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.
What, precisely, does it mean if you say a programming language is free?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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
The honest answer would have been, "in some ways yes, in some ways definitely not".
Oracle's courtroom slideshow at the bottom was really damning... as was its purpose. It's pretty clear that Java is meant to be a fucking trap.
And there's no way we're going to get away from it any time soon. Fuck you Oracle. Fuck you twice. :(
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."
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.
Given the ambiguity of the word "free", a simple yes/no answer would most likely be incorrect for everything except public domain.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
It pains me to say it, but he's no idiot...
I've always pondered about yes/no answers in court. I've seen judges demand either a yes or no answer on many occasions, yet to me it seems to conflict with a fundamental principle, at least in the UK justice system.
When you give your oath to the court in the UK it's "I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".
I remember being taught in history class of all things that it used to simply be "I promise to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth". The whole truth section was added later to prevent people giving answers that whilst true, only paint half the picture due to missing vital information or context.
So I've often wondered in this context how a judge can push for yes/no, as in many circumstances it betrays this fundamental principle in that either answer only tells a partial truth and not a whole truth. Has this principle ever been tested? To me being forced to give a yes/no answer would mean that I was betraying my vow to tell the whole truth as either answer would only be a partial truth in a more complex situation.
This is one of those circumstances where such an answer would in my opinion, violate such a vow, and as much as I want Oracle to lose I do also sympathise with the difficulty of just answering yes/no to that particular question.
I was on a Jury for 6 weeks in a murder trial a few years ago. I was actually pleasantly suprised to find the Judge basically bitch slapped the prosecution or defense any time they tried to make a witness give a yes/no answer when the witness clearly believed it could not be legitimately answered as such and then would proceed to allow the witness to answer how they deemed appropriate.
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
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.
According to Groklaw, Google's lawyer was kind enough to show Mr.Ellison a tape of his deposition where he answered the same questions "That's correct." Alzheimer's perhaps?
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.