Slashdot Mirror
Ellison Doesn't Know If Java Is Free
New submitter Emacs.Cmode sends this excerpt from CNet:
"Among the highlights emanating from U.S. District Court in San Francisco courtroom 8 today was Oracle CEO Larry Ellison's response to a question regarding the status of the Java programming language, which his company acquired when it bought Sun Microsystems in 2010. Asked by Google's lead attorney, Robert Van Nest, if the Java language is free, Ellison was slow to respond. Judge William Alsup pushed Ellison to answer with a yes or no. As ZDNet reporter Rachel King observed in the courtroom, Ellison resisted and huffed, 'I don't know.'"
Groklaw has a good write-up about what happened during day one of the trial and a briefer summary of what happened on day two.
That's probably the best answer he could have given under the circumstances, though I can understand why he was loathe to give it.
With all the legal complications surrounding it, I would be hard pressed to say with certainty one way or the other. As a concept, I would sy its free. As an actual product, I would have to review everything in it before I could say that it is.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
What, precisely, does it mean if you say a programming language is free?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Just another rich out of touch moron who doesn't know anything about his company...
I don't think this lawsuit is going to be good for anyone but Apple.
Google might get a huge kick in the junk over Dalvik, Oracle might get a huge kick in the junk over whether or not Java is even an open platform or not, and the only ones who look to gain are Apple and maybe Microsoft.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
They pay them billions of dollars to look pretty and play golf. Ellison's the prettiest. And he smells like pie. If they really wanted to know anything about Java, they should have asked an Oracle employee who makes a immeasurably miniscule fraction of Ellison's salary.
Actually, Ellison's annual salary is 1$, no joke. He is paid in stock to avoid income taxes.
A language is nothing but a listing of words and how they are used. It is a cataloging of facts.
Facts, as such, are not copyrightable. You can't copyright the listings in a phone book, and neither can you copyright the contents of a header file. Because there is no creative content, and as far as the US is concerned, "sweat of the brow" does not give you copyright.
This is why Oracle is not going after IBM for Iced Tea, because Oracle they know they have nothing and are afraid of what the Nazgul might do in retaliation.
--
BMO
For one thing, you don't have to sell stock to use it. You can borrow against its value and, if you have enough, can essentially do so indefinitely.
It's also taxed at capital gains rates if it's sold, which are much lower than standard income tax rates (15% maximum under US law currently for investments held for at least a year). Capital gains can also be offset by tax losses, which can carry forward forever, or through structured sales.
It's actually because Larry couldn't understand the word "free" in the context of an Oracle product.
What would Stallman testify to?
"You see, when we say 'Free', we mean not just free as in cost, but Free as in Freedom, or as we sometimes say, 'libre software'. This means that software which does not place restrictions on the develope-"
"Yes or no, Mr. Stallman?"
"Well, your honor, to be Free Software means that one follows the guidelines of the Free Software Foundation-"
"Yes or no, Mr. Stallman?"
"To be technically be Free, Java would have to-"
"Yes or no, Mr. Stallman?"
"I'd just like to interject for a mo-"
"The court finds the witness to be guilty... I don't know how, but he is somehow."
Ok, let's go there.
If you sell the stock less than 12 months after exercising the stock option, you pay regular income taxes.
If you sell the stock 12 months after exercising the option, you pay 15%.
http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-finance/taxes/taxes-on-nonqualified-stock-options-9304/
http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-finance/taxes/taxes-on-incentive-stock-options-12196/
A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
If the core of the lawsuit is over the free parts of Java, are you telling me Ellison was not even prepped enough to answer that question? Who will get fired over that I wonder?
I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
Let's be fair here, Ellison isn't a rich out of touch moron, he just hasn't caught up on work lately because he's too busy working on his yacht racing. And it's an uphill battle. He even had to pay another team to race against him in a race that he's paying for.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Have you ever in your life posted a comment worth reading?
Court cases are not a giant free for all. Read up on deposition. Google asked this question before the live trial AND it was answered by Elison as bing correct, java is free. He knew the question was coming because Google lawyers told him well inn advance that it would and he submited his answer in writing. Now in court he suddenky doesnt know? How gullible are you?
