Oracle: Google Has "Destroyed" the Market For Java

itwbennett writes: Oracle made a request late last month to broaden its case against Android. Now, claiming that 'Android has now irreversibly destroyed Java's fundamental value proposition as a potential mobile device operating system,' Oracle on Wednesday filed a supplemental complaint in San Francisco district court that encompasses the six Android versions that have come out since Oracle originally filed its case back in 2010: Gingerbread, Honeycomb, Ice Cream Sandwich, Jelly Bean, Kit Kat and Lollipop.

Comments

Groklaw Needed More Than Ever

[linuxrocks123]

It's a shame Pamela Jones shuttered Groklaw ... her insight into this case would have been invaluable.

We need to stop the dangerous idea that interfaces can be copyrighted before it becomes as much a bane on software as software patents were before Alice vs. CLS Bank.

Re:Groklaw Needed More Than Ever

[Luthair]

She was conspiring with Bob against Eve!

Re:Groklaw Needed More Than Ever

[phantomfive]

We need to stop the dangerous idea that interfaces can be copyrighted

I miss Groklaw too, but it's really too late for that. The Supreme Court upheld the earlier court's decision that interfaces can be copyrighted (or more specifically, declined to hear an appeal).

It's not the end of the world. Use of an interface for purposes of interoperability has been declared fair use. The Google vs Oracle case is still in court, trying to decide if Google's use of Java is fair use.

Of course, Java is under the GPL, so in most cases this is not even an issue.

Re:Groklaw Needed More Than Ever

[0123456]

If the API headers are the most valuable part of your software... you're doing something wrong.

Re:Groklaw Needed More Than Ever

[flink]

And the difference between this and the MS Java case is...what exactly? Because the only difference I can see is Google pulled a name out of their ass, which means all MSFT had to do was call it "MS Coffee" and it would have all been golden.

The difference is trademarks. Microsoft called their unauthorized implementation Java(tm). You don't get to do that without passing Sun's certification process. MS never implemented the entire Java specification. They modified some parts and left others out (embrace and extend). So someone who wrote a Java program against the Sun JDK and brought it to the MS platform would potentially see it fail out of the box. Due to these issues Sun used it's trademark to sue for relief from having its brand damaged.

This is different from unauthorized implementations that did not claim to be official Java products. Indeed, prior to Sun open sourcing the HotSpot JVM, there were quite a few open source unofficial implementations: e.g. GNU Kaffe, Apache Harmony, GCJ, etc. Claiming ownership over interfaces/API is a new and treacherous behavior that came along with Oracle.

And what if somebody was to do this to Linux? After all they have access to the code, should be easy enough to just rip it off and take it proprietary by following the Google model, what would the difference be? None at all.

None. Linus owns the Linux trademark in many countries. Assuming someone didn't copy the source code and just re-implemented the APIs, it would be totally kosher as long as you didn't call it "Linux". How do you think Linux was allowed to exist in the first place? It's just an unauthorized implementation of a bunch of POSIX APIs, but because Linus didn't call his kernel a UNIX(tm) system or claim POSIX(tm) compliance, he didn't run afoul of trademark law.

Re:Groklaw Needed More Than Ever

[flink]

It's not the end of the world. Use of an interface for purposes of interoperability has been declared fair use. The Google vs Oracle case is still in court, trying to decide if Google's use of Java is fair use.

It's a serious blow to interoperability and to open source in general. Fair use is and affirmative defense, not an absolute right. It's very subjective. In order to even assert fair use, you have to be sued, refuse to settle, go to court, and convince a judge that the fair use defense applies... and then you have to actually litigate the case, with the risk you will lose, be out potentially millions in your own legal costs, plus damages, plus maybe paying the plaintiff's costs. This is a huge burden for anyone but a massive corporation to meet.

It is impossible to write a non-trivial Java application without extending or overriding some API "owned" by Sun/Oracle. This means that basically every Java application and by extension, every program that implements a public, non-open-source API or is written in a proprietary language exists at the sufference of the API/language creator. Maybe you could go to court and try to assert "fair use", but good luck doing that if you are not Google.

Re:Groklaw Needed More Than Ever

[Cederic]

The irony being that BEA bought JRockit because their JVM implementation was significantly better than Sun's on Intel, and Oracle bought BEA.

