Slashdot Mirror


Oracle, Google Move To Streamline Java Suit

itwbennett writes "Google and Oracle each submitted proposals on Friday to reduce the number of claims in their Java patent infringement lawsuit, which could help bring the case to a speedier conclusion. Earlier this month, lawyers for the two companies gave Judge William Alsup of the US District Court in San Francisco a crash course in Java to prepare him for a claim construction conference."

49 comments

  1. The only possible winners are by Malnar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...the lawyers.

    1. Re:The only possible winners are by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The only way to win is not to play.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:The only possible winners are by LordLucless · · Score: 2

      The thing about that is - and this applies equally to thermonuclear war - it only works if both players stop playing.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    3. Re:The only possible winners are by gmueckl · · Score: 1

      Who said that there are only two players?

      --
      http://www.moonlight3d.eu/
    4. Re:The only possible winners are by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because giant corporation just love to throw away cash ? If Oracle wins and Google has to pay license fees for their Android implementation of Java Oracle will not only have protected its lucrative Java business from similar shenanigans in the future but it will go home with a pile of cash much bigger than what they are paying their law department. You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't pay.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
  2. Fine couture, indeed by macraig · · Score: 3, Funny

    So is a Java suit anything like a Zoot suit? Always wanted one o' them. Will the Gap be selling these?

    1. Re:Fine couture, indeed by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      It's quite similar to a Zoot suit. But you have to pour coffee on it before it's truly a Java suit.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    2. Re:Fine couture, indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So is a Java suit anything like a Zoot suit?

      No, it is more like a Leisure Suit Larry Ellison.

    3. Re:Fine couture, indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already do! They're coffee-colored, but called "khakis" to avoid copyright infringement.

  3. Lawyers gave a crash course is Java?? by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 1

    Lawyers gave a crash course is Java??
    Should it have been programmers or someone more oriented towards programming?

    1. Re:Lawyers gave a crash course is Java?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Programmers will influence the judge because they will be affected by the ruling. Only lawyers can be trusted for total impartiality.

    2. Re:Lawyers gave a crash course is Java?? by Exclamation+mark! · · Score: 1

      No. That would make sense.

      --
      I'm a wanker.... and loving it!
    3. Re:Lawyers gave a crash course is Java?? by serps · · Score: 1

      Obviously it's a crash course in Java from a legal perspective, which is totally different than from a programming perspective. Which programmer cares whether there's established legal precedents to determine whether the JVM creates additional 'copies' of infringing software from a damages perspective?

      --
      "Einstein argued that [...] God is not capricious or arbitrary. No such faith comforts the software engineer." ~ Brooks
    4. Re:Lawyers gave a crash course is Java?? by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, its from a technical perspective.
      From the linked /. article

      Lawyers for Oracle and Google gave Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco an overview of Java and why it was invented, and an explanation of terms such as bytecode, compiler, class library and machine-readable code. The tutorial was to prepare him for a claim construction conference in two weeks, where he'll have to sort out disputes between the two sides about how language in Oracle's Java patents should be interpreted. At one point an attorney for Google, Scott Weingaertner, described how a typical computer is made up of applications, an OS and the hardware underneath. 'I understand that much,' Alsup said, asking him to move on. But he had to ask several questions to grasp some aspects of Java, including the concept of Java class libraries. 'Coming into today's hearing, I couldn't understand what was meant by a class,' he admitted."

    5. Re:Lawyers gave a crash course is Java?? by gl4ss · · Score: 2, Informative

      here's a crash course on android java.

      my main "activity"(aka applet/application/midlet) has imports like import android.util.Log; import android.app.Activity; etc,
      but here's the imports from the rendering class that actually does something else than just interface input and os things,

      import java.io.IOException;import java.io.InputStream;import java.nio.ByteBuffer;import java.nio.ByteOrder;import java.nio.FloatBuffer;
      import java.util.concurrent.Semaphore;import javax.microedition.khronos.egl.EGLConfig;import javax.microedition.khronos.opengles.GL10;

      (the semaphore is there because the ogl rendering gets run in it's own thread aaaaaaaaargh, but really, eh, kinda hard to not think of it as not java)

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    6. Re:Lawyers gave a crash course is Java?? by martin-boundary · · Score: 4, Funny

      And don't forget FORTRAN programmers. You can't get more impartial about a Java lawsuit than FORTRAN programmers...

    7. Re:Lawyers gave a crash course is Java?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just read that in the loud punchline voice of John Oliver.

    8. Re:Lawyers gave a crash course is Java?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes you can.
      How about COBOL Coders then?