Elison is a dinosaur who just hates google for not using oracle databases. Google was smart enough to stay away fro, that steaming pile of crap. If only they had been smart enough to stay away from Java. Ms and Apple were.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Capital gains is obviously a form of income tax. So are dividends, gambling winnings, rental properties, etc. They are not all taxed at the same rate, but that's totally irrelevant.
Everything you put on your 1040 is a form of "income tax". That's why it's official name is "Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return". There really isn't even any debate on it, the IRS clearly states capital gains are part of your income tax.
Yes and no.
My understanding is that if an employer gives you stock outright as part of your compensation, you must pay federal earned income tax on the fair-market value of the stock as of when they gave it to you, which would be 35% for the last dollar earned by someone in the top tax bracket. You also pay federal capital gains tax on any increase in price since then, up to 35% if you held the stock less than a year, likely 15% if you held it more than a year. (It could be 0% if more than a year and your income is less than a certain amount, but if so you probably don't have any stock anyway.)
You might say the 15% is an extraordinary low rate, but then again, if you were just paid a like amount of cash, you could have used it to buy the stock at its fair-market value and achieved the same overall tax rate anyway. The real trick is to (1) have enough spare money that you don't need this income for at least a year, possibly a lot longer depending on market conditions, and to (2) know what stocks will gain so dramatically that your initial investment seems insignificant. If you can do those things on most of your income, the low tax rate is just the icing on the extraordinarily large cake you can easily afford to have and eat, too...
Of course there are some loopholes, but I think they're only practical for "job-creators" like Mitt Romney, not regular folk like you and me. (And for the record, some of my income was considered long-term capital gains, but apparently not nearly as much as Romney's; my tax rate was much higher.)
No, this is not about patents. The arguments on patents come later. The patent arguments, when they start, have been trimmed down to one patent that has been ruled invalid, but the time period to appeal that rejection has not yet expired; and another that has had its scope trimmed back, which, together with some admissions made by Oracle, Google argues, clears Android of infringement.
At the moment, this is only about copyrights. Oracle claims that, when they Sun released documentation about the APIs used in Java, the copyright on them prevents anyone else making a clean-room alternate implementation of them. Oh, and that GPLing it all, congratulating Google for implementing those APIs, and publicly assisting Harmony and GNU Classpath( both alternate clean-room implementations ) doesn't affect that at all. The rest of us are just shaking our heads and wondering if they will ever reveal the directions to the universe where this might be the case.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
Blue Ray players license Oracle's JVM. That's reasonable, Oracle/Sun wrote that. Google wrote their own VM from scratch that doesn't work anything like Oracle's JVM. The only thing it has in common is: a bunch of APIs and nine lines of code (added by accident and long since removed). That's it. That's the basis of Oracle's infringement claims.
APIs have long been held to be uncopyrightable. Oracle is trying to change well-established case law, and if they succeed, it's going to raise a shitstorm, not just with Java users, but throughout the industry!
The source code inside Android is different from Java because Google wrote it from scratch. Mr. Jacobs said yesterday that there was copying, but that there was not a lot of it. 9 lines out of 15,000,000. These lines came from a developer that Google hired from Sun late in the development of Android, and it should not have happened.
Didn't Google's lawyer just affirm that an employee of Google did use a small amount of Sun's code and Google knew it was wrong and that it shouldn't have happened?
People learned for Apple, for a piece of that giant market. Many people learned Java for the same reason.
If you look at what you have to program in to make an iOS app (Objective C), I am pretty happy with Google's choice.
AnimePapers.org: Anime Wallpapers Handled With Care
As someone with a tax accounting background (but not currently working in that field) I'll do my best to add a little clarity to the issue.
Stock compensation will require an immediate tax payment ONLY if it is without conditions. If, for example, the company granting the stock to you puts a two year period in which you must maintain employment before you can sell the stock then you can avoid immediate payment of taxes and it gives you time to take advantage of some benefits (though it gets pretty hairy from that point trying to claim value reductions or reduced value for the limitation of liquidity).
