Slashdot Mirror
Oracle Clings To Java API Copyrights
An anonymous reader writes in with a story about some of the ramifications of the Oracle-Google lawsuit. "You could hear a collective sigh of relief from the software developer world when Judge William Alsup issued his ruling in the Oracle-Google lawsuit. Oracle lost on pretty much every point, but the thing that must have stuck most firmly in Oracle’s throat was this: 'So long as the specific code used to implement a method is different, anyone is free under the Copyright Act to write his or her own code to carry out exactly the same function or specification of any methods used in the Java API. It does not matter that the declaration or method header lines are identical. Under the rules of Java, they must be identical to declare a method specifying the same functionality — even when the implementation is different. When there is only one way to express an idea or function, then everyone is free to do so and no one can monopolize that expression. And, while the Android method and class names could have been different from the names of their counterparts in Java and still have worked, copyright protection never extends to names or short phrases as a matter of law.'"
Can you imagine if Bell Labs had sued for control of the Unix APIs? We'd never have GNU, Linux, or many other projects that rely on those.
It would be a different world.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
I'm always surprised in these types of articles that the main point is not about the US justice system which allows such crap to happen in the first place and the lack of reprisals against those bringing frivolous lawsuits. When there's little risk and high possible reward, they are going to keep happening. Why not speak their language and punish their pocketbook when they fail. Make it risky to abuse things or be ignorant about things (tho doubtfully the later).
-Ultimate Stickman Game Developer Infinite World Puzzler
Google worst decision was to let Oracle buy and cannibalize Sun. It would have saved us and them from all these nonsense. Also Google's philosophy is so much closer to Sun's: great engineering and giving back to open source. The only thing Google is different than Sun is that they know how to profit from their products.
Heck, if they didn't want to spend all the money on their own they could lead a group of companies to buy out the IP of Sun.
It's really a pity that Oracle got a chance to buy Sun. I couldn't have imagined a worst end for such a great company.
1. You have to obey the rules to get the Java license, but your compiler, if it isn't being called java, doesn't have to obey them. dalvik.
2. The license doesn't require you implement at least one java standard. You have to implement a minimal functionality and can place your own in a different namespace. But you don't have to implement at least one java standard. But see #1 as to why this doesn't apply
3. dalvik was written because Google didn't want to implement java to their license, not because they couldn't.
Your assertion of google's jerkness is predicated on incorrect assertions.
Oracle kicks off its legal arguments with the tale of a mythical writer, Ann Droid who copies the titles and some sentences from a Harry Potter book and publishes her book. Oracle then argues that we would not accept that.
BUT, API's should rather be compared with writing an anatomy book. We all would have chapters like 'Introduction, digestive tract, neural system etc.'. So if the argument of Oracle hold, no_one_can write another anatomy book (or most technical books).
"Droid" is a valid Trademark vs. "GetCurrentTime()" being an invalid Copyright.
Just in case anyone believes this:
Oracle founded 1977
DB2 first version 1983
The creator of the project (Sun) had promised to make Java an open ISO and ECMA standard. That's why people initially adopted it.
After several years, all of that turned out to have been a lie.
Just because Sun decides they own or control something doesn't mean they do.
Google didn't decide to make an incompatible version, Android Inc. did.
Android Inc did this before Sun released Java under an open source license.
Android Inc decided to do this because Sun had already screwed them once before on J2ME
Making Android compatible with J2ME would have made no sense; J2ME was a lousy design.
The only thing that's been "not cool" is Sun's long string of lies, their technical ineptness and mismanagement, and Oracle's attempt to establish API copyrights. Everybody else is just trying to dig out from under the consequences of their mess, deceptions and trolling.
Lawyers are proxies - they themselves don't do anything at all.
But they do. They perpetuate a system where you *have* to use an *expensive* lawyer in order to get justice or to protect yourself from legal attacks (which are usually more harmful than physical ones).
They are like paid soldiers on the legal battlefield.
No. Lawyers are akin to mafiosi operating a protection racket.
Lawyers don't have standing to sue anyone themselves, nor can they bring suits without a client. The client is the one who is suing, and the client is the one who has a claim.
Many countries have socialized medicine. Most countries have a socialized education system. As long as you must pay, often a sum that will bankrupt the average person, to defend yourself in court, justice is only for the rich. (Preemptive note: the "public defender" option is a fig leaf, it does not work, on purpose).
Lawyers can be paid hourly, or flat fee, or contingency percentage.
Guido can break your kneecaps, burn your house or rape your sister. I guess it's OK, as long as you have a choice.
The real question is: why are you so indignant that lawyers get paid to represent clients?
As a Canadian, I know that my basic health-care does not depend on the thickness of my wallet, and yet, doctors here still get paid. Plus, I do have an option to use a private clinic if I want to. I trust you're intelligent enough to compare and contrast.
Do you hate the adversarial court system? Then legislate to change it.
Legislators are lawyers. Good luck making them legislate against their own interests.
Campaign contributors and lobbyists are big businesses, who want to have an unfair legal advantage against those less wealthy. Good luck making legislators legislate against those who pay them.
Do you hate lawsuits? Them legislate change to how lawsuits are brought.
See above. Similarly: Do you hate the mob? Then change how it operates.
The idea that lawyers get PAID (heaven forbid) to represent someone's interests should not be a shock to you. We pay for all kinds of services from waiters(1) to janitors(2) to tax accountants(3) to represent our interests
1) I face no adverse consequences for choosing not to go to a restaurant. Everybody can cook a passable meal.
2) I am not forced to use the services of a janitor. The janitor union does not try to make maintenance as difficult and incomprehensible as possible to lay people.
3) I pay $20/year for a piece of software to do my taxes for me. I could use a free one which is no less good, but I find the paid version more convenient.
I have family members in the legal profession
So you are biased.
and they are good people
In your opinion. I am sure that many family members of the RIAA/MPAA/BSA feel the same (organizations chosen to avoid Godwining this thread).
I get very tired of hearing about how evil lawyers are.
The truth hurts.