Slashdot Mirror
Judge Orders Oracle and Google To Talk, Again
Reader Fluffeh snips from and links to Ars Technica with the latest chapter in the ongoing Google vs. Oracle fight involving patents, Java, and Android, writing that executives at both companies were "'ordered to hold one last round of settlement talks no later than April 9th, with the trial over Google's alleged use of Java technology in Android set to begin April 16,' though '[t]he last-ditch effort to avoid a trial seems unlikely to succeed. ... Oracle initially accused Google of violating seven patents, but has since dropped most of them. This is due to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ruling the patents described technology that was not patentable. Two patents assigned to the Oracle-owned Sun Microsystems remain: #6,061,520 which covers "an improvement over conventional systems for initializing static arrays by reducing the amount of code executed by the virtual machine to statically initialize an array," and #RE38,104 which covers a type of compiler and interpreter."
By skimming #6,061,520 it seems to me that google could go free from that one just by calling the static initializers something else than - I don't know if they already do that. But it somehow seems oddly specific that the patent explicitly says "clinit method(s)" instead of just saying static class constructors or something like that - like it's only targeting java without never mentioning java in the claims.
More talks are irrelevant. The objective of both players is to keep going whatever happens so that any future opponent knows "they're totally made, they won't give in, so you have to". Losing the case isn't the worst outcome; wimping out is. So they won't settle.
This is due to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ruling the patents described technology that was not patentable.
Then why did they have the patents in the first place? This just shows how big of a load of bullshit software patents are. Do they at least get their money back for the patents that are supposedly not patentable? I'd be pissed if I paid $25,000 and then the assholes tell me my patent is invalid.
It seems that IT news is dominated by A litigating against B (lawyers get rich.) C takes on D in a bunch of jurisdictions and has products pulled from shelves (lawyers get rich and consumer choice suffers a hiccup.) Much of the litigation is driven by US tech firms. As a European, I realise our legal systems are less than perfect, but I'd like to understand more about the motivation (beyond $$ alone,) for such active lawyering. Maybe it's all about $$...but isn't everyone getting bored with this?
Maybe I am missing something and not seeing the bigger picture here, but it just seems silly to bring someone to court over how they initialize an array. IMHO, it is actions like these that really show how broken our(The America) patent system really is.
"an improvement over conventional systems for initializing static arrays by reducing the amount of code executed by the virtual machine to statically initialize an array,"
You can get a patent for stuff like that?
Fuck me sideways! I need to get a couple hundred patent applications filed!
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
As it is, patents have a fantastic ROI. How much has Apple profited by keeping Samsung off the market with Apple's "rounded corners" patent?
Patents allow you to turn $50K into $50 million. Where else can you get an ROI like that? Maybe lobbying.
It spite of Microsoft's smear campaign about Google, I don't think anybody is calling Google a patent scam aggressor.
You haven't been following the proceedings, have you? If you were, you'd know this question has been answered a while ago. These two pantents are pretty much all that's left of Oracle's initial claims, including copyright infringement (which I don't even know why they ever brought up, it was the weakest of their claims, given Google's "white room" approach.)
The case was obviously meritless from day one.
To this day, scox has not produced any evidence, and the courts are okay with that.
If our legal was not FUBAR, it would have gone like this:
scox: IBM stole our code and put it into Linux!!!!!
court: can you identify the code in question?
scox: absolutely not.
court: case dismissed.
Listen, PAL. Timothy has a JOURNALISM DEGREE. He is VERY smart. You shouldn't bother the resident genius with such pedantic trolling, for the rest of his content is superb.
Oh, wait...
How could Google have "violoated" F/OSS code?
But, you are right. The ROI for patent scamming can be fantastic. But, be aware, even meritless cases, like the scox scam, can go on for ten years. And major tech companies can drop $100 million on a lawsuit without batting an eyelash.
To put it perspective, Apple earns about $14 billion a quarter. It's nothing for Apple to throw a few million dollars at a patent suit.
