Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Oracle Clings To Java API Copyrights

Posted by samzenpus on from the hold-on-tight dept.

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.'"

9 of 207 comments (clear)

  1. Unix by MrEricSir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
    1. Re:Unix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      While I agree with the ruling, Oracle didn't sue for control of Android.

      No, their motive was simply the same as every lawyer in the copyright business: "All your moneys are belong to us".

    2. Re:Unix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      One note on this idea that lawyers are about taking everyone's money - it is akin to saying that software developers are out to take money from anyone who is a client of their development skills. Lawyers are proxies - they themselves don't do anything at all.

      They are like paid soldiers on the legal battlefield. 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. Lawyers can be paid hourly, or flat fee, or contingency percentage. In other words, if the client is asking the lawyer to bring suit, and will pay 10% of the damages in fees, then the client has agreed to that.

      The real question is: why are you so indignant that lawyers get paid to represent clients? Do you hate the adversarial court system? Then legislate to change it. Do you hate lawsuits? Them legislate change to how lawsuits are brought. 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 to janitors to tax accountants to represent our interests, but if it is a legal representative, OH NOES!

      I have family members in the legal profession, and they are good people - I get very tired of hearing about how evil lawyers are. If anyone is evil it is the CLIENTS.

  2. Reading between the lines by SinisterRainbow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  3. Google should have bought Sun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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. Re:Google should have bought Sun by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Was it a mistake? Oracle has blown huge sums of cash in acquiring and then attempting to defend and monetize Sun's IP. And what have they got for all of it? Linux is still carving into Solaris and Sparc market share. Java was already leaving Sun's hands long before Oracle bought it.

      Oracle bought very little for a lot of money, and now they're left arguing a spec is the same as an implementation.

      I expect Ellison to join Ballmer in the stupid executive's retirement home. Both have fucked up hugely.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  4. Wrong in quite a few ways. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Wrong in quite a few ways. by FrangoAssado · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Much as I dislike Oracle, I don't feel Google played fair on this, they took someone else's technology and effectively stole it.

      How exactly did any technology got stolen?

      1) Dalvik is completely different from the usual Java VMs (Dalvik is register-based, while Java VMs are stack-based). That's how they got away with a VM that interprets (modified) Java bytecode without infringing any patents related to Java (as was confirmed by the "Oracle vs Google" case).

      2) Android uses the exact same interfaces than Java, but that has been standard practice for decades (Unix, for example). No code between Android and Sun/Oracle's Java is the same, except for the stuff that must be the same to implement the same interfaces. The "Oracle vs Google" confirmed that's OK (as the summary says).

      In the end, what happened is that Google didn't want to pay Sun/Oracle for a license to use Java mobile, so they implemented their own Java-compatible system (or rather, bought it from other people). That's how technology evolves. As someone else said here a few posts back: imagine if anyone wanting to do a Unix-like OS had to pay a license to someone. Where would we be now?

    2. Re:Wrong in quite a few ways. by LarryWest42 · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're getting your facts wrong. Sun *approved* of Google's efforts, publicly and officially, in the forum of their CEO's blog.

      Search (e.g., Groklaw) for Jonathan Schwartz's blog from November 5, 2007:

      • "I just wanted to add my voice to the chorus of others from Sun in offering my heartfelt congratulations to Google on the announcement of their new Java/Linux phone platform, Android, Congratulations!"

      And it continues in that vein, referring to Android as a Java-based platform.

      This is after much discussion between the companies. The context matters. Google weren't being jerks.

      Read up on the Oracle's lawsuit at groklaw for more factual background and generally reasoned commentary on the Oracle suit.

      Larry