Slashdot Mirror
Sun CEO Explicitly Endorsed Java's Use In Android
An anonymous reader writes "ZDNet writes: 'If you believe Oracle's patent lawsuits against Google for its use of Java in Android, Google has stolen not just patented ideas but directly copied Java code. In short, Google is a red-handed thief and should pay Oracle over a billion in damages. There's just one little problem with this portrayal of Google as an intellectual property (IP) bandit. When Android first came out, Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz, then Java's owner, greeted the news with 'heartfelt congratulations.' Whoops.'"
... and privately Sun notified Google they would need to license it.
Citation needed. As far as I know Sun did not ask for any licensing until they were brought by Oracle, which was much later than the statement of congratulations. This is why the article says the principle of estoppel (you can't imply that something can be used for free then charge) might apply.
Definitely puts Oracle in an difficult position but does the current owner of a company assume the liability of "word-of-mouth" statements by a former owner? What's more, are they actually a legal binding agreement? I like Oracle about as much as I like Microsoft and Apple, but it seems to me that what it comes down to is Google would need to produce an actual legal document signed by Sun to make anything matter out of this.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
There is probably some argument, however tenuous, that merely having Sun's CEO publicly praise the use of basically-java in Android didn't actually constitute implicit permission to use whatever java-related patented techniques are at question.
Even if that side of things pans out, though, it certainly makes it a bit harder to make the argument that Google was willfully infringing(which would potentially up the damages significantly), since that isn't exactly the sound of a CEO who is getting willfully-infringed upon...
Google has already submitted the said blog post as part of its defense http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2010cv03561/231846/103/0.pdf (Exhibit M) So, this is not a new development and unlikely to change anything.
It doesn't seem very relevant if it happened when Android was first released. Back then, Google was shouting loudly that they were using Java. Schwartz probably read this and said 'well done, using Java is great!' Then, on closer inspection, it turned out that Google was using almost-Java, which is not something they were too happy about.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
If commentary on Groklaw concerning this very subject is any indication of probably outcome, then the case is pretty much already lost because of the doctrine of estoppel. It basically says "we were encouraged and supported in this route by the owners of Java and it became what it became in part because of that. You can't take that back now just because there are new owners." Permission to do what Google has done has already been given before Oracle took over. It seems unjust and childish somehow that it would be possible for new owners of something to step in and suddenly evict others from their intellectual property after they have been homesteading for so long.
The doctrine of estoppel defence is just one of Google's defences in this case, of course... Google will also, as much as possible, render as much of Oracle's IP useless in the process of defending their case. Oracle's arrogant aggressiveness, I hope, will result in a very humbling experience for them and give pause to anyone who wishes to assert software patents in court. The more frequently software patents are invalidated, the less likely new ones are to be approved in the future... and I pray that one fine day, they are simply dropped from the list of things that can be patented entirely.
All true computer users who are awesome like me prefer programs writtin in LISP because these progems tend to be toring complete and therefore moreuseful mand robust intheir architechters than scripting languigis like JaVa!!!
And if you code like you type, You will sound like you have a lisp.
Restore the madness of youth's lechery
If commentary on Groklaw concerning this very subject is any indication of probably outcome, then the case is pretty much already lost because of the doctrine of estoppel.
That is interesting. If this is a valid defense then I wonder why we also find warnings on Groklaw to avoid Mono because of patent concerns. Surely the same doctrine would cover Mono even more than this case, because Microsoft have been way more enthusiastic a simple press release.
Not mutually exclusive.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Estoppel by record—This frequently arises as issue/cause of action estoppel or judicial estoppel where the orders or judgments made in previous legal proceedings prevent the parties from relitigating the same issues or causes of action,
Estoppel by deed (often regarded as technical or formal estoppels)—Where rules of evidence prevent a litigant from denying the truth of what was said or done
Estoppel by silence—Estoppel that prevents a person from asserting something when he had the right and opportunity to do so earlier, and such silence put another person at a disadvantage.
Laches—estoppel in equity by delay. Laches has been considered both a reliance-based estoppel, and a sui generis estoppel.
With apologies to Cardinal Fang.
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
When in the past I have addressed customers as a director, I have always been careful to state that either no oral comments I made would be legally binding, or I would have to refuse all questions on technical or commercial matters, for this very reason. This is exactly the same as a politician speaking "off the record".
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
No, they killed Open Solaris.