In response to your other comment about being able to take a like amount of cash and buy the stock at fair-market value to achieve the same tax rate that is not true because you would expose yourself to double taxation (which is the reason most people put a before-tax investment into their 401k). If you received a million dollars in cash you would end up paying your income taxes on that amount and then capital gains taxes on the stock as well.
As a side note, if a company is trying to reduce tax liability themselves they can compensate employees in stock, treat it as an expense akin to cash payouts, and reduce their overall burden. Corporations always win on matters like that.
One of the real brilliant things these billionaires do is, after covering basic taxes, not sell the stock at all. If you don't sell it you avoid tax consequences. Larry Ellison "borrowed" against the value of his stock to buy his giant yacht and doesn't pay a dime in taxes. If he keeps them for his whole life he can pass them to his heirs and the income tax will never have been paid (heirs only pay a tax on appreciation of value since the death of the owner, often a fraction of the true value of the stock).
-Not To Be Taken As Professional Advice, Consult A CPA/Lawyer before making any decisions.-
AnimePapers.org: Anime Wallpapers Handled With Care
They order two martinis. The guy behind the bar pours them two Budweisers.
"This martini is great," rave Larry and Timmy, "what's your secret?"
"I dunno, the bartender went out to get some cigarettes, I'm just the owner."
Set your phasers on "funky"!
As the articles on Groklaw themselves comment:
Google couldn't use the name Java. So "scrub the J-word" is hardly damning evidence of wanton infringement. In fact, it's their only legal option. Sun basically said that anyone could use the code so long as they DIDN'T call it Java. It's like the IceWeasel / Firefox thing. They have no choice. So not illegal, and not really immoral.
Of course they were circumventing the need to have a Java ME license. That's not the issue, and not illegal. The question is, did they circumvent it properly, or did they get caught on the snags of not doing a proper job of it (i.e. can ANYONE make something Java-like or even use Java code without stepping on things that are IMPOSSIBLE to work around?). This is within the realm of reverse-engineering and IP-skirting. You don't want to pay for their patents, so you work to AVOID them instead. Again, hardly illegal or even immoral.
The GPL thing? They didn't want to use GPL code. Simple as that. Nor do quite a few huge companies. That's their choice. And rather than that just plain infringe GPL code or get the GPL taken down in a court. Again - they didn't want to do something, their only legal avenue was to find an alternative and work around the problem. They can licence their own code under whatever license they want and they can start from ANY licence or licenced code that they choose as a basis to start from. Not illegal, not immoral.
Now, if it were Microsoft? I think they'd avoid the GPL like a plague too. Google didn't make up their own "open" licence though, that's basically useless for anyone trying to contribute, which Microsoft have in the past. And MS have DEFINITELY avoided using certain trademarked names (and tried to enforce trademarks on things like Windows in the past, etc.) and DEFINITELY worked around patents that others owned rather than licence them (their Office suite comes to mind).
The question really is, where's your bias come from?
As an owner of a dividend paying stock, you are paying the corporate tax rate before you are paying your dividend, because the dividend is paid out of corporate after-tax profits.
Take the Buffer rule as an example of a lie. Obama pays less than his secretary, Buffet pays much more, in both absolute and relative terms.
Buffet is the biggest shareholder of BH, he pays himself 1% salary of his earnings, that's 40,000,000, on which 35% is paid by his corporation (that's his money, and actually it's 29% and not 35%, he is fighting IRS about that) and then he pays 15% on top, so his real rate is 44.75% (if BH pays 35% tax first).
Now, he only pays himself 1% of his real income, so 99% stays in the company, it's deferred from POV of taxation, he ain't touching that now. But if he wanted to take that money out, he'd pay the normal income taxes on it.
Of-course when asked recently about it, he said he is going to DONATE all his money after death, but that means his 'rule' wouldn't apply to him anyway, it's all propaganda (as shown by the 29% vs 35% corporate tax fight with the IRS).
Of-course that rule is more applicable to Obama, who is paying 20.5% income tax, not 15% on top of 35% (well, 29). Of-course Obama's salary is paid out of income taxes collected from productive people (or it's printed money, so it's collected from everybody who holds dollars and other USD denominated assets via inflation). In reality Obama isn't putting anything into economy except for his book sales. Also government employees do not pay income taxes, it's an accounting trick, gov't can't collect income taxes from itself, it can only shuffle money around that it steals from actual working people.
