Slashdot Mirror


Oracle's Newest Move To Undermine Android

GMGruman writes "Oracle's decision to shift focus from the Harmony Java open source project to OpenJDK seems innocuous enough — but InfoWorld's Josh Fruhlinger explains it's part of an effort to derail Google's mobile Android OS by gutting the open source project that Android has been driven by. IBM has signed on, apparently in return for getting the Java Community Process reactivated, leaving Google in a bind."

53 of 342 comments (clear)

  1. Check, But Not Mate by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google is full of smart people. I'm sure they saw this move - and the entire assault on mobile Java and derivatives thereof - coming long before Oracle started their anti-Android crusade. I'd be willing to bet that Google has something new 'brewing' for Android 3 that will leave this whole mess behind. You just don't get that many programmers together without a few being paranoid enough to have planned an 'escape module'.

    1. Re:Check, But Not Mate by Orga · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agreed, I think the usage of the term bind is excessive. Somehow MS and RIM survive without external developers working on their products language I'm sure Google can handle it. And as TFA stated Google has OpenJDK developers right now, whose to say what the future will bring to android.

    2. Re:Check, But Not Mate by Fnkmaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not even check, honestly. More like a limp attack on the queen with a pawn. What Google uses from the Harmony project is a bunch of the core java.* classes. This stuff changes, sure, but not particularly heavily or rapidly these days. This is not where Android is innovating, nor is it a huge area of rapid development, assuming Harmony is at or approaching stability. This might require Google to shift a couple of their Java developers around, but the legal issues are far more significant than any costs associated with this.

      The Dalvik VM itself is already developed internally at Google. The Android apps and framework and the rest of the stack is already developed internally at Google.

      This might very well mean that Harmony won't see ongoing development toward being a fully featured JDK replacement, but Google doesn't need that anyway.

      I'm not an expert on Android internals or anything, but I think this story is being significantly overblown.

    3. Re:Check, But Not Mate by mldi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm not an expert on Android internals or anything, but I think this story is being significantly overblown.

      Seriously understated... The problem with Oracle and Google is simply licensing. If Google had licensed Java like every other company doing a port like Android perhaps Sun would still be a viable company today. Perhaps it is unfortunate that Sun did not want to litigate, but you can't expect Oracle to drop the same ball.

      ...except that it's not a "port", and any company that licensed Java VM has used a Java VM that was licensable. Google isn't using one of those VMs. Nobody dropped the ball here. It's just another frivolous lawsuit trying to ride the coattails of somebody else's success.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    4. Re:Check, But Not Mate by MarkCollette · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm noticing that all the pro Google comments are getting the high moderation, and the ones pointing out that Google leveraged Java in such a specific way as to not have to actually pay for it, are not getting the moderation.

      So let me ask all the clearly biased moderators:

      Why is more free, Java or Dalvik? Can you download and use Dalvik on your desktop or server? Is it completely open source? Or is it just a proprietary copy of a more open platform, with a few tweaks, and a cynical dodge of paying for it?

      Sun poured development into Java for more than a decade, creating a whole community of Java developers around the world, freeing us from the Wintel dominance. A whole ecosystem has been created, of tools IDEs, libraries, books, tutorials, applications servers, etc. Google has swept in, taken all that, and with a little legal trickery has attempted to not pay for it, to not give back compensation for what they are clearly benefiting from. And somehow, that's alright. Fighting to stop from being robbed means one is suddenly a patent troll.

    5. Re:Check, But Not Mate by Pootie+Tang · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why is more free, Java or Dalvik?

      Dalvik, because Oracle has sued over Java and not the other way around. At least, that's one way to look at it. Dalvik is apache licensed.

      Can you download and use Dalvik on your desktop or server? Is it completely open source?

      Yes, you could download and run it on a PC (the SDK which includes an emulator is available for Linux, Mac and Windows). If you want to boot directly into android, google doesn't provide that, but see http://www.android-x86.org/. As far as I know it's completely open source.

      Or is it just a proprietary copy of a more open platform, with a few tweaks, and a cynical dodge of paying for it?

      This is the part I don't understand. Pay for what?