    9. Re:Lawyers gave a crash course is Java?? by Dachannien · · Score: 2

      You can't get more impartial about a Java lawsuit than FORTRAN programmers...

      That might just be the Alzheimer's at work, though.

    10. Re:Lawyers gave a crash course is Java?? by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, its from a technical perspective. From the linked /. article

      Lawyers for Oracle and Google gave Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco an overview of Java and why it was invented, and an explanation of terms such as bytecode, compiler, class library and machine-readable code. The tutorial was to prepare him for a claim construction conference in two weeks, where he'll have to sort out disputes between the two sides about how language in Oracle's Java patents should be interpreted. At one point an attorney for Google, Scott Weingaertner, described how a typical computer is made up of applications, an OS and the hardware underneath. 'I understand that much,' Alsup said, asking him to move on. But he had to ask several questions to grasp some aspects of Java, including the concept of Java class libraries. 'Coming into today's hearing, I couldn't understand what was meant by a class,' he admitted."

      Not only is it a good idea in general to know what you're talking about, I posit that it should be made illegal to preside over a case unless you understand the basics of what is disputed... As in cases such as this, a brief crash course can be given. A simple quiz about the subject could be given to judges and jurors alike to deem if they are fit to pass judgment.

      Additionally, I think the patent system should also apply this methodology to their examiners. Clearly, the examiner that allowed the "swinging on swing sideways" patent application to be granted in 2002 was not properly educated about the common use of swings in general... A bit of education in this respect could have saved lots of tax payer dollars spent on the re-examination and subsequent invalidation of the bogus "business method" patent.

    11. Re:Lawyers gave a crash course is Java?? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Lots of companies are deploying Java where they previously deployed COBOL, so COBOL programmers are definitely not impartial. In contrast, about the only thing that looks like it might stand a chance of displacing Fortran 77 is Fortran 90 - and that's by no means certain.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    12. Re:Lawyers gave a crash course is Java?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that our legal system specifically and intentionally works exactly the opposite direction. When selecting random people off the street for a jury, the lawyers and the court specifically ask whether they have knowledge of the case or matters at hand, or if they have any legal training. If the answer to any of those questions is "yes" they are dismissed - ensuring that we end up with a jury that is completely ignorant of the issues and the laws and the manner in which the laws are applied to the case at hand. Believe it or not - they will insist that this is a "good thing"...

      Having a judge who knows nothing about Java or computers preside over this case is simply the same concept applied again. They will tell you that it is a good thing that the judge knows nothing of the subject matter and that some short instruction is all he needs to make a legally binding decision.

      And we wonder why our legal system makes such weird decisions...

    13. Re:Lawyers gave a crash course is Java?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The loud sound you just heard is "Whoooooosh".

    14. Re:Lawyers gave a crash course is Java?? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      That won't work. You need at least 12 people on a jury.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    15. Re:Lawyers gave a crash course is Java?? by oiron · · Score: 1

      You do realise that Oracle is suing Google (mostly) over patents on the (J)VM, and not copyright over the use of the "java" namespace, right?

      java.io isn't exactly covered (or even coverable) by patent...

    16. Re:Lawyers gave a crash course is Java?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sound resulted from my numerical simulation running so fast, since it is programmed in optimized Fortran 90. LAPACK 4EVR!

    17. Re:Lawyers gave a crash course is Java?? by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Except that knowing something specific about, say, a murder case is not the same thing as knowing what the fuck murder is. What occurred here with the judge being briefed on some java terms seems to be the latter.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    18. Re:Lawyers gave a crash course is Java?? by i_ate_god · · Score: 1

      "Namespaces"

      Abstract:
      Process or method of encapsulating program code under a shared hierarchal grouping identified through arbitrary names

      --
      I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
  4. More poo slinging... by v(*_*)vvvv · · Score: 4, Funny

    The last time something like this happened, Adobe acquired Macromedia... It's how large guerrilla's get to know each other.

     

    1. Re:More poo slinging... by Alioth · · Score: 1

      I think we are talking gorillas of the 800lb kind, not guerrillas of the Afganistani warlord type...

    2. Re:More poo slinging... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Unless, of course, your guerillas also weigh 800 pounds. Sumo guerillas, anyone?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    3. Re:More poo slinging... by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Funny

      Unless, of course, your guerillas also weigh 800 pounds. Sumo guerillas, anyone?

      No no.. A guerrilla should never be weighed in pounds -- That's a currency unit you dolt. They can cost 800 pounds, but no gorilla or guerrilla is worth it's weight in pounds!

