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

Re:I think Google should solve this the easy way

[KarmaMB84]

I don't know why anyone ever suggests this. It would be suicide for Google. The moment they revealed they would even consider blocking search terms in retaliation for anything they're no longer trustworthy as a search engine.

Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation

[squiggleslash]

Google isn't advertising Android as a Java platform. It's a platform that you can write code for in the Java language, yes, but this is a world away from claiming you're shipping "Java", and virtually no end users are under the impression Java has anything to do with the Java platform. Be very clear about this: no applications shipped as .jar (or .class) files for J2ME, J2SE, or J2EE, will run under Android, and nobody thinks they will.

By comparison, Microsoft was shipping a supposedly compliant, but actually semi-incompatable, JVM with Windows that gave users and developers the idea it was a full implementation, which caused programs supposedly written for Java to often fail if either written for the Microsoft JVM and run under a standard stack, or vice versa.

If this is the crux of the author's argument, he's an idiot. If Google is "fragmenting" Java by allowing you to write programs in the language for its platform, then I suppose every operating system author, from Microsoft to Commodore, has been "fragmenting" Unix by allowing you to write code in C for their non-Unix operating systems.

Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation

[SilentMobius]

Which is why Google _don't_ call it a java platform. It's dalvik, it runs dalvik bytecode on a dalvik VM. You can write in any high level language you like as long as you have a compiler that results in dalvik bytecode.

As a convenience, Google provide a java->dalvik bytecode compiler, which is nice of them, but they don't ship a JVM nor a java system.

Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation

[diegocg]

What Google has opted to do damages Oracle's trademark by referring to non-compatible software as Java language.

Oracle disagrees with you. They aren't suing Google because of some trademark issue, they are doing it because of patent infringement. And the patents are more about the dalvik VM than about Java itself - .NET probably infringes those patents too, but Oracle probably won't take Microsoft to court.

And there is nothing wrong with "forking" Java. What's the problem with the Dalvik VM and the Harmony classes? Maybe it can replace Oracle's Java in the embedded market? Well, I think that's better than letting C# kill Java, like Sun has been doing in the last years.

Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation

[ADRA]

Firstly, on a strictly legal sense, they're suing over Patents and Copyrights. The copyright route seems rather fishy, and I wouldn't be surprised if this argument gets dropped later. The patent suit is like all others, and has little if anything to do with the spirit of java, etc..

On a philosophical sense, Oracle is correct. Android may never claim to be Java, but anyone who isn't a retard knows that Google is enticing Java developers into their pseudo-compatible platforms. From a personal perspective, it is annoying porting existing java apps into AppEngine / Android. The standard class libs limitations make interoperability between stock java and Google's platforms more difficult. This IS similar to the tack that Microsoft made proprietary core feature additions. Microsoft was never forced to use Java when coming up with their proprietary JVM. They chose java because it had buzz, and they assumed it would be next good language to assimilate and conquer. I don't think Google wants to kill Java, but I think they want to steal the large pool of existing Java developers and coerce them to use their platforms. Does this diversity hurt java (the language) in the end? Yes. Much of the advantage of java is in the rich set of additions built upon existing platforms. If those libraries now have to choose which platform to track against, it means two versions of common libraries, and smaller guys may just not bother to support J2SE,Android,AppEngine,GWT, etc...

What the hell is he talking about?

[ScrewMaster]

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.

What the hell does that mean? Microsoft got sued because it failed to live up to a contract (huge surprise there.) There are no contractual issues here, so far as I'm aware (if I'm wrong someone please correct me.)

Java isn't some religious manuscript that needs to be kept "pure" so the true believers won't rise up and slay those who would adulterate it. It's a goddamn PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE. If Oracle is suing Google, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Java being held to some standard (I could believe that of Sun, who held a certain vision for their progeny and a justifiable pride in their work) but is part of a some strategic plan. Matter of fact, that was Sun's strategy: keep Java consistent across all platforms so that "write once, run anywhere" would work. Do you really think that is a part of Oracle's planning? Is it even of the slightest concern?