Despite all the things Oracle has done wrong, dropping Open Solaris was probably a good idea. Unless they had some big idea on how to make using Open Solaris less painful than stabbing oneself repeatedly with sharp objects, which I doubt they did. I'm using Open Solaris for a ZFS / Samba file server, but even if I wanted to do almost the same thing again I'd pick almost any other OS. It's a pain to admin, doesn't make sense, and is just downright unpleasant to work with. Only reason I've not abandoned it is the file server is actually working properly for now at least. From a performance standpoint, it's actually doing a fairly good job, I just never want to touch it again.
Fear is the mind killer.
I must be imagining things, then. Because I could have sworn that there are Android projects in my NetBeans projects folder. Ho hum.
That's interesting, especially if they are samples provided by Oracle
No, they killed Solaris - not by shutting down the project, but by modifying licensing and support terms to make it unreasonable for most companies to continue to use it.
Week of wait + public telling of how great he was in bed on the internet the day after + saving a used condom for a week.
Personally I WTF:d at the condom. That thing must have smelled wonderful when she took it out at police station. Tells a lot about woman's personality that she actually saved that used condom for a week.
Statements matter in court. You can't go and say one thing, and then act in an opposite manner and expect a court to be ok with that, particularly when you are talking damages. So no, this won't make everything go away, if it would have it probably would have already gone away. But it does weaken Oracle's case.
Oracle's argument is basically that Google is evil, stole their tech, and owes them a bunch of damages because of that. Google is trying to show that isn't the case. things like this help.
Also something to keep in mind, not directly relevant here but related, is that in many jurisdictions verbal contracts are legally binding. For important things people use signed contracts to keep things from being "he said she said" but verbal contracts are binding and enforceable. You can't make a contractual promise then back out.
That's not what happened here, but somewhat related.
That's why he used OR instead of XOR. ;)
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
It's unfortunate that Schwartz's blog is gone, and that ZDNet didn't drill down a little more carefully to check dates on things. I was working with Sun on the java.net site at the time, through a contract with O'Reilly. As I recall, the story is actually somewhat worse. The rumor mill reported that Android would be using Java, and Schwartz went off half-cocked and praised Google for the "Java/Linux platform". Writing for java.net, I said "But I didn't end up putting this on the front page, because I just couldn't source the Java angle well enough (no offense, Jonathan, but you did say ZFS would be on Leopard...)." (that's the current editor's headshot on the page, not me, BTW).
Not too much later, Google laid out the details of Android, including the Dalvik VM, which meant that Google was only using Java the language (which it didn't have to license) and not Java the VM (which it would have had to). What I heard through the back channel was that Sun was pissed, believing it had been stabbed in the back. This made for a very awkward scene at Sun's mobile-focused "ME Developer Days" a few months later in January 2008: the Sun people had clearly been told to not talk about Android or acknowledge it in any way, which led of a few awkward moments of dancing around the elephant in the room. The first night of the conference, the Java Posse stopped by for dinner, and upon seeing Dick Wall (who at that time worked at Google), the first thing I said to him was "man, are they pissed at you guys."
Relevant dates and links:
Anyways, assuming my recollection of events and this timeline is accurate, Schwartz's blog should not be taken as an indication that Sun knew about and approved what Google was doing with Android. What it does prove is what a lot of people knew then but wouldn't say: Schwartz was a clueless loud-mouthed buffoon who happily fiddled away on his blog as SUNW burned.
Google has deep pockets and lots of lawyers to defend themselves against Oracle. And even if Google loses this lawsuit, they're able to find the $100 million or so that they need to pay Oracle down the back of the couch.
Mono doesn't have deep pockets and lots of lawyers. A patent lawsuit from Microsoft against Mono would be devastating, win or lose.
I personally keep my used condoms in the freezer, it is eaiser on the nose that way.
I think you're doing it wrong, they don't go on the nose.
It's kind of hard to believe that Sun's CEO didn't know this. He must surely have known that something was up if only from the complete non-involvement of Sun in the Open Handset Alliance. Perhaps he made assumptions that J2ME was so entrenched it couldn't possibly go ahead without Java. Perhaps he saw two J2ME VM providers on the list of members and thought Java was a shoe-in. That's all reaching of course. Even commenters on his own blog seem confused, asking why Sun isn't involved and speculating that Google are going to do a run around. And certainly within a week when the SDK came out it was clear that is exactly what they had done.
100% crap. MSFT was trying to co-opt the entire language by using their monopoly clout. Google just forked.
Put another way, MSFT was trying to push their changes to affect the master, upon which all future pulls would inherently be affected by what they wanted/controlled.