In any case this rule will decrease the amount of available investments, because the new 30% tax will simply prevent people from paying themselves the dividends, because it will increase the tax load on the investor from 44.75% to 54.5%, that's actually a 19.5% raise in dividend tax.
So people would rather leave their money in whatever bonds, not take it out as income, but where do people think INVESTMENT CAPITAL comes from? There will be less investment capital available for people to try and get it to start new companies, it's going to prevent quite a number of businesses and jobs from appearing!
You can't handle the truth.
A Google engineer, Tim Lindholm, said in a February 2006 e- mail that the company was in negotiations for a Java license. Google didn’t agree to the terms of a type of license that allows companies to use Java code and write new code on top of it which “you have to give back to the open-source community,” Jacobs said.
“You can’t keep it for yourself,” the Oracle lawyer said. “They broke the basic rules of the Java programming community.”
So I don't get why the open source crowd is all pro Google on this.
You're confusing patents with copyrights. Only ideas can be patented (not specific implementations), and only specific implementations can be copyrighted (not ideas).
The idea of Git cannot be copyrighted because it's an idea. In contrast, implementations of Git can indeed be copyrighted. What's more, any given implementation of Git will have its own copyright, and those multiple copyrights held by various Git implementations can be all different to each other.
Note that there is an important exclusion in respect of Git APIs: they cannot be copyrighted as that would prevent interoperability between differently licensed implementation of Git. This is the practical reason why APIs have been excluded from copyright protection for some 5-6 decades, and it applies to Java as much as to everything else.
So that's why you are dramatically wrong. The fact that ideas can require much creativity is undeniable, but ideas cannot be copyrighted.
Sun basically said that anyone could use the code so long as they DIDN'T call it Java. It's like the IceWeasel / Firefox thing. They have no choice. So not illegal, and not really immoral.
You have to decide. Either they could not use the Java name, and in this case they are MASSIVELY infringing, as their code / documentation / web sites contain thousands of times the word "Java", including the Android frontpage, or they can use it, and your justification of Google's sneaky behaviour does not hold.
Of course they were circumventing the need to have a Java ME license. That's not the issue, and not illegal. The question is, did they circumvent it properly, or did they get caught on the snags of not doing a proper job of it (i.e. can ANYONE make something Java-like or even use Java code without stepping on things that are IMPOSSIBLE to work around?). This is within the realm of reverse-engineering and IP-skirting. You don't want to pay for their patents, so you work to AVOID them instead. Again, hardly illegal or even immoral.
The fact is, that they knew they needed a Java ME license (Java SE didn't have licensing problems, but it wasn't technically appetible for them). Java ME's licensing model is of course designed to be impossible to work around, as the company that created it had this crazy aspiration to make money out of it. And Google decided NOT to pay for the license. "Immoral" does not belong to my vocabulary; a judge will decide if this is illegal.
The GPL thing? They didn't want to use GPL code. Simple as that. Nor do quite a few huge companies. That's their choice. And rather than that just plain infringe GPL code or get the GPL taken down in a court. Again - they didn't want to do something, their only legal avenue was to find an alternative and work around the problem. They can licence their own code under whatever license they want and they can start from ANY licence or licenced code that they choose as a basis to start from. Not illegal, not immoral.
My point never was that Google had to use GPL code or that not using GPL code is illegal, you're creating a magistral straw man argument. The point is that Google, a company that builds for itself an exterior image of an open source supporter, who has made billions by leveraging GPL-licensed code, calls the obligation to release a product's source code "an infection". Just like Microsoft. This is not illegal, by all means, it's just disappointing, hypocritical, or, in Google-speak, "evil".
Now, if it were Microsoft? I think they'd avoid the GPL like a plague too. Google didn't make up their own "open" licence though, that's basically useless for anyone trying to contribute, which Microsoft have in the past. And MS have DEFINITELY avoided using certain trademarked names (and tried to enforce trademarks on things like Windows in the past, etc.) and DEFINITELY worked around patents that others owned rather than licence them (their Office suite comes to mind).
