Google will vigourously defend the suit and issue a counter suit, but they won't settle for anything less than a sop to Oracle. Perhaps that sop will be to fold JavaFX into the SDK or something. I actually like JavaFX and it would be a good fit and would bring Oracle back in the game to some extent. What I absolutely don't see happening ever is Google using Java ME or dumping Dalvik.

IMO Oracle / Sun really have themselves to blame for this. Java devs love Java but they despise the glacial pace of development. Java 7 is years overdue and Java ME is stale technology, inadequate for most of the purposes it was touted for. The average STB, or smart phone has outgrown Java ME. I do not blame Google for not waiting around for Oracle's blessing and doing their own thing.

Re:If they can do it to Google, they can do it to

[TheRaven64]

That isn't the problem at all. Android / Dalvik has never claimed to be an implementation of Java so its irrelevant how much or how little of the standard namespace it has implemented

Incorrect. Sun / Oracle licenses all of the patents in the lawsuit, for free, for use in complete implementations of the Java platform. The fact that Android / Dalvik is not a complete implementation of the Java platform is precisely the problem because it means that they are not covered by the patent grant. If it were, then the lawsuit would not exist.

Re:History Repeating Itself

[gral]

Actually, the reason the Microsoft J++ issue was a case is because Microsoft signed contracts to license Java. The contract stated they could not create incompatible java releases, they had to follow the Sun Java template. Microsoft broke the contract drastically in key areas of Java. That case is nothing like this case. There was no contract with Google to make a java instance.

Re:That would be an antitrust violation

[Jeremy Allison - Sam]

FlorianMueller wrote:

> I oppose software patents and particularly the use of patents against free and open source software.
> In Google's case, we are however talking about a company that is very much pro-patent as far its own
> patents (especially the search engine patents) are concerned and just despises everyone else's when used
> against it. Now Google effectively calls on the community, but Google doesn't support the community in
> the fight against software patents.

I know I'm a Google employee and therefore should be suspect in this (i.e. check my claims about Google, don't take them on trust), but the statement above is untrue. Google submitted an anti-software patent brief in the Bilski case. See here:

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos_amicus_briefs

for details.

Jeremy.