Google just did a pull into a separate branch. No affect to the Java master.
Even if that side of things pans out, though, it certainly makes it a bit harder to make the argument that Google was willfully infringing
It doesn't mean that at all. Unless his statement is something like, "After a careful technical review to find Dalvik does not infringe any of our patents, I find Google's adoption of Java as their development language to wonderful for the Java and Android communities.", this is a complete fanboy story. It absolutely zero to do with anything.
Bluntly, unless they can prove such a statement was backed by some type of patent review or technical analysis, it means absolutely nothing. Nada. Zero. Now that doesn't mean some lawyer won't be able to manipulate some dumb, unintelligent juror, but aside from that, this story is absolutely meaningless fluff.
The University of Oregon has been able to show a picture of Walt Disney shaking hands with the president of UofO, and mentioning in an article how he liked the mascot (which was based on Donald Duck) to settle a lawsuit from Disney on infringement.
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
I'm just curious, what is your opinion on AIX compared to Solaris?
In my experience, AIX makes Solaris look like user-friendly land.
Never underestimate the power of the Schwartz!
Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
Absolutely. However, if you give permission to an entity to use your patent, you cannot come back later and sue for damages for their use; you can only prevent future, continued use of your patent. Basically, if Google can show that Sun's previous CEO blessed the use of Java in Android, then the current Oracle settlement quickly approaches $0. It does not mean Android can keep using Java in the future, but past penalties go out the window.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
He saw it in a movie he downloaded...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I take it you're not familiar with estoppel.
I am - which is exactly my point. Seems you're not familiar with intelligence. As I originally stated, his statement doesn't mean shit unless you're a complete fucking idiot. It can ONLY have legal implications IF they can prove he made those statements with full technical knowledge of patent and technical implications.
Considering no such assertions have been made, its complete safe to say you're talking out of your ass. Thanks for once again verifying this is slashdot.
I don't think it's tenuous at all. Lots of projects by lots of companies use Java; this is nothing new. Sun could praise any number of them, but it just so happens that Android / Java is high profile, so they chose to praise that one particular project. That doesn't mean they were aware and sanctioned copyright infringement on any particular piece of code. Java comes with a license, and it's not unreasonable to think that Schwartz would make a public statement of support under the assumption that Google was adhering to the terms of that license.
----
Not to be confused with Col.
OpenSolaris was still Solaris... not too different from Solaris 10 with a GNU userland. Comparisons are still valid as far as administration goes.
... and privately Sun notified Google they would need to license it.
Citation needed. As far as I know Sun did not ask for any licensing until they were brought by Oracle, which was much later than the statement of congratulations. This is why the article says the principle of estoppel (you can't imply that something can be used for free then charge) might apply.
How about an article? Or Google's own lawyers saying that Sun offered to license Java to Google for $100 million, which is now part of the court record for the very case we're discussing, admitted as point of fact by the defendants attorneys?
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Except that his statements had to do with Google using "Java" not "Dalvik". Sun's patent statement with relation to Java is quite clear that you have to have a conforming J2SE implementation or you don't get the patent grant. Some offhand statement by Scwartz doesn't nullify that.
I just bought three sparc servers this year running "regular" Solaris 10. It sucks just as badly; with my app could run on.. anything else.
Before destroying those SunFire servers, please put them on eBay for us SPARC devs. It's increasingly hard to get decent equipment for that platform, now that big evil Oracle has swallowed Sun.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
MSFT rips off Java and creates a "kinda sorta Java" which they will use their large base to snatch control away from Java? BOOO. Google rips off Java and creates a "kinda sorta Java" which they will use their large base to snatch control away from Java? YAAY!
You should have gone with a more appropriate nick along the lines of hairyfootinmouth.
Google didn't "rip off" Java any more than C++ ripped off C, and the Dalvik VM is not competing with Oracle's Java. Oracle is claiming patent and copyright infringement. And Microsoft took Java and wanted to change it in ways that made it incompatible with the "real" Java, using their monopolistic hold on the PC operating system arena to ensure their dominance. You are comparing apples to orangutans.
Judging from the ignorance and idiocy of your post, it looks like you were simply trying to take a few jabs at Android users or looking for an excuse to use the word "fanboi" a couple times for no apparent good reason. It's also ironic that you belittle Google "fanbois" yet have a GMail address.
But IMHO being a douche is being a douche...
Pot, meet kettle.
It's not going to happen. People keep hoping that it does to fit their old, draconian image of Microsoft.