(In your comparison, you forgot getting fined for impeding investigations and for privacy violation.) Are you trying to convince me that Google have become as "evil" as Microsoft? That was the main point of my post, actually.
The question really is, where's your bias come from?
I get called "a shill", "a sockpuppet", "a astroturfer" after almost any post I write on Slashdot. I got accused of being paid, among others, by Apple, Nokia, Sony... and Google. I take it with pride as I think it means that I'm doing something minimally useful to prevent Slashdot from becoming an useless echo chamber. Most people understand what kind of communities accuse the dissenters of being "the enemy".
Sun basically said that anyone could use the code so long as they DIDN'T call it Java. It's like the IceWeasel / Firefox thing. They have no choice. So not illegal, and not really immoral.
You have to decide. Either they could not use the Java name, and in this case they are MASSIVELY infringing, as their code / documentation / web sites contain thousands of times the word "Java", including the Android frontpage, or they can use it, and your justification of Google's sneaky behaviour does not hold.
Of course they can use the damn word if they refer to the language that you can write Android programs in. They just can't call their runtime in which they run the compiled programs "Java" or a "JVM". And they don't -- they call it "Dalvik". And they've written it themselves. And that's perfectly legal. Of course you don't have to pay license fees anytime you you the word "Java" in any technical sense. If you want, you can write a Java Framework for controlling a spacecraft or a coffee machine, brag "you can write programs for it in JAVA" in the documentation, sell it for thousands of dollars and not pay Oracle anything.
The fact is, that they knew they needed a Java ME license
What? They didn't need one at all unless they wanted to provide a Java ME implementation, which would be a completely different thing. Do you even know what Java ME is? It's a spec defining a subset of J2ME plus lots of additional APIs, profiles and so on. Android doesn't contain any of that.
Java ME's licensing model is of course designed to be impossible to work around, as the company that created it had this crazy aspiration to make money out of it.
What kind of warped statement is that? This is like saying the copyright on "Titanic" is impossible to work around because James Cameron wanted to make money. Knock it off, man.
Oracle would like to enforce a copyright claim on a programming language. Sun v. Microsoft was a trademark dispute.
Oracle is not claiming that Google has used the Java trademarks. This phase of the trial will only examine whether Google has violated Oracle's copyrights, and there will be no examination of trademarks in any phase.
Neither party seems to want to directly examine the question of whether programming languages or APIs can be copyrighted, which I find confusing. Oracle's stance on this issue is obvious, but Google's arguments are a little more interesting:
Google expects the following 3 findings to be reached:
1) there was no copyright infringement; the language is free and the APIs are necessary to use it.
2) Sun approved its use.
3) Android is a fair use of the Java APIs.
I take from this that Google is arguing that programming languages may be copyrighted, but that Java was released under an open source license which Google is complying with. Point #2 seems very difficult to dispute; even Mr. One Rich Asshole has been very complimentary of Google's efforts with Java/Android.
With regard to the linux kernel, which has zero to do with this lawsuit, Google has operated with respect to the law and the GPL; they have released the source for every binary they've distributed, and they are actively trying to merge their code with the upstream project. RMS is an idealist, and many F/OSS advocates support him in principle; you could call him the conscience of computing. However, it is recognized by all but the fanatically religious that pure ideologies function only in an ideal world, which we are not fortunate enough to live in.
Today, we recognize that Oracle is a threat to free computing. Tomorrow we may take up the issue of free data with Google -- I sincerely doubt that meaningful digital privacy is possible, in practice if not in theory.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Trying for both a +1 Funny and +1 Underrated, here goes!
I just realized that Corporations are "People" that can buy other "People".
So does Oracle Beat its concubine wife Sun?
Topic Change Alert:
This is in some ways some of the most exciting times for law, (even if some of it is abused horribly), simply because you just didn't cases like some of the modern ones Back In The Day when Law Was Law.
Beautiful Quote: Judge Alsup: "...no Googling the case, although I probably shouldn't use that term here."
Elliptical Translation: "No using the service by the Defendant to gain unprecendented access to information to the case about the Defendant."
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine