Oracle Subpoenas Apache Foundation In Google Suit

angry tapir writes "Oracle has subpoenaed the Apache Software Foundation in connection with its ongoing intellectual property suit against Google. Oracle filed suit against Google in August, alleging that its Android mobile operating system infringes on seven of Oracle's Java patents. Google has denied any wrongdoing. The subpoena, which was received by ASF on Monday, seeks 'the production of documents related to the use of Apache Harmony code in the Android software platform, and the unsuccessful attempt by Apache to secure an acceptable license to the Java SE Technology Compatibility Kit.'"

Comments

as noted, this is pretty funny

[poetmatt]

considering that apache is pretty openly documented, subpoena'ing them is probably mostly useless. I mean they could probably point Oracle to their own wiki.

Re:as noted, this is pretty funny

[binarylarry]

Yeah but you'd have to find someone at Oracle who knows how to use a web browser.

You'd send them a URL and they'd spend 12 months and 10 million dollars writing a "program" in PL/SQL to access the wiki.

Re:as noted, this is pretty funny

[nomadic]

Usually these kinds of subpoenas are looking for internal communications.

Re:as noted, this is pretty funny

[John Hasler]

The court wants to see the documents as delivered by Apache, not copies that Oracle's lawyers claim to have found on some Web site. Oracle also wants to see private communications between Apache and IBM. This is all very routine and reasonable in the circumstance. Apache will be compensated for their expenses and they can ask the judge to seal anything that they don't want in the public record.

Re:as noted, this is pretty funny

[kestasjk]

That's just not true.. They would send over a team to run some workshops, evaluate the wiki's work processes, recommend an alternative ERP, reevaluate all competing systems, and charge for analysis, installation, maintenance, and travel, and then they'd spend 12 months and 10 million dollars writing a "program" in PL/SQL to access the wiki.

But the accessed wiki would be hosted in Oracle's cloud storage, so you would need an extra few eBusiness modules to interface with that, plus service and bandwidth of course (not to mention consulting and security).

Once it's all paid up (Oracle hosts your finance software, but it's just coincidence that they charge slightly less than you can possibly afford) you have the glory of an eBusiness form which ties the "WikiID" with all your "EmployeeID"s (it's called integration), and you can run all sorts of reports like "WikiIDs vs EmployeeIDs" or "Sum of WikiIDs vs EmployeeIDs", or even "Sum of WikiIDs vs EmployeeIDs two weeks ago".

Your CFO will love it, the board will think it's vital, and we'll leech the hard won efficiency gains out of your business and use the money to kill cheap open-source competitors and fight innovation with lawyers.

Welcome to eLogicStackEnterprise; an obsolete database powering a recently closed source stack supporting a thin layer of generic business logic supporting a veneer of customized business logic straining under a mountain of bullshit.

Re:as noted, this is pretty funny

[Cid Highwind]

They're not looking for code, they're looking for documents.

Re:as noted, this is pretty funny

[ReallyEvilCanine]

You and everyone else who keeps saying "Oracle don't understand FOSS" are fucking idiots. Oracle damned well understands FOSS but they don't make much money off it. Their intention is to collaborate where necessary and move customers to the closed apps and systems, paying millions in license fees every year. To sweeten things they make all their software -- all of it -- available for free download so that customers, programmers and tech monkeys all can try it out and learn to use it. You only pay for what you put into production.
.

Oracle is also one of the top Linux code contributors, popping in more code than even the Linux Foundation (see Table 9): Xen, YAST, NFS on IPv6, "data=guarded" for ext3, Asynchronous IO kernel subsystem, and more. Not surprisingly, most of what Oracle contributes is germane to Orafcle DB & apps, no different from every other contributor working on something he is specifically interested in or in need of.

Larry's a cunt and I'm not about to defend him, but Oracle-the-company (whose decisions are made by Ellison) knows exactly what the fuck they're doing, and if you understood how they think you not only wouldn't have been surprised at the acquisitions of Sun and BEA but you'd have a pretty good idea of who's going next.

Re:as noted, this is pretty funny

[TheRaven64]

If they're looking for documentation, then they really don't understand F/OSS!

Re:as noted, this is pretty funny

[jrumney]

Where do you come up with that?

Not the OP, but I'd guess its a case of "Oops, wrong baseless lawsuit against open source".

Re:cross-platform? no, lock-in!

[Anonymous Coward]

Google didn't extend Java, and they didn't embrace it either. No Java program will run on Android. No Android program will run on a Java VM. Not even if you recompile them. You can do some code and library reuse, but that's about it.

Re:cross-platform? no, lock-in!

[binarylarry]

Embracing and extending isn't usually a bad thing when the fork is open source.

In fact that's the whole point of open source.

(FYI basically the entire Android platform has been open source so far)

And so it begins - Or rather, ends.

[pla]

Strange... I didn't hear about Darl McBride joining the Oracle executive board.

Re:cross-platform? no, lock-in!

[Attila Dimedici]

In what way is Google creating platform lock-in? I am not saying that they aren't, I just haven't read anything that suggests that they are (and I have read several stories that indicate they are spending extra money to ensure that users of some of their products are not locked in).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

-5 Rep

[jimmerz28]

I wonder if anyone at Oracle realizes how they're continually mangling their image? I didn't ask if they care, simply if they realize it.

Re:-5 Rep

[_Sprocket_]

And then you have customers like my employer who are heavily invested in Oracle tech and are going to have a hard time getting away from it. But believe me, we are looking at doing our best to remove as much Oracle as we can. We just admit that we can't do a clean sweep (at least not yet).

Re:-5 Rep

[JAlexoi]

You seem to think that none of today's writers will be tomorrow's decision makers.The first thing I would do after seeing an invoice from Oracle on my table would call a tech meeting to discuss how to reduce the reliance on them. And spin it off as cost cutting measures to the finance dept - they love it!
And guess what? I'm already advising clients in removing as much Oracle as possible.

Re:-5 Rep

[quantum bit]

Indeed, Oracle's power play to try to force HP-UX customers using Oracle software on to Solaris/SPARC resulted in us taking a long hard look at Linux on x86-64; and deciding that was the best path forward.

Re:cross-platform? no, lock-in!

[h4rr4r]

bzzt wrong!

You can go download the source to dalvik and use it on what ever platform you want. Blackberry is going to be doing just that.

So where is this source to the Microsoft JVM?

Re:cross-platform? no, lock-in!

[DrXym]

Code written for Android can't be run on another platform without rewriting large portions of the code. In essence, it's basically just the same sort of additions that Microsoft did and got tons of bad press about.

Android application code really doesn't care where it's running. It's running on a VM after all. If someone ported Dalvik to another platform, Android apps would run there too. In fact RIM have done that already, porting Dalvik over QNX. If they can do it then it's clearly not proprietary or lock-in. I'd actually like to see Dalvik ported in this way since it would speed up development no end and might prove useful for other purposes

As for Microsoft's issues with Java, it's not the same at all. First Dalvik / Android are not Java. Never have been, never claimed to be. It's always been made explicitly clear that devs write with the Java language but the target is not a JVM.

Debunking Oracle's [patent] claims

[bogaboga]

My request is for an informed and knowledgeable slashdotter to point readers to a site that potentially debunks each one of Oracle's patent infringement claims.

Re:cross-platform? no, lock-in!

[Archangel Michael]

You cannot run Android programs in a JVM, because while it is Java, it is not JVM. The difference is that the JVM and Dalvik are more like "compilers" than anything else, much like you can write a program in C and compile it for PPC or i86 using GCC or Intel or IBM compilers. However I doubt that your C code compiled by Intel Compiler will run on PPC architecture.

Java is a language.Oracle wants to assert control over the language because it has a "compiler" in the form of JVM. Good luck with that.