Oracle Tells Supreme Court Google Copyright Breach Knocked It Out Of Smartphone Market (crn.com)

When evil battles evil by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2019-03-28 03:34 · Score: 2, Funny

Who do I root for?

Hopefully this will be a very long, messy, and expensive legal battle for both companies.

--
#DeleteChrome

Re:When evil battles evil by Tablizer · 2019-03-28 03:40 · Score: 5, Informative

Who do I root for?
Oracle is trying to trick the courts into allowing the copyrighting of interfaces. Before it was mostly limited implementation. Thus, Oracle is potentially doing more damage to the legal system.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:When evil battles evil by green1 · 2019-03-28 03:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well, you could maybe look at what the argument is, instead of who brought it forward. I know it's cool to hate on the big companies, and we all know it's well deserved, but who the players are should not affect the merit, or lack thereof, of any particular argument.

In this particular case, you root for Google. Not because Google is in any way "good" or "not evil", but because Oracle is trying to ensure that no company can ever make anything interoperable with another company's stuff ever again. There is no accusation that Google copied code, only that they re-implemented the API. A strict interpretation in favour of Oracle would mean that you could never use anyone's API to interface with them without violating their copyright (or paying royalties, etc) This would be a very dangerous precedent.
Re: When evil battles evil by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 03:56 · Score: 1

Because it's patented.
Re:When evil battles evil by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 03:56 · Score: 1

Not true.
In the Berne Convention the act of creation grants copyright, so there is no such thing as an unencumbered API if Oracle's interpretation prevails.
Re: When evil battles evil by green1 · 2019-03-28 04:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

Unfortunately the legal precedent wouldn't be just for Java. It would be for all APIs for every piece of software ever written.

You may not like Java, and that's perfectly fair, but that's not a reason to root for Oracle in this case.
Re:When evil battles evil by green1 · 2019-03-28 04:27 · Score: 2

A company is still free to explicitly give those rights to the public domain, or license them under a non-restrictive license.

Of course it makes it an active act that tends to go against shareholder interests, vs a passive act that's for the betterment of society as a whole, so the odds of it happening in most cases is very small.
Re: When evil battles evil by gmiller123456 · 2019-03-28 04:33 · Score: 1

Because it's patented.
Patents are only good for about 20 years. Any patents on the original x86 instrutions would have expired long ago.
Re:When evil battles evil by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 04:38 · Score: 1

Who do I root for?
Oracle is trying to trick the courts into allowing the copyrighting of interfaces. Before it was mostly limited implementation. Thus, Oracle is potentially doing more damage to the legal system.
Commander-in-chief has justified the use of threats and intimidation against justices, so it's now the norm. In a year or two we'll all be going "I remember back when you just had to threaten a SCOTUS justice to get your way, not actually take one out. Boy, those were the days".
Re:When evil battles evil by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-28 04:42 · Score: 3, Funny

Hopefully this will be a very long, messy, and expensive legal battle for both companies.
But then the lawyers win, and as terrible as Oracle and Google may be nothing justifies the lawyers winning.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:When evil battles evil by hairyfeet · 2019-03-28 05:13 · Score: 1

How is this ANY different than the MS Java case? Google went to Oracle( just like MSFT went to Sun) and tried to get a license while offering peanuts. Oracle (just like Sun) say "No we won't accept that" and Google (just like MSFT) copied it and slapped a different name on it.
The only difference I can see is that Google gave it a weird name while MSFT called it MS Java so by this logic MSFT would have been perfectly fine to rip off Sun if they would have called their version something like flexfair or some other BS name.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:When evil battles evil by Aighearach · 2019-03-28 05:28 · Score: 1

That's a physical, hardware interface. This story is about purely software interfaces.
Re:When evil battles evil by StormReaver · 2019-03-28 05:29 · Score: 1

How is this ANY different than the MS Java case?
Microsoft agreed to abide by Sun's licensing terms in exchange for being allowed to call J# an implementation of Java. Microsoft violated those terms by making J# incompatible with Java.
Google copied the interface specification, wrote its entirely own implementation, and made it quite clear that it was NOT Java; but rather had a high degree of compatibility with certain parts of Java.
These cases could hardly be any more different. They are nearly polar opposites.
Given that, Google was really stupid about the whole thing. It should have started with the GPL'd Java, stripped out the parts not wanted for Android, then GPL'd the whole thing. Tada! A clean and completely unassailable (through copyright) Android. Plus many millions of litigation dollars saved.
Re:When evil battles evil by nitehawk214 · 2019-03-28 05:30 · Score: 1

Exactly. It's funny because it's a repeat of the battle over Java vs J++ over 20 years ago.

