Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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:
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
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.
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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Whether or not SCO had a case for copyright infringement or not was never tested in court because it turned out that they did not in fact own the copyrights in question. It may well be that IBM had been putting Unix code into Linux, but we'll never know because SCO had no grounds to sue over it.
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.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
But hasn't Java been doing a good enough job splintering and fragmenting the platform with J2EE, J2SE, J2ME MIDP 1.0/2.0/3.0, JavaFX on its own?
http://twitter.com/object404
Block all searches for Oracle and Java on its search engine, until this issue is resolved
problem solved
Not really. Google is hardly the only search engine giant out there, and the ensuing public-relations disaster would be far worse than if Google ends up dropping Android entirely. Android is just an experiment for Google, a way to give more eyeballs access to its services (and hence advertising, which is where Google earns its revenue.) Granted, Google needs Android (or something like it) in order to continue its growth because the mobile market is enormous and growing exponentially, and it has heavy-duty competition that wants a slice. Either way, it wouldn't really be in Google's interests to try and play hardball there, especially since it would likely draw the attention of Federal regulators. I doubt they want that.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I have to disagree.
The people who learn and write Java are humans. Writing Java is part of their life and they have a right to continue doing it.
Much like culture. I think copyright should be limited to 10 years because it's not only *their* music, it's also *my* music. It's my childhood, and it's my culture. I want to re-live it whenever I choose, and I want to pass it on to friends and family if and when I choose.
Java would have no value if people didn't use it. When people use it, they're investing themselves in it. Java's value thus comes from the users, not only from Sun/Oracle, so the users should have rights to use that thing they contributed to.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
I stopped reading right where it said Dalvik is Java based. It doesn't even run Java byte codes...
Is it a requirement for a tech reporter to be completely clueless? Is not doing basic research part of the job requirement?
Following this logic Google Web Toolkit is "Java-based" too. Nevermind that the whole thing compiles to HTML and JavaScript.
Just because Google provides language bindings in Java (and is able to cross-compile the Java class libraries to another runtime), does not make Dalvik runtime "Java-based". It does mean Google is able to leverage existing developer base on their new platform though. Smart move.
What's next, Oracle going to sue GCJ for compiling Java to native?
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. Just like Apple not wanting Flash for the same reason.
Reposting as necessary:
Java (the language) is free and open. Java (the trademark) is not. Provided google is not doing business advertising "Android - with Java(tm)!", they're doing nothing wrong. Oracle owns ONLY the trademark.
.
This is why this is a patent suit and not a license violation suit.
The situation is more like Oracle trying to sue Microsoft over dot.net.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
They don't offer the embedded version of java for free. And there are a lot of requirements to to get the patent exemptions, ie. cannot implement a subset or a superset of the features in Sun's VM.
Google basically just wanted to implement a language that a lot of developers were familiar with. Pretty much all the developers of phone apps were familiar with Java, so they implemented a VM similar to Java.
Java has some similarities to the C++ syntax. They made the Java syntax similar to the C++ syntax because developers were familiar with it. Same goes for C#. If someone owned some patents on C++, should they be allowed to sue Oracle and MS?
This does not bode well for makers of software development tools. By saying Oracle is allowed to sue anyone for making anything similar to Java means that no one can make a language with similar syntax to Java, and they can't implement libraries similar to Java's. So everyone has to check with a lawyer before they make software tools now. And that may not be enough since I'm sure Google did check with there lawyers while developing Dalvik, and made their best effort to build it so as not to infringe on patents. And they're still getting sued. What hope does anyone else have?
I know I'm going to steer clear of Java from now on. .Net and Mono seem much safer than Java at this point. At least MS hasn't sued anyone for implementing libraries too similar to what they've implemented.
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.
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.
"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.
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)
To be safe, you have to either follow the Java Language Specification exactly (no subsets or supersets),
Not quite. Supersets are allowed, but only if they do not add anything in the java namespace. For example, you can add a new google.Array class, but you can't add methods to the Array class in the java namespace. The point of this is so that people developing Java applications can assume that anything in the java.* classes on their platform will work on any other platform.
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.