      The JVM they aren't using? The implementation of the core classes from apache? The android stuff they did themselves? What are they supposed to be paying oracle (or sun) for?

      Oracle would probably prefer that Google had used J2ME and would pay fees. But they didn't choose J2ME. Oracle would probably prefer that Google had licensed the JVM. But they didn't, they wrote their own.

    6. Re:Check, But Not Mate by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, the Java API that Harmony has is a clean room implementation of the Sun ones, so the implementation is not a copyright infringement, but it's still an implementation of a spec that someone else designed and refined and improved over the years

      Yes, a spec that Sun promised that others could freely and independently implement. That turned out to be a lie, since their patent license requires that those implementations pass a test suite that Sun refused to make available.

    7. Re:Check, But Not Mate by Pootie+Tang · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No wonder efforts to open Java stalled out a couple years ago, because along comes Google, who's willing to leverage every strength of Java, borne on Sun's back, and take it away without giving back, by walking some fine line of the letter of the law, while ignoring the spirit of the law, which is that if a company drops billions of dollars into a technology, and is trying to sell it (JavaME), they should be compensated. Why didn't Google simply make their own technology from the ground up? Because they received tremendous value from taking it. Was that not worth some compensation?

      I would say they did make their own technology from the ground up, as much as Sun did anyway. Android is not compatible with JavaME, you can have floats, there's no CLDC. Android is open source, how is Google not giving back?

      Sun didn't drop billions on JavaME. Java itself was open (at least to an extent) that was the spirit of the "law". Google ignored the ME part of the blueprint when building their own house, which me to removes any obligation to pay for it.

      Certainly Java is a fine language. But it built on the state of art at the time, not from a void. Android does the same. Isn't Java just a "proprietary copy of a more open platform, with a few tweaks, and a cynical dodge of paying for it"?

      I still don't understand what you think Google is supposed to pay for. JavaME license? Certainly Google didn't invent computers, programming or phones (and neither did Sun). Who was Sun supposed to pay for the progress they took advantage of?

      It's not that I don't understand how Google benefited or how Sun contributed. I just don't understand what business model you expect.

  2. Forgive the layman here... by BobMcD · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Forgive the layman here, but why can't Android simply switch Java platforms as well? Open is Open, no?

    1. Re:Forgive the layman here... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Informative

      Forgive the layman here, but why can't Android simply switch Java platforms as well? Open is Open, no?

      Oracle is trying to claim that Dalvik, Android's virtual machine infringes on mobile java patents. Mobile java was not included when Java received it's current "open" licensing.

  3. Who is surprised by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did this surprise anyone?
    Let us all remember that ORACLE stands for "One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison"

    This is the company that buys out someone else and does not even bother to offer the customers a migration path. Nor any form of support other than letting you fill out a bug report they close as the product is EOL.

  4. Re:Why? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can someone explain why Oracle cares about the success/failure of Android? I honestly don't know.

    The success of Android means a potential 'licensing fee' from every Android install. They don't care about Android per se, they just want to charge everyone to be able to use it.

  5. android can easily ship with the full JDK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    avoid the fees B.S. and just ship the 100 meg java SDK with android and be done with it. it even has a patent cross licensing clause. yes its bloated. yes developers might not use any of its features. who the fuck cares ? just ship the damn thing and keep the JVM compatible. if a nokia dumbphone from 5 years ago can ship with j2me so can an android smartphone.

    1. Re:android can easily ship with the full JDK. by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      J2ME is not free, if your phone uses that VM you owe oracle money.

    2. Re:android can easily ship with the full JDK. by jfruhlinger · · Score: 4, Informative

      And Android isn't based on J2ME. It's a Java SE derivative.

  6. No Duh. by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sun started OpenJDK as the project from which the GPL'ed version of Java would be created.

    It stands to reason, that Sun had planned to discontinue supporting Harmony when OpenJDK was formed.

    Don't mean to spoil a good conspiracy...

    --
    These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    1. Re:No Duh. by dr.newton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Did Sun ever really support Harmony?

      Either way, making a deal with another company to ensure that all their developers stop working on a project is going farther than to "discontinue supporting" it.