Larry Ellison is a lot of things (I've heard appellations such as "real son of a bitch", "bastard", and "prick" applied to him on a regular basis) but he's not exactly a visionary. This is about money and access to specific markets, and trying to spin it as being about the welfare of the Java programming language is ridiculous. If I were a real conspiracy theorist I would have to wonder if one of Google's real competitors in the advertising space were behind this, but I'm not. I leave that to other posters.

MOD PARENT UP PLEASE

[WindBourne]

I wish that I had mod points left. I would modded you up. The fact is, that if Google were to do what the GP did, well, that would make them JUST LIKE MS. That is why MS was sued, and lost. The last thing that Google needs to do is something that stupid. It helps in the short term, but kills in the long.

However, Google does not have to help Oracle either. And if I were Google, I would start exploring, along with the other phone companies, another VM. And let it slip that they are now exploring a different route for ALL OF THE SMART PHONES AND PHONES. At that point, Oracle will become VERY concerned about the idea of losing that market. Sun had the same issue. Wanted to make LOTS of money, and they were not content to simply control it as well as be the top money maker. They wanted the largest profits possible in the shortest time. That approach is what Oracle is doing.

Re:MOD PARENT UP PLEASE

[rs79]

If I were Google I'd start exploring a drop in replacement for everything Oracle made, and making it open source.

Google actually made something out of Java. Nobody else put it in the hands of so many consumers; they may as well change the spec for Java to what Google produces.

What goog did splinters Java in the same way Apache splintered the NCSA web server or Linux splintered Unix sys III; this is just leechy Larry's money grab in a world where small databases are diminishing the need for big database iron and the reason they bought Sun - just so they could do this.

This is just SCO all over again.

wrong

[yyxx]

Face the truth why didn't Google use a full implementation of java as they are required by the patent grants. Because they wanted people to write for there platform and not simply port software.

Google didn't use a "full implementation of Java" because J2SE is extremely bloated and unsuitable for mobile phone use. And they couldn't use Sun's implementation because that wasn't even open sourced when they started. J2ME doesn't have a patent grant, so making a cleanroom implementation of that wouldn't have helped them either.

Of course, Google didn't use "an implementation of Java" at all, they implemented something completely different that happens to use Java syntax. Oracle's lawsuit is not based on the parts that Android happens to share with Java, because those are not covered by any patents.

Re:I think Oracle is right

[yyxx]

Java is their language. Don't like it? Don't use Java.

Companies don't own languages unless they can claim a patent or copyright on the language. Oracle has neither. Their patents are on something completely different.

If they did, neither Sun, nor Oracle, nor Microsoft would exist. In fact, much of what any of those companies got started with was ripped off from others.

Re:The danger of Google

[Cyberax]

"While I like to feel that Google is somehow better than Microsoft in all ways, I know this is clearly not true. The problem I do have with Google and their Java VM is that they aren't really contributing back to the core Java platform"

And how can they do it? JCP is dysfunctional, just look how long it takes to release JDK7. And there are other even more blatant examples:

What else? Google has written a lot of splendid Java libraries (like http://code.google.com/p/google-collections/ ). Sun/Oracle are free to take and integrate them into the JDK - they did this with Xerces and other libraries.

But they won't do this. Why? Because Java is dead. For example, a request to add Multimaps was filed in 1998 and is still open: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4155149 Sun can't be bothered to take one of available Multimap implementations and add it to the core JDK.

"In many way what Oracle should be pushing for is:
    - getting Google to use the standard Java byte code"

What for? To make devices run slower?

" - working with Oracle to contribute their work back to the core"

Contribute back what? Android implements core libraries very faithfully.

Re:I think Oracle is right

[gbjbaanb]

not quite. Java - mobile edition - is not free and open at all. They opened up the 'legacy' Java and kept the 'future' java for all the juicy licencing cash they expected to get. Quite a sensible move as it turns out, as there's lots of money to be made in mobile computing, far more than you get flogging licences to Enterprise app developers.

Still, its their language, VM, patents and copyright. You (and Google) never had to use it, but if you do, you have to play by their rules. So although I'm a fan of Google and what they've done, I think their manipulation of Oracle's rules on the use of Java isn't as decent and honest as I'd expect.