This is actually the opposite of what Microsoft did. They added stuff in the java.* namespace, so developers would write apps with J++ that they expected to be portable, but which weren't.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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
Actually, from what I've heard, this is pretty standard in patent infringement cases. They may not be shooting for it, but they'll use it as a bargaining position.
You would have done better to keep reading. The WHOLE POINT of the case is that the open source lice grants access to the patents on the Java IF and ONLY IF you fully implement java and USE THE JVM. since Dalvik does not use the Java byte code it clearly violates the open source lic terms and thus is open to a patent suit.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
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
What a bunch of morons.
Dalvik (what android runs) is not Java
From Ellison's personal journal:
[X] Screw over Google ...
[X] Screw over the Java brand (oops, didn't see that one. Oh well, it was Sun shit anyway).
[X] Screw over the MySQL brand (it's just a flesh wound, and hey, they can always use Oracle)
[X] Screw over sparc brand (hardware's a PITA anyway, the real loot is in software)
[X] Screw over openSolaris (that one felt GOOD!!! Eat your heart out, Balmer. Bet ye killing the KIN wasn't half the fun)
[_] Screw over OpenOffice.
[_] Find something else to buy and break. Hmmm, Novell's for sale
Pick one ... heck, pick all of them ...
[1] Java is a bloated piece of crap.
[2] The runtime takes a lot more memory than dalvik
[3] Java performance sux
[4] Java is so 1995
Seriously, it's about time someone killed it off - who better than Oracle. Thank you Mr. Ellison!
And again, it appears that Oracle isn't claiming copyright over those - they're claiming patent infringement. I don't know what the legal issues over using the java.* namespace are, but apparently, even Oracle doesn't claim that they're infringement.
Note: If it were even remotely likely to be i
The purpose of a language is communication, and what Oracle is doing here is no different than censorship. The Java language by itself is completely worthless--its value is entirely derived from the people who express their ideas through it. Why should Oracle have free rein to control their work?
Targeting Dalvik (which is not a JVM) on an Anrdoid phone is no different than compiling Java with GCJ. If people want to run their code on a different platform, why should Oracle have any right to stop them?
The reality is that they don't. In the end, this is about the abuse of software patents, and you can't support Oracle here without supporting software patents. However you feel about Google, it isn't right to be cheering for a patent troll.
A fork is the best thing that could happen to the platform.
I agree. I guess Google went with Java because mobile phone devs were already familiar with Java (ME), but by not partnering with Sun on that, they took a big risk. Exactly the risk Novell would be taking with Mono had they not made the Novell-Microsoft pact. (Of course, we in the FOSS community didn't like that pact for other reasons. But it made sense for Novell, as far as Mono goes at least.)
If Google wasn't willing to partner with Sun on Java (maybe because Google wanted a pure FOSS implementation, without Sun having a privileged position?) then Google should have ditched Java and gone with JavaScript or Python. But again, I guess they didn't because Java was the easy route. Since then though we've seen WebOS with JavaScript.
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.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
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.
To be safe, you have to either follow the Java Language Specification exactly (no subsets or supersets),
This is actually the opposite of what Microsoft did. They added stuff in the java.* namespace, so developers would write apps with J++ that they expected to be portable, but which weren't.
That's only half of it, but the other half is what's important here for somewhat the same reasons. http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-10-1997/jw-10-lawsuit.html
According to Sun's press release, "the complaint charges Microsoft with trademark infringement, false advertising, breach of contract, unfair competition, interference with prospective economic advantage, and inducing breach of contract." Specifically, Microsoft made the choice last week to ship products it claims are fully Java 1.1 compliant, but which failed to pass the Java 1.1 compatibility tests the company received from Sun in February. "Microsoft embarked on a deliberate course of conduct to fragment Java," said Alan Baratz, president of JavaSoft, during a Sun teleconference today at 10:30 a.m. PST.
Sun did complain that MS didn't implement the entire Java feature set, in addition to altering to the Java core libraries, both violations of the agreement with Sun. The situation is covered by a different agreement now for those who wish to use Java IP. The patent protection offered in the Java implementers license only apply to the exact Java specification, nothing more and nothing less:
Java's licensing is more complex now that it's open source, which might explain why Oracle favored the patent route in its complaint against Google. Open source luminary Bruce Perens points out that the Java Language Specification includes language granting Java implementers free license to Sun's patents, but that doesn't apply here. That license is only valid for complete implementations of Java and its required packages, "without subsetting or supersetting," which the Android implementation clearly is not.