      The real 800 pound gorilla in the room is that this saying depends on the current exchange rate for gorillas, eh? I can never figure out if that saying refers to an expensive, cheap, or reasonably priced ape. What's the going exchange rate for gorillas these days in Loonies?

    4. Re:More poo slinging... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a pound is a pound is weight -

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_sterling#History

      guess you're the 'you doit' here

      - Macaroni Hat

    5. Re:More poo slinging... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You all native english speakers are insensitive clods.

    6. Re:More poo slinging... by nitroscen · · Score: 1

      a pound is a pound is weight -

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_sterling#History

      guess you're the 'you doit' here

      - Macaroni Hat

      Whooooosh

  5. Surely an Exception course? by gilesjuk · · Score: 2, Funny

    Java apps don't crash they throw exceptions or the JVM dies.

  6. crash course in Java - a Google perspective by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 5, Funny

    -- Sun --

    Imagine a box of Smalltalk.

    Imagine someone dropping that box in a festering pit of C. (Not all pits of C are festering. This one is.)

    Redefine "API" as "buzzword implementation".

    Extend according to what the competition's doing, rather than as may be technically appropriate.

    -- Google --

    Recall how Microsoft made Java incompatible and how nerds all hated it.

    Recall that you are Google and all nerds love you.

    Do the same thing.

    Watch your market grow to Apple levels of hysteria.

    Observe Hank Scorpio taking over Java.

    Take out the flame retardant lawyers, and, in a scenario looking increasingly Monty Python, use them to teach judges Java. ...

    1. Re:crash course in Java - a Google perspective by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      What Google did to Java barely has anything to do with what Microsoft did. Are you aware of that?

    2. Re:crash course in Java - a Google perspective by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      True. Microsoft tried to get you to use Microsoft's platform-specific extensions to standard Java specifications, locking you in to the Microsoft platform, while Google requires you to use Google's.

  7. SPIN city by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Oracle made the lawsuit, it means Oracle are accepting many of their claims were baseless, and doesn't want them listed in court.

    The 'spin' that this is to streamline the case is rubbish.

  8. Umm.. Streamline? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    Are we sure that they didn't garbage collect the case?

    1. Re:Umm.. Streamline? by alder · · Score: 1

      They are only marking the claims now.

  9. Judge Can't Cram classes.*; for Court by necro351 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Computer Science and software engineering are rife with themes. Many so-called inventions and 'new' ideas are applying these tried and true themes to a new permutation of some old problem. For instance, folding two loops together to reap stale items in a hash-table while simultaneously doing a query by iterating across a bucket list (a previous but recent slashdot patent posting). You can tell someone (a Judge) what JIT is, that it effectively combines caching of already-compiled code with partial compilation, but he can't appreciate that software engineering and computer science are pervaded by the concepts of caching, and right-sizing work. He can't possibly appreciate how obvious some of these 'inventions' are, and rank them fairly on a scale of truly inventive (LZW in my opinion) to 'someone-skilled-in-the-art-could-do-that' (twiddling bits in FAT to support short file-names). I think this is in general the primary source of frustration for engineers and scientists: that judges and patent clerks who really have no good sense of taste or knowlege on the matter make such important decisions. Redhat pointed out once that in the _vast_ majority of patent suits, the person being sued is never accused of actually _reading_ the patent, but infringing accidentally. People don't read software patents, so their claimed benefit of being able to publish great ideas by protecting them for the inventor is just bunk: society eats the bar while the inventor is anomolously protected for really no reason. They are basically landmines that only rich or organized people can buy, and most of the community knows it. Giving judges crash courses in Java is a promising start, but its also a depressing reminder of how far we have to go.

    --
    --"You are your own God"--
    1. Re:Judge Can't Cram classes.*; for Court by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      +100 Insightful.

    2. Re:Judge Can't Cram classes.*; for Court by Mana+Mana · · Score: 1

      > He can't possibly appreciate how obvious some of these
      > 'inventions' are,

      That's where the adversarial system of plaintiff vs. defendant succeeds. Proviso, the litigant, combatants are equally resource rich, i.e., matched. No man, nor judge is omniscient, men are ignorant on all but their singular competency. Thou thinkest too much of modern informatik.

  10. Damn...but for the lack of an 'e' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I hate when I misread the title...it's sad how happy appending an 'e' to the last word would make me.

  11. Excellent news by homesnatch · · Score: 1

    Oracle and Google put aside their differences and collaborate to streamline the java suite... oh... suit.