At first, I assumed that this was about some complex algorithm like finding the greatest common subsets in a large set of static values or something similarly esoteric, but nope, it's trivial:
The preloader identifies all <clinit> methods and play executes these methods to determine the static initialization performed by them. The preloader then creates an expression indicating the static initialization performed by the <clinit> method and stores this expression in the .mclass file, replacing the <clinit> method. As such, the code of the <clinit> method, containing many instructions, is replaced by a single expression instructing the virtual machine to perform static initialization, thus saving a significant amount of memory. The virtual machine is modified to recognize this expression and perform the appropriate static initialization of an array.
It's so trivial that you don't even need to read the body of the patent to completely understand it! I can even boil it down to just three words: compile-time memoization,
Not only that, but this is hardly a concept unique to Java, there's even a Wiki article for it! Maybe Oracle should sue the inventors of the D Language, and the C++ committees too while they're at it, because if you use template meta-programming to initialise a static variable, then you've infringed -- or close enough anyway to be sued into bankruptcy.
The reason few (if any) compilers used static initializer memoization before 1998 is because most of the commonly used general-purpose languages with a concept of "static" weren't safe back then, so the compiler couldn't execute small arbitrary chunks of code without risking a crash or strange side-effects. The only reason Java could introduce this feature is because of a convenient side-effect of compiling a safe language -- not because someone had invented either compile-time evaluation, memoization, or the combination of the two. That, and nobody had over-used static values sufficiently while simultaneously caring enough about startup performance to bother implementing such a complex feature given the marginal performance advantage. You could probably demonstrate prior art by just pointing out that most compilers evaluate constant expressions at compile time, so "static int foo = 5 + 5" is basically the same thing as what the patent is claiming.
How did "of the people, by the people, for the people" turn into "of the inept, by the litigious, for the corrupt"?
or mod parent insightful instead
No, what Google's mostly concerned with is defending its immense pile of cash.
Perhaps he simply used copy and paste?
"an improvement over conventional systems for initializing static arrays by reducing the amount of code executed by the virtual machine to statically initialize an array,"
What the hell? How is this one patent-worthy? so wait, refactoring is patented?
I think a lot of people who actually read the patents that Google.. I mean Motorola.. is in a huff about and the amount they are asking for agree that they are using them as a scam and not trying to simply license them for what they are worth.
Were Oracle's claims that the regression test suite was illegally used/incorporated by Google dropped?
I'd actually thought those were the only claims Oracle had any legal standing with. If they've been knocked down, I foresee a good result for Google and Android.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Join the fight good people..
http://www.pubpat.org/
Perhaps he simply used copy and paste?
Listen, timmyboy, one of the responsibilities of being an editor is this concept that we call profreeding whereby the editors check the submissions for spelling, grammatical, and mechanical errors. Just accept that you need to do it every now and then, mmmkay?
Quit equating Google with Motorola. Google does NOT own Motorola yet, and are legally prohibited from messing in their affairs until they do. Motorola is, and has been, doing this all on their own.
Just like a PAC/SuperPAC isn't allowed to "coordinate" with a candidate....
What is profreeding?
Who let this third grader on Slashdot? Parent must die. Of the effects of ingesting copious quantities of rat poison.
Hurp a durp. What is profreeding. Durp. DURP DEEEERRRRRP. DURP!!!
Wrong! Android uses Java SE
Actually, Google is supporting Motorola's use of FRAND patents to attack competitors. This tactic by Moto is under investigation for breaking anti-trust laws.
No, what Google's mostly concerned with is defending its immense pile of cash.
-1, Clueless. Google is mostly concerned about defending its immense share of the search advertising market.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
You mean, Microsoft is investigating it.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
I don't live in the real world until I see a real summons. Then God is my attourney and it's a circus.
God says...
C:\LoseThos\www.losethos.com\text\2CITIES.TXT
-three or four--I don't know how many--
I can't collect my thoughts. An errand of generosity brought him
here unknown to us; he was stopped at the barrier, and sent to prison."
The old man uttered an irrepressible cry. Almost at the same moment,
the beg of the great gate rang again, and a loud noise of feet and
voices came pouring into the courtyard.
"What is that noise?" said the Doctor, turning towards the window.
"Don't look!" cried Mr. Lorry. "Don't look out! Manette,
for your life, d