The problem is that google would be covered if it implemented Java according to the specification, but otherwise it is exposed by picking and choosing what it wants to use. Of course google has a defensive patent portfolio itself, but it doesn't look good for them right now.
It's interesting to read the arguments *against* open license enforcement, especially here. Isn't the usual mantra, follow it or get deservedly sued? :-P
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
Some say this is only because Oracle now has Java, but if the issue is the mobile platform, we also see that Google is playing hardball with the phone. Google is suing companies that use Google tech on Android without Google approval. Google is charging $5 to play in the Chrome field. Google is clearly aggressively protecting it's IP. Not allowing Sun to do the same is hypocritical.
With a unified Java we have a language that one can do many interesting technical things in without a required $1000 IDE. The applications from Java is about the only thing that competes with MS and Adobe. Openoffice.org is one of the very few alternative we have to paying MS a huge amount of money or giving Google control over our data. Defending Java is a big deal. Taking it down would provide competitive advantages to many big players.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Oh, I have countless examples too. I do also know that there is a very large Java eco-system still very much alive. The reason why Java 7 is taking so long is because it is not only fully GPL'ed (replacing some libs) but also because of the long discussions on what should be in there.
I do fully agree that the JSR method of doing things can be overly frustrating. But all in all, it still does not mean in any way that Java is dead. Just take a look at the Eclipse & Glassfish communities, for instance. There is a lot of stuff happening there.
Generics are IMHO far from perfect, but they did have to be bolted on an existing language - and they are still very very usable. Personally, I do think it is time for a new language too, but I haven't seen one that has been written to replace Java as such. A strong focus on maintainability & security is what makes Java so suitable for EE and even things like Android (class loaders and such). That's something I am missing in many (all?) new languages. Most new languages still focus on sparseness and so called "strong language features" which just make them easier to write and harder to understand.
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.
Scott Carr
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.
Oracle appears to want to just destroy Android. If their motive was to not fork/split Java, they would try to work with Google to resolve the situation, not try to force all use of Android to cease and completely annihilate the platform.
What Oracle is doing seems to be the doings of a madman, not someone who wants to make a genuine positive difference. There is nothing good that can come out of destroying Android.
I wonder if Apple is secretly behind this?
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.
The mods seem to be on crack today^H^H^H^H^H. The parent's suggestion might be misguided and would be harmful to Google's credibility (as several people have pointed out) but there is no reason to believe he's trying to provoke a fight or troll.
Flamebait != "I disagree"
I can assure you that I want to find out the truth about this, and I believe it's very honorable of you to have made a disclosure.
I have read Google's Bilski brief, and it only argues against business method patents and "abstract patents" on software, not against software patents in general. It also argues against patent inflation in this area, but that still isn't the same as opposing software patents.
I saw more than one passage recognizing the idea that future innovation should always be patentable.
The problem is that even if common sense may make some such wordings look like demands to abolish software patents, substantive patent law has its own logic and terminology. Here in Europe, we have a law that excludes computer programs "as such" from the scope of patentable subject matter. Still a Microsoft FAT patent and a Siemens XML document generator patent were upheld. New Zealand, too, now has to deal with the problem of how to tell software patents from "technical inventions" int his area.
What Google sent to the SCOTUS was against the Bilski business method patents, and went a little beyond, but was very far from demanding the abolition of patents that read on software. The European Patent Office, which grants tons of software patents all the time, could subscribe to every single one of Google's demands and still justify every single software patent grant it makes.
Again, forget common sense in connection with substantive patent law. Lots of wording will look on the surface as if they do away with softwaer patents -- without actually doing so if they had to be applied by a court.
Talking points:
See any difference?
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 8:32(King James Version)
Once again, thanks for your reaction and for having identified yourself. I have meanwhile published a detailed analysis of Google's Bilski brief on my blog. It's certainly not "anti-software-patent". It stops far short of arguing that software shouldn't be patentable. It just says some software patents are too abstract, some are too "conventional", but of course, Google's own patents would not be affected by what they proposed. Not at all.