This is before Oracle bought Sun, so Oracle were themselves doing to Sun what they're claiming Google have done to them.

Fundamentally it all boils down to Larry Ellison and his company being cunts.

Re:Groklaw Needed More Than Ever

[phantomfive]

If you're not using Oracle's compiler, it's not a problem as long as you use a GPL compiler. Furthermore, there is a fair-use defense for interoperability, so it's not a problem on multiple levels.

Re:Oracle's monopoly?

[MightyMartian]

Because J2ME was such a brilliant mobile platform.

Profiting on the Backs of Others

[Great Big Bird]

Oracle (then Sun) could have created an operating system for mobile phones based around Java. But since Google did, they want to profit off of it? They should go to hell.

Re:Profiting on the Backs of Others

[binarylarry]

The problem with J2ME is that it's awful.

It's always been awful, I've always dreaded using apps on pre iOS/Android phones.

Re: Profiting on the Backs of Others

[binarylarry]

Microsoft licensed the Java platform and trademark and then intentionally built an incompatible implementation, put the Java logo on it and claimed compatibility.

Android has never claimed to be a compliant Java platform, it merely lets you use the Java programming language and GNU's standard java library (gcj & libjava) to build apps for Android.

Re: Profiting on the Backs of Others

[ArmoredDragon]

Microsoft created libraries that were compatible with Sun's Java, and then added their own proprietary (and incompatible) extensions to pull developers away from the real Java. This was a deliberate move to make sure that developers had to target Windows and couldn't target ordinary Java (which could run on any other platform) By the way, this was the same motivation Microsoft had for creating Internet Explorer (that is, they didn't want developers being able to target a web browser instead of an operating system.)

The whole idea was to force end users to stay with Windows instead of anything else, as Microsoft wanted to maintain their monopoly status.

Android on the other hand wasn't attempting to do that. That is, it never made any effort to pull any developers away from the Java platform, nor was it ever intended to do that in the future, nor did they make any attempt at being compatible with existing Java applications. Sure, it would be easier to port Java applications over, but it's intended to be the same at all, whereas Microsoft's implementation was intended to be a drop-in replacement.

Furthermore, Sun won their case against Microsoft because it was proven that Microsoft did what they did for anti-competitive reasons; copyright infringement was never claimed at any point. And likewise, Oracle isn't making any kind of anti-compete claims towards Google.

Oracle is just saying "Hey, you created an interface with similar naming to something created by a company we purchased. Even though other companies have done the same thing numerous times and have never been sued before, we're going to shake you down because we happened to have noticed just how successful you are and we'd like to get on your gravy train without having contributed anything to it."

Which by the way, what I just said above is typical Oracle behavior. When somebody comes along that does something similar to what they do, then they first try to buy it out, and if they can't buy it out, then they sue it out. Having said that, Oracle is every bit as much of an asshole company as Microsoft has ever been, if not more so.

Re:Profiting on the Backs of Others

[Dutch Gun]

By "irreversibly destroyed Java's fundamental value", Oracle means "we should be getting payments from Google because they're using a version of Java that they didn't license from us to make money." Everything else is fluff.

Re: Profiting on the Backs of Others

[fredgiblet]

If we refused to buy from any company that did anything assholeish then there'd be nothing to buy.

Fuck Oracle

[binarylarry]

Java was never useful on phones until Google built something decent.

Sun/Oracle could never build a decent phone with Java, no matter how much money they pumped into it.

If you work somewhere that uses Oracle products or is considering an Oracle product, fight to the bone to get their shitware tossed out.

We need to end this company, it's a tumor in the software ecosystem.

Innovate, not litigate

[GigaplexNZ]

irreversibly destroyed Java's fundamental value proposition as a potential mobile device operating system

Well there's the problem. Oracle thinks the language and runtime are a complete operating system. There's nothing stopping Oracle making a different OS that uses Java. In fact, the vast amount of libraries for Android out there should be easy to port. Next we'll hear how Microsoft destroyed the value of C as used to build an OS.