      Also, I think you did mean to spoil a good conspiracy. Shame on you.

      --
      Just another proletarian malcontent.
    2. Re:No Duh. by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Did Sun ever really support Harmony?

      Actually no. I don't think so. But the summary gave the appearance, so I just gave it some latitude.

      Either way, making a deal with another company to ensure that all their developers stop working on a project is going farther than to "discontinue supporting" it.

      Except that IBM has said that they have no plans to stop supporting Harmony. Of course the exact words were " IBM will continue working on Harmony, but its main efforts will be directed toward OpenJDK, Smith said.".

      This make sense because it gives more credence to the JCP and IBM's invitation can be seen as the JCP slowing turning into a independent body governing Java.

      Also, I think you did mean to spoil a good conspiracy. Shame on you.

      Guilty as charged ;)

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    3. Re:No Duh. by DragonWriter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Did Sun ever really support Harmony?

      No, IBM did.

      This article is largely about Oracle offering IBM concessions regarding the management JCP process so that IBM would drop involvement with Harmony in favor of dedicating resources to OpenJDK and the Java Community Process.

  7. Annoying Xerox ad cuts InfoWorld off at the knees by digitaldc · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well I was going to read about this, but all of a sudden some Xerox jerk comes along and spills papers everywhere blocking the text of the article.

    I got so annoyed I just left...thanks InfoWorld/Xerox!

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  8. How much of Java does it actually use? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We already know that Dalvik VM itself isn't like JVM. It can be mapped one-to-one (at least going from JVM bytecode to Dalvik bytecode), but the basic architecture is different.

    Android also has its own rich class library, while retaining some stock fundamental Java classes. Of those some are inherently implemented mostly by the VM (Object, String...), so presumably they are also Dalvik-specific, while others have Java implementation - collections, for example. I assume the latter is what is taken from Harmony. The obvious question, then, is - how much code is that? Somehow, I suspect that it's not all that big, and so Google could just take over those bits it needs - rather than Harmony as a whole - without having to contribute significant resources to it.

  9. Can't they just switch to GNU JRE? by satuon · · Score: 2

    What about GNU JRE? I know ORACLE owns Java when they bought Sun, but is that only Sun's implementation, or can they charge you for using free implementations, too (via patents I assume)?

  10. God forbid Google should develop themselves by alen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Google is famous for building a piece of cool software to version .8 or so and then releasing it under open source and letting everyone else finish the work. they build some cool software for internal use but for all their consumer products they expect everyeone else to finisht the work or let a cool product like google reader languish

    1. Re:God forbid Google should develop themselves by John+Whitley · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Google is famous for building a piece of cool software to version .8 or so and then releasing it under open source and letting everyone else finish the work.

      I call your bluff: Show source control logs that demonstrate that any significant Google open source release (of which there are many) has more than a trivial percentage of non-Google contributions. For full credit, you must show that these non-Google contributors were somehow not working in their self interest by contributing to the project.

      On that latter point... Last I checked, "open source volunteer sweatshop" was still equal to the empty set. I.e. no one is forced to contribute to any particular piece of open source code. The deal for all OSS projects is essentially the same: "hey, I made something cool, come help out if you like!" Whether "I" is a corporation or one or more independent volunteers is irrelevant. Any external contributors to a project do so for their own reasons, reasons which have been extensively discussed elsewhere.

    2. Re:God forbid Google should develop themselves by Tanman · · Score: 2

      No, google is famous for building pieces of software to .8 or so, releasing them to beta, and then letting them die.

      There are, of course, some notable exceptions. But I don't see very many google labs products get picked up once Google smurfs them.

  11. Re:Why? by Old97 · · Score: 2, Informative

    What licensing fee are you talking about? These JDKs and Android are both open source projects and Java and JDKs from Sun and IBM have always been free. Android isn't selling a brand name. It's not selling anything except advertising and back end services.

    --
    Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
  12. Mobile Java, Carriers, Licensing--Oh My! by Kostya · · Score: 5, Informative

    Oracle is trying to claim that Dalvik, Android's virtual machine infringes on mobile java patents. Mobile java was not included when Java received it's current "open" licensing.

    And I'm sure part of the reason why Mobile Java wasn't in the "open licensing" was the carriers. That is, Sun had already extracted some money out of the carriers and met with a very nice bit of success there. Remember, before Apple's iPhone and Google's Android, JavaME was a big success in offering advanced features (that sucks compared to today's offerings). It was a big success for Sun licensing wise--something the original Java was not.

    But with that money came a very, very hefty price. They had to bend over backwards to give the carriers what they wanted in order to "add value". One of those was charging developers $500+ a pop to be able to release applications for their network. Another for the developers to pay extra to access certain features (location). And another still was for companies like Verizon and Sprint to just flat out turn off certain features.

    Which is why Apple didn't do JavaME (I remember being pretty bummed when they didn't)--they wanted complete control, and they would never get that with JavaME.

    And Google had similar needs--but also didn't want to pay the licensing costs everyone else did.

    JavaME was a money maker for Sun (unlike the standard Java VM), but the process of making money off of it made it a nightmare to deploy apps on. Development--writing code--was ok, but getting it to work on multiple headsets (nevermind multiple carriers) was a huge headache. And it was a huge headache because of all the compromises Sun made to get the carriers on board. And that nightmare (in addition to licensing costs) is why Google came up with their own VM implementation.

    I used to be a big Java proponent for mobile development. I'm not anymore. But it is interesting to see how all those bad decisions (I cursed Sun weekly as I tried to wrestle another carrier or headset down) played out into what we have now.

    Google didn't want to pay the money. Microsoft (via Miguel) likes to say they would have been better, but they are just as bad on the licensing (see HTC and now Motorola). Sounds to me like Google got used to their free ride on Java and balked at the idea of giving anyone a slice of their work and money on Android.

    I'm not saying Ellison is not squeezing them (he definitely is), just that Google is kind of getting a bucket of cold water in their face about how the tech companies "collaborate" in new tech fields. Not "fair", but it is kind of predictable.

    --
    "Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs." -- Switchfoot, Ode to Chin
    1. Re:Mobile Java, Carriers, Licensing--Oh My! by stephanruby · · Score: 2, Informative

      And that nightmare (in addition to licensing costs) is why Google came up with their own VM implementation.

      Technically speaking, RIM (Blackberry) was the first mobile OS to come up with that workaround. Google (or more specifically the startup that Google purchased) just saw what RIM did, saw that it was working, and did the same themselves (thus avoiding the per JVM licensing fee that Sun was charging companies).

  13. Re:Why? by JonySuede · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It just happens to share Java's grammar.

    and a good percentage of the java class library too

    --
    Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
  14. Conspiracy theory... by Snap+E+Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And Larry Ellison's good buddies with Steve Jobs. Coincidence? I think not.

    1. Re:Conspiracy theory... by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And Larry Ellison's good buddies with Steve Jobs. Coincidence? I think not.

      Of course it's not a coincidence. Pompous douchebags like other pompous douchebags. :)

      Not to derail the conspiracy angle, but sometimes it's better to bet on people being self-promoting jerks than people being Evil with a capital E.

  15. Re:Why? by jfruhlinger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Google collects a license fee from Java ME installs. Android isn't a Java ME implmenetation, obviously, and you can argue that Android is hindering the adoption of Java ME in the next generation smartphone world by absorbing the energies of the huge pool of Java programmers who might want to do mobile development. (You could also argue that Java ME was failing to catch on quite well on its own before Android showed up due to its own limitations.)

    If you're interested in the background, here's an article I wrote about it a couple of months ago. (I'm the guy who wrote the article that got slashdotted, for what it's worth.)

  16. A Chess match. by Roskolnikov · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sergey vs. Larry.

    --
    Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
  17. Re:Why? by bhamlin · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not even that.

    The Dalvik VM doesn't accept Java VM bytecode. The Java language is what all the tools work on currently for creating executable images for the VM, and precompiled class files are also converted. If someone were so inclined, Dalvik could use lisp or c or befunge in much the same way that other languages have been compiled to work on the Java VM.

  18. Re:Rough times by ByOhTek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not sure that's a good comparison.

    The Wii is focusing on a different crowd than the 360 and the PS3 -> casual gamers and kids. It's also quite a bit cheaper, particularly at the release of either the 360 or the PS3. Their lack focus on hardcore gaming probably says less bad about them than you...

    Also, since the classic gaming systems are hard to get for a reasonable price, the Wii isn't a bad choice to get a bunch of classic games relatively inexpensively.

    --
    Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
  19. Patents not licensed on mobile devices by pavon · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sun/Oracle holds several patents on Java technology. They will only issue licenses to these patents to implementations that pass their compatibility tests. Without this license, the source code is freely distributable, but you risk being sued if you actually use it. Harmony and other java reimplementation have struggled with being in this legal grey area for some time. The trick is you have to pay a big chunk of money to Sun/Oracle for this compatibility test. Furthermore, Android's implementation wouldn't pass because they only ship a subset of the standard library, and because they compile to a different bytecode format. Furthermore, Sun has not been as open when it comes to J2ME. Android is cutting into J2ME revenue, and Oracle are greedy bastards in general, so they would like for everyone who runs Android to pay them patent royalties.

  20. Re:Next SCO? by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So you're expecting a big, collective gasp as suddenly thousands of people realize Google is a company? You might want to prepare yourself for disappointment.

    On a different note, Google's model seems to be more interesting than simply controlling data. They don't want control; they want visibility. They want data to flow through their systems. And they want systems that will make better use of that data. All the free services produce advertising eyeballs, to be sure. But they also provide massive amounts of test data on which Google can try new ideas and tweak useful tools. GOOG411 is a great example. Google presented the service and used it to collect voice samples and feedback to tweak their voice recognition. Now that they're to a certain point (and perhaps Android devices are providing a cost-effective alternative), GOOG411 is EOL.

  21. Re:Annoying Xerox ad cuts InfoWorld off at the kne by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Funny

    They must not like your browser, it didn't do that to me. But you didn't miss much -- TFA's author was really reaching, unless I missed something.

  22. Re:Rather Huge by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's a huge amount of code when you consider how reliant Java code is to how strings work, to how the networking classes work, to how date handling works, to how internationalization works.

    Is it a huge amount of code, or a huge amount of work to get it right?

    Note that there is no talk about rewriting anything. Harmony already has the implementation, and it is OSS, and will remain such even if its development is discontinued. Google would only need to fork that code and maintain it on the level of fixing bugs.

  23. Re:Rough times by bhcompy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's a great comparison because the iPhone targets the casual phone user. It's not a phone for a power user. Similar to the iPod, which doesn't even play OGG like a 30 dollar Sansa Clip. 360 and PS3 are for the power users, Wii is for the mass market.

  24. Re:Rough times by ByOhTek · · Score: 2, Informative

    If someone say A->B, you simply need to show an example of B->!A to disprove the statement. This example DOES NOT mean the individual is trying to say B->!A.

    --
    Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
  25. Re:Why? by jfruhlinger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes! I have many secret identities!

  26. Re:Google says it's Java. It's Java. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The code is Java. Which is something Oracle can't charge you a fee for. I'm sure they'd love to. What Oracle charges for is the Java Micro Edition runtime, which Android doesn't use.
    Android compiles from Java code to a Dalvik executable stored in an Android package. Dalvik is not Java.

  27. Re:Why? by GooberToo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Perhaps you ought to turn yours in. The suit isn't about destroying Android. The suit is about the fact that Google is using an incompatible VM with the Java language and trying to pass it off as Java. Which it isn't. Java is supposed to be compatible between the various VMs, even if not always perfect.

    It can only be incompatible if they actually claim to be java compatible. They don't. They claim to be able to parse the java byte code, which they do. This is like ARM complaining that you can run ARM binaries in an emulator on another platform - only once more removed.

    Java syntax -> java compiler -> java byte code -> compiled to dalvik byte code -> dalvik VM.

    The magic happens in the byte code to byte code recompilation. Basically this means Android uses java's byte code as an object format. So unless there is something magical about providing interoperability and compatibility, which are absolutely, legally allowed, I'm not sure what Oracle is complaining about.

    Hell, according to the die hard nutjobs in most IRC #java, they completely deny Android has anything to do with Java and a statement to the contrary will result in a kick/ban. Obviously, that's not legally binding but given how far removed Android's Dalvik is from Java, its difficult to understand the confusion when even Java's supporters don't recognize Android/Dalvik.

  28. Re:Why Does Google Use Dalvik? by codepunk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No it should never have had a VM in it there is no need for it. Apple got it right by going 100% native, a jvm on a phone serves no purpose other than to burn precious processor cycles and battery life.

    --


    Got Code?
  29. Re:Why? by jfruhlinger · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ah, but technically Android doesn't include a JVM. It has a "Dalvik Virtual Machine," which processes Dalvik bytecode; there's a second set of tools that transforms standard Java bytecode (compiled from Java code written in the subset of the language that Android understands) to Dalvik bytecode.

    It's all very confusing but it's part of the way that Google has gotten away with not making Android a real Java, and thus not subject to Oracle's rules for the platform.. It also means that in theory they could create another toolset that allowed any language to be compiled to Dalvik bytecode, though I think that would be a hassle.

  30. Re:Rough times by ooshna · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes the Wii is targeted as casual gamers and kids go look at the game selection. Everything about it screams casual gamer. So you used to play games on the original Nintendo and can play mega man with your eyes closed that doesn't mean anything now 20 years after the fact.

  31. Re:Why? by dunng808 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Google collects a license fee from Java ME installs.

    Um, shouldn't that be Oracle collects a license fee ... ?

    --

    Gary Dunn
    Open Slate Project

  32. No major financial backing ??? by AC-x · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But with no major financial backing for the development of its Java libraries, Android could slip behind and lose the love of its Java-savvy developer base.

    Doesn't Google count as a major financial backer?

  33. Re:Why? by zuperduperman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, they're kind of caught in a pincer move here. If Google admits Dalvik is a JVM then they get sued for breaking Java the same way Microsoft did. If they claim it isn't a JVM then they have no patent protection since the patent licenses covering the JVM only protect JVM implementors. So Google has to pick one of these evils. It turns out the first one is a non starter because there is all kinds of stuff they don't implement in Dalvik to make it a real JVM so they are stuck defending patents.

    However I am sure the court will still have a close and sceptical look at Dalvik nonetheless. Google is going to have to go to court and argue that they have this virtual machine which accepts no other language than JVM bytecode as its source input - and yet, this virtual machine is not a JVM! And then their reward for succeeding with this is to get sued for patent infringement which I think they will defend. At least half the patents will fall over, several more are nearly expired (FAT) so there are really only a couple of ones that are in play. Perhaps Google will just cop it and give Oracle some licensing money, hoping that the court will set a low value on these.

    To be honest, if I was Google I'd be implementing an alternative language that compiles directly to the dex format as fast as possible - partly to convince the court that Dalvik is not a JVM but also partly as a stick to wave at Oracle and tell them - even if you win you will LOSE because we will move Android away from Java and you'll be left with a few billion $ one time payout but a huge black eye and Java developers fleeing the platform to Google's new language.

  34. Re:Why? by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Google has gotten away with not making Android a real Java, and thus not subject to Oracle's rules for the platform.

    The idea that a computer language should have rules imposed by a vendor is as absurd as the idea that a spoken language should have rules imposed by a government. In most civilized countries there is no such absurdity.

    --
    Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
  35. Re:Rough times by poopdeville · · Score: 2, Funny

    Chicks are interested in my penis, not my clothes. Find better chicks.

    --
    After all, I am strangely colored.
  36. Other languages available for Android? by psyclone · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seems like Python would be the obvious second language to be compiled to Dalvik bytecode.

    See this thread from back in 2008 before Android even shipped.

    Linked at the bottom of that thread are the Dalkvik VM docs (link updated to head).

    Also is a Stack Overflow post that links to many methods for Python and scripting languages to create Android apps. (Though some methods like Jython are still using Java.)