Microsoft wants people developing in C#. It helps them. It's not like that 1% is going to even affect them. Mono is a surprisingly good platform that Linux zealots blindingly refuse to use just because it has links to Microsoft. I would be far more afraid to use any variant of Java than I would to be using any variant of .NET. And I say that as a day-to-day, primarily Java developer.
Good luck suing someone that you have publicly stated that you will not sue, for the reason that you told them you won't sue them. Even in East Texas, that wouldn't go very far.
Well there was two issues initially.
First of all, the source file contents/code has nothing to do with patents. A patent with regards to software covers the function of the software, not the code itself. There is no alternate way to describe a function to sidestep a patent. Oracle initially submitted 132 patent claims, and Google brought hundreds of prior art references to counter these. The judge whittled the number of claims down to 3 and allowed Google 8 prior art references, so as to have a more reasonable number of trial claims. Clean room implementation won't sidestep patent infringement. The only outcome is whether, or not, these 3 patent claims are in fact valid. Also Google could potentially get a ruling that this was "willfull" infringement meaning the damages would be increased just by Google knowingly infringing upon said patents.
So the other issue was copyright infringement. The story is that some unit tests to verify whether some given code is compliant/compatible with the Java standard, were accidentally committed to the public Android repository. Sun rightfully had a restrictive copyright on this code, so there is really no question about infringement on this issue. It really doesn't even matter that the code never shipped to a production Android device. Its a clear-cut case of unauthorized re-distribution of copyrighted material. Google couldn't get out of this one, and will pay a minor damages fee. I think the maximum is $30,000 if it was unintentional, or $150,000 if it was willful infringement. Really, this thing happens all the time. Especially within Open Source, infringing parties are given a chance to correct such mishaps before it ever sees a court room. Most of the time this kind of thing is dealt with in an amicable manner, because it rarely is intentional by the infringing party or damaging to the copyright holder.
/^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
There exists a tool - IKVM - that can take a Java .class file, and spit out an equivalent .NET assembly (of course, it also provides a class library for all the missing Java classes). If you take Mono (or any other CLR implementation), and create a fork that includes said tool, then, by your argument, this would prove that Mono is a "Java interpreter"?
I've heard that some guys are doing a tool that takes Java and converts it to LLVM bitcode. Does the existence of such a tool make LLVM a JVM?
It is quite relevant unless Oracle can SHOW that Schwartz was being deceived at the time. Otherwise you don't get to flip-flop and sue someone for an action you endorsed at the time.
I wonder why Microsoft doesn't include something like it with their .NET Runtime so that you could run .NET and Java applications without having to install two pieces of software?
Maybe because Microsoft sees Java as a technology competing with .NET, and does not want to help it?
I don't know if you ever noticed, but Visual Studio, up to version 2005, had this thing called "Visual J#". This was actually a Java-to-MSIL compiler (directly from source code, not from Java bytecode). Not a fully conformant implementation of Java - mind you, it was never advertised as such, MSJVM lesson learned - but it was there; advertised as a tool to "enable easier migration from Java to .NET". It's gone from VS2008 on, presumably because everyone who cared already moved by then.
As for IKVM itself, while the translator is 2-clause BSDL, it uses code from GNU Classpath for parts of those class libraries, which is GPLv2. I'm not aware of any case where a Microsoft product relied on a third-party GPL component, ever, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Hmm, maybe it's because any reasonable man would conclude that you'd then have a JVM capable of running Java software.
The combination of IKVM and .NET would be a JVM, yes (more so than Dalvik, in fact, because IKVM includes runtime translation as well - meaning that you can even load .class files, or generate JVM bytecode in-memory, all using normal Java Class/ClassLoader APIs - and it'll dynamically translate it to MSIL and run it). But .NET itself is not a JVM. Similarly, a combination of JVM-to-Dalvik translator (+ runtime bytecode translation) and Dalvik would make a JVM, but Dalvik by itself is not a JVM.
Then also, you're not forbidden from writing your own JVM, per se. You cannot call it "JVM" or something else with "Java" in the name because that's Sun/Oracle's trademark. You can also run into Oracle's various VM-related patents in doing so, but it should be noted that those patents are applicable to all kinds of VMs, even those which have nothing whatsoever to do with Java (the patents are on very generic optimization techniques, not specifically on JVM bytecode etc). The latter is what happened with Dalvik, so its relation to Java is not particularly relevant in that context.
HP-UX. Your argument is invalid.