JAVA FTW

[Anonymous Coward]

Java...[garbage collection] is the .[garbage collection] best .[garbage collection] programming .[garbage collection].[garbage collection] language for .[garbage collection] mobile devices .[garbage collection] .[garbage collection] because it is .[garbage collection] faster .[garbage collection] then C++ and .[garbage collection] more .[garbage collection].[garbage collection].[garbage collection] deterministic and .[garbage collection] .[garbage collection] .[garbage collection] nev .[garbage collection] er .[garbage collection] drops .[garbage collection].[garbage collection].[garbage collection] user .[garbage collection].[garbage collection] input.

I like Java .[garbage collection] becuase .[garbage collection].[garbage collection] it's write .[garbage collection].[garbage collection] once, .[garbage collection].[garbage collection].[garbage collection] and it runs .[garbage collection] .[garbage collection].[garbage collection] provided you have all .[garbage collection].[garbage collection].[garbage collection] the libraries, the .[garbage collection].[garbage collection].[garbage collection] correct java interpreter .[garbage collection].[garbage collection].[garbage collection] and enough .[garbage collection].[garbage collection]

javax.servlet.ServletException: Something bad happened
at com.example.myproject.OpenSessionInViewFilter.doFilter(OpenSessionInViewFilter.java:60)
at org.mortbay.jetty.servlet.ServletHandler$CachedChain.doFilter(ServletHandler.java:1157)
at com.example.myproject.ExceptionHandlerFilter.doFilter(ExceptionHandlerFilter.java:28)
at org.mortbay.jetty.servlet.ServletHandler$CachedChain.doFilter(ServletHandler.java:1157)
at com.example.myproject.OutputBufferFilter.doFilter(OutputBufferFilter.java:33)
at org.mortbay.jetty.servlet.ServletHandler$CachedChain.doFilter(ServletHandler.java:1157)
at org.mortbay.jetty.servlet.ServletHandler.handle(ServletHandler.java:388)
at org.mortbay.jetty.security.SecurityHandler.handle(SecurityHandler.java:216)
at org.mortbay.jetty.servlet.SessionHandler.handle(SessionHandler.java:182)
at org.mortbay.jetty.handler.ContextHandler.handle(ContextHandler.java:765)
at org.mortbay.jetty.webapp.WebAppContext.handle(WebAppContext.java:418)
at org.mortbay.jetty.handler.HandlerWrapper.handle(HandlerWrapper.java:152)
at org.mortbay.jetty.Server.handle(Server.java:326)
at org.mortbay.jetty.HttpConnection.handleRequest(HttpConnection.java:542)
at org.mortbay.jetty.HttpConnection$RequestHandler.content(HttpConnection.java:943)
at org.mortbay.jetty.HttpParser.parseNext(HttpParser.java:756)
at org.mortbay.jetty.HttpParser.parseAvailable(HttpParser.java:218)
at org.mortbay.jetty.HttpConnection.handle(HttpConnection.java:404)
at org.mortbay.jetty.bio.SocketConnector$Connection.run(SocketConnector.java:228)
at org.mortbay.thread.QueuedThreadPool$PoolThread.run(QueuedThreadPool.java:582)
Caused by: com.example.myproject.MyProjectServletException

Re:JAVA FTW

[The Evil Atheist]

Which is where you'd want most error messages to happen.

Re:JAVA FTW

[ckatko]

Actually, it's pretty pathetic that C++ doesn't give you a stack trace for exceptions.

Though, as an aside, that just reminded me of the equally-as-pathetic amount of Stockholm Syndrome exhibited by C++ programmers on Stack Overflow:

http://stackoverflow.com/quest...

You don't need it! They're useless! If you use it you're not a good programmer! Why would you want C++ to be like other languages?!

Ooops, misread the headline

[gnunick]

At first, I read that as "Oracle Has 'Destroyed' the Market For Java"... which, of course, seemed quite plausible.

RIP SUN

Re:Ooops, misread the headline

[garyisabusyguy]

Yes, I had a couple of Sparc Stations in the 90's and admined SunOS and Solaris on those and some enterprise server systems, but

Fuck Sun, they favored proprietary server systems that lined their sales-reps' pockets with cash while the world changed around them and then sold all of their knowledge lock stock and barrel to Oracle, simply because Oracle users were their largest remaining customer base

I feel the same way about DEC, who flushed thirty years of Alpha architectural superiority down the drain because they couldn't sell their way out of a wet paper sack

We get what we deserve because we let the free market reign supreme where the most cut throated business-people win and the rest go down the drain

Really???