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Re:When evil battles evil by StormReaver · 2019-03-28 05:36 · Score: 2, Informative

Dammit! Why the hell doesn't Slashdot provide a preview feature before posting!?
Oh, wait.
This is how it should have looked:

How is this ANY different than the MS Java case?
Microsoft agreed to abide by Sun's licensing terms in exchange for being allowed to call J# an implementation of Java. Microsoft violated those terms by making J# incompatible with Java.
Google copied the interface specification, wrote its entirely own implementation, and made it quite clear that it was NOT Java; but rather had a high degree of compatibility with certain parts of Java.
These cases could hardly be any more different. They are nearly polar opposites.
Given that, Google was really stupid about the whole thing. It should have started with the GPL'd Java, stripped out the parts not wanted for Android, then GPL'd the whole thing. Tada! A clean and completely unassailable (through copyright) Android. Plus many millions of litigation dollars saved.
Re:When evil battles evil by Aighearach · 2019-03-28 05:47 · Score: 2

A company is still free to explicitly give those rights to the public domain
Why don't you look that up and see what lawyers say before you state it as fact?
Stated it as a fact without a "some people believe" or other weasely caveat makes it into a straight lie.
The very comment you replied to informed correctly that the Berne Convention says you gain copyright when you create the work. That is not in dispute.
And which law says you can place a work into the public domain? There isn't one. There isn't one, so according to the Berne Convention, there the copyright sits with the creator of the work, even after they said words that included "public domain."
There simply is no legal mechanism to place works into the public domain. It is not a real thing.
Re:When evil battles evil by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 05:58 · Score: 1

If you put Google and Oracle on the same plane of existence your moral compass is broken and your judgement should not be trusted.
I'd sign my soul to google for a stick of gum rather than have to enter any business transaction with Oracle. I'd come out way ahead with the former!
Ask the same question of literally anyone who's had to deal with Oracle before and they'll tell you the same answer before you're done speaking.
Re:When evil battles evil by green1 · 2019-03-28 05:58 · Score: 2

And yet many people have successfully done just that. So I'd say it is you who have not researched it. Yes, you automatically get copyright on your works. But you are free to license that in any way you want. Including free for everyone with no strings attached.
Re:When evil battles evil by sfcat · 2019-03-28 06:06 · Score: 1

Google copied the interface specification, wrote its entirely own implementation, and made it quite clear that it was NOT Java; but rather had a high degree of compatibility with certain parts of Java.
These cases could hardly be any more different. They are nearly polar opposites.
Given that, Google was really stupid about the whole thing. It should have started with the GPL'd Java, stripped out the parts not wanted for Android, then GPL'd the whole thing. Tada! A clean and completely unassailable (through copyright) Android. Plus many millions of litigation dollars saved.
That's not strictly true. Google did more than that. They copied much more than just the interfaces. Then all they had to do is NOT remove Oracle's name from the source code. Somehow that's the one thing that Google did. The secondary issues here are big but the core issue is one of utter stupidity (and seemingly ego) on Google's part. Other companies do this all the time without violating the license of the original code. Somehow, Google was unable to do that and scrubbed out Oracle's name everywhere and removed the Oracle license files. If they hadn't done that, this case either wouldn't exist or would be a very different case that Google probably would have won. I expect the courts to do what they usually do when they don't understand an issue. They will issue a very narrow ruling in Oracle's favor covering just own Google's stupidity and refuse to rule on all the other important secondary issues like can interfaces be copyrighted. And legal nerds will be disappointed but that's normal...