And yes, I'm sure it'll end up with Google dumping Java and making their own language (G# perhaps, or something truly open like Python and C)

Re:I think Oracle is right

[oiron]

Trademark: irrelevant as long as Google doesn't call it Java

Copyright: irrelevant as long as Google doesn't use Java code (or infringe other material published under copyright)

Patents: well, that's what Oracle's suing about; the veracity of their claims is yet to be demonstrated

Re:The danger of Google

[devent]

I'm sorry, but for what purpose you need a Multimap in the core of Java? I'm using Java now for 4 years and I never needed a Multimap. And if you need a Multimap, why not include some third library? You properly need a whole bunch of third party libraries anyway, like you need with any language.

I think that's the big reason that Java is so much used in the enterprise, because the core is rock solid and there are a whole ecosystem of free and open source enterprise ready libraries. I had used C# as well and I just cannot understand why you need so much bloat in the core of the language, which changes anyway with the major versions of it. Properties are just bloat, operator overloading is just bloat, structs are bloat and so on. If you need such things just take Scala, Groovy, JPython, etc. That's why I really like Java. The core language is rock stable and very easy to use with tools like Eclipse and Maven. But if you need the extras, just take Groovy, JPython, JRuby, Scala, Clojure, JavaScript, etc.

Now I really wish that Oracle would make this things better: Desktop Java, and "Internet Java". Because to write a desktop application in Java is like a developers dream and it runs with the same speed as a native application. As a bonus you get platform independence. I take a Java application anytime over a native application, for one reason: you just download the JAR file and it runs. In the "Internet Java" there is so much potential and it's criminal from Sun to not became the market leader for internet applications written in Java. That was a catastrophic management failure. Java Web Start applications are a dream. You just click on a link and in few seconds you get a fully functional application. Now of course everything is Flash, but if Sun would have had a better management they could have been the market leader.

What I really hope is that the open source community around Java finally takes the lead and cut any ties off to Oracle. What the open source community can do you can see with Groovy, Scala and Clojure and the other languages around Java. But they need to have a leader, like Linus with the Linux kernel, to not fragmentize the Java platform. I really with that this lawsuit is a wake up call to the community. The Java platform is under the GPL, now take it and make it the number one in desktops and in the internet. The potential is there. There is an open source enterprise ready virtuel machine with a rich core library and a more richer open source ecosystem around it. The patents are only valid in the USA so screw Oracle and any other American patent troll company.

Please, someone in Europe, India or in China (anywhere where there are no patents threads), take the Java technology and make it the next Linux kernel. The potential is there. It's open source and it works.

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

[kripkenstein]

Since Google never claimed it was Java

Maybe Google never formally said that, but here is how Wikipedia describes Android:

The Android operating system software stack consists of Java applications running on a Java based object oriented application framework on top of Java core libraries running on a Dalvik virtual machine featuring JIT compilation.

Even clearer, Google says

The Android SDK provides the tools and APIs necessary to begin developing applications on the Android platform using the Java programming language.

in developer.android.com.

I suppose you can call it The-Language-Previously-Known-As-Java or such (worked for Prince, til his contract ran out), but it is Java in every way that counts, except it has some differences that make Java the platform as a whole less standard. This irked Sun, and for good reason, but they got over it. Oracle is not over it. Sadly they decided to enforce this using patents, which is an abhorrent thing to do. But that they are irked by Google's actions - very understandable.

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

[azrider]

Maybe Google never formally said that, but here is how Wikipedia describes Android:

The Android operating system software stack consists of Java applications running on a Java based object oriented application framework on top of Java core libraries running on a Dalvik virtual machine featuring JIT compilation.

Even clearer, Google says

The Android SDK provides the tools and APIs necessary to begin developing applications on the Android platform using the Java programming language.

in developer.android.com.

Talking points:

• "here is how Wikipedia describes Android": Now there's a cogent, accurate description... I don't think so.
• "using the Java programming language (not copyrightable, not patentable), not "using a Java Virtual Machine" (patent - maybe, copyright - yes).

See any difference?