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anybody feel sorry for Oracle???

Oracle, please look in the mirror

[JPyObjC Dude]

The contenders for biggest enemies of Java are:

1) Micro$oft - Effectively killed the JavaBean web plugin market with their own lackluster JVM via EEE (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish).

JavaBeans is the technology that has the biggest negative view on the net and rightly so. If Microsoft had not done such a good job killing it, Java would likely be in a different light today as more energy would have been spent making JavaBean libraries better while the real engineers at Sun still had control of the source.

2) Oracle - They just do not get open source or anything that came from Sun.

Google has popularized Java way more than Oracle could ever imagine.

"You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn, you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end" - B. Cantrill

Cry me a river

[chromaexcursion]

Sun destroyed the market for Java.
Sun wanted to sell hardware, and they designed Java to run well with their hardware. Sun's ideal was the network is the computer. Java is/was a client language that could run on a lot of platforms, with in Sun's mind a Sun server at the other end. Didn't quite work out that way. Sun was going belly up, Oracle bought the carcass. Sun gave Java away. You can't put the jinni back in the bottle.
Java was worthless when Oracle bought Sun. They're engaged in revisionist history trying to milk a dead cow.

Re:Cry me a river

[MouseR]

Oracle had (and still have) much reliance on Java and Sun hardware for their server & middleware tiers. They simply could NOT let it die along with Sun or, worse yet, let it pass to a competitor.

Disclaimer: that's as far as I will comment on that issue, as I am an Oracle employee. Though I have nothing to do with the Java or Sun group, the native mobile apps I develop eventually touches Java code, server side. It's everywhere.

Keep up, or fall behind

[Nyder]

The tech industry, just like every industry, improves as people discover new and better ways to do things. If you can't keep up Oracle, you fall behind. And since you've chosen to litigate instead of innovate, you have fallen behind.

No one is guaranteed profit.

Re: Oracle's monopoly?

[garyisabusyguy]

Yes, and what exactly did Sun do with that?

Oh yeah, there is JavaFX, which still requires an OS to run on

That is where the disconnect is

Oracle confuses language and operating system

[Morgaine]

'Android has now irreversibly destroyed Java 's fundamental value proposition as a potential mobile device operating system ,'

Java is a programming language, not an operating system. Examples of operating systems are Linux and Unix.

Nothing could have "destroyed Java's fundamental value proposition as a potential mobile device operating system" because the value proposition of Java as an operating system is zero, and always has been. It's like the value proposition of an orange to be an apple.

Oracle's nonsensical claim might be merely a case of lawyers or managers showing their ignorance of the computing subject domain or just being sloppy with their terminology, which is not uncommon. However, it gets worse.

A proprietary software package may have a calculated expectation of market share and profit if there is no competition, but this is not the case with programming languages because they always have competition from countless other languages. It is especially not the case with open source programming languages because they typically enjoy multiple implementations, and these make captive markets almost impossible to maintain.

It seems therefore that Oracle's market expectations were based on a flawed analysis.

That mistake would have made any market expectations unsafe, but any expectations were dealt a further blow by Oracle's highly abusive attempt to copyright SSO in their litigation against Google. This must have alienated practically everybody who knows anything about programming, and the likelihood is high that many Java programmers who had other languages available must have abandoned Java like the plague to avoid potential SSO copyright liability.

In other words, if anyone killed off interest in Java, it was probably Oracle themselves.

Re: Oracle's monopoly?

[MacTO]

In general, no. Unfortunately, Oracle owns the rights to Java. That means that Google must comply with Oracle's terms within the limits defined by law. Doubly unfortunately, that means that everyone with a vested interest in the situation is going to have to watch a drawn out soap opera as the case winds its way through the courts.

Re:Oracle's monopoly?

[Z00L00K]

Oracle are the ones that have destroyed Java since nobody trusts Oracle and their licensing.

Re: Google/Android should replace Java with C#

[GigaplexNZ]

What legal battle with Microsoft? As the OP already stated, Microsoft has put C# out there for 3rd party implementations with a legal guarantee not to sue.

Re: Oracle's monopoly?

[gl4ss]

sony-e had a working prototype all java(with I suppose their own os underneath). basically android was a clone of that.

but what sunoracle fucked up in the mid 00's was being too slow in developing j2me extensions(and the 'all java' phone os that they kept in different projects for years and years) and just badly managing how they could be used(four security dialogs for creating a file in a folder on the sd card each with two clicks from the user, for example - NO MATTER WHAT SIGNING YOU PAID FOR), thus the market for android was there when android emerged.

as for j2me, the process a new API went through to be an approved API was just stupid. the end result was api's that had always some flaw on them or were just unusable from the day 1, like the j2me 3d _scene_ descriptor shit, which was just a wrong, wrong way to go about it on the hw and use it was launching for(like, the api might have been ok for making some animation suite or whatever, but shitty for making games).

there was a market for a java development based smartphone os all right.. they just dragged their feet on it for way too long, so that market hole is now filled with android.

they just didn't care about it enough to make sure that the shit they were certifying and dictating how it should be was usable at all.

Re:It always sucked

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that why Java rules the enterprise and Microsoft is relegated as a distant outsider? Java pretty much dominates enterprise development. C#? Not so much. Just ask the London stock exchange for experience with Microsoft and C#.

Since the London Stock Exchange switched to Linux/C++, your comment is irrelevant to this discussion.

http://www.computerworlduk.com...

Oracle didn't need any help destroying Java

[DrXym]

They managed to do it all by themselves. I used to program set top boxes with J2ME and dear god was it awful. J2ME was so stripped down that it simply wasn't fit for purpose by the end. It didn't even contain fundamental classes that had been in Java since 1.2 like ArrayList! And it was very expensive to licence too.

So we ended up using another VM called Skelmir which was a clean room Java, roughly analogous to Java 1.5 SE albeit missing some stuff mostly in the javax & sun namespaces. Performance was better, it was cheaper and it was possible to develop normal Java code with a reasonable expectation it would work on the STB. I'm sure the same sentiment was felt everywhere. Companies resented being charging an arm and a leg for a piece of shit runtime which was barely fit for purpose.

As for why Google succeeded where Oracle failed... It's because they offered more or less a full Java SE API and a rich mobile API that allowed developers to write apps without making compromises. It didn't really matter that the byte code was compiled into something else because they also provided excellent tools that integrated with Eclipse to take care of all that.

I don't believe for a second that if Google hadn't used Java as their API that Oracle would have triumphed. Not in the slightest. If anything Google did Oracle a favour by using their language and therefore keeping it relevant for portable devices.

Re: Oracle's monopoly?

[AC-x]

That means that Google must comply with Oracle's terms within the limits defined by law.

But Google doesn't use Java, they use Dalvik/ART, which aren't written by Oracle and therefore don't have Oracle's ToCs attached to them.

They do happen to be compatible with Java, but if you are allowed to copyright APIs (which is what Oracle are pushing for) then that would be absolutely insane for the IT industry, as you wouldn't be able to implement an API (or possibly even access an API) without the permission of whoever wrote that API.

Re: Oracle's monopoly?

[AC-x]

They didn't make something that worked similarly to Java - that would have been OK, C# is similar to Java after all. They made something that was *identical* to Java. If they didn't want to be sued they should have made their own API and their own language

What it comes down to is should APIs be copyrightable. Google created their own implementation of the Java API, if companies are allowed to copyright APIs then you can kiss WINE goodbye immediately, anyone wanting to implement an existing API would also be in trouble, and you might not even be able to create a program that even accesses an API without explicit permission.

To come back to your metaphor just because something implements the IDuck interface doesn't mean it's the same kind of duck.

Re: Oracle's monopoly?

[omnichad]

You can install an APK without that. Blame the developers for not releasing free apps directly as an APK.

In that case, it's no different than Windows 8 or 10 or even OS X. There's an app store, but you don't have to use it.

Re: Oracle's monopoly?

[phantomfive]

but if you are allowed to copyright APIs (which is what Oracle are pushing for)

You are allowed to copyright APIs. This case went through the appellate court, which ruled that APIs are copyrightable, and to the supreme court, which let that ruling stand.

The case has moved on, and is now trying to determine if Google has a fair use defense. But there is no doubt that APIs are copyrightable under current law.