--
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
Re:When evil battles evil by sfcat · 2019-03-28 06:10 · Score: 1

Exactly. It's funny because it's a repeat of the battle over Java vs J++ over 20 years ago.
Its not. MS was making an intentionally incompatible version of Java. Google wasn't trying to do and didn't do that. This is about Google not being able to follow basic legal advice. Its also a pretty damning indictment of problem's in Google's management as this is caused by simple ego and not some complex legal trip up.

--
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
Re:When evil battles evil by Aighearach · 2019-03-28 06:25 · Score: 1

Look up the legal debate on the issue, Dunderhead. Don't just assert opinion as fact, on the hope that you're right.
People have said those words. That doesn't mean their words overrule the Berne Convention. It doesn't mean their works are "in the public domain." They advertised an impossible promise. That doesn't guarantee you shit, but it sure as hell isn't a law that can supersede anything.
Re:When evil battles evil by green1 · 2019-03-28 06:38 · Score: 1

Who, you called me a name, that MUST make you right! You don't need to do actual research, you can insult people! I never said they could overrule the Berne convention, there's no conflict between being given copyright, and allowing the world to use it for free with no strings attached. All the laws state is that you automatically get the choice, and that without any action on your part nobody can use it in any way whatsoever. If you were right on this and people couldn't give away the right to use their creations, they also wouldn't be able to make money licensing work to others. Putting something in the public domain is as simple as issuing a license to everyone, for no money, with no conditions attached. This is legally no different from giving someone a limited license in exchange for money which is done millions of times every day. BTW, you didn't state which copyright cartel you're shilling for. That sort of disclosure would be appropriate in cases where you deliberately try to mislead people in this manner.
Re: When evil battles evil by illiac_1962 · 2019-03-28 06:46 · Score: 1

Yes they are leveraging the court's ignorance in an attempt to manipulate them with false dichotomies and rickety metaphors.
Re:When evil battles evil by Aighearach · 2019-03-28 06:46 · Score: 1

Who, you called me a name, that MUST make you right! You don't need to do actual research, you can insult people!
I never said they could overrule the Berne convention, there's no conflict between being given copyright, and allowing the world to use it for free with no strings attached.

You're unable to continue thinking, because I called you a name. That calls for another one! LOL
You don't seem to comprehend that "Public Domain" isn't a name you can call something, it is an actual legal status of the work, and you can't use words to cause that legal status to magically appear; doing so, if successful, would violate the Berne Convention.
Insisting you're doing it for a good cause doesn't cause it to be the law. Only a fucking idiot would think that. See how easy it is to prevent you from thinking for yourself?
Re:When evil battles evil by green1 · 2019-03-28 06:54 · Score: 1

Definition of madness: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

In this case, repeating falsehoods.

Sure, have it your way. All record labels, all movie studios, and all software companies will go out of business immediately. It is 100% impossible for them to make money as doing so relies on licensing their work to others, which as you clearly state is impossible under the Berne convention

Until you can show me the actual text of law that shows the exact minimum payment legally allowed to license work, it's clear that you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about. Licensing for free is exactly the same as licensing for money. If you can't do one, you can't do the other either.
Re:When evil battles evil by Aighearach · 2019-03-28 06:56 · Score: 1

You can't change the Berne Convention by calling it false. The United States Congress joined it in the 1980s. It is the Law.
Re: When evil battles evil by TheRaven64 · 2019-03-28 07:24 · Score: 1

x86-64 with SSE2 is just about coming out of patent. That's quite an interesting baseline, because that's still the target for a lot of binaries, but anything that depends on SSE4, AVX, or any of the other CPU features that Intel has introduced in the last 20 years likely have patents attached. If you're interested, Intel has a public graph that you can probably find of the number of patents on each CPU feature.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:When evil battles evil by Dragonslicer · 2019-03-28 07:39 · Score: 1

You don't seem to comprehend that "Public Domain" isn't a name you can call something, it is an actual legal status of the work, and you can't use words to cause that legal status to magically appear; doing so, if successful, would violate the Berne Convention.
Based on a brief search on Google, the last bit isn't true. It looks like a country can have a mechanism for releasing a work into the public domain (e.g. The Netherlands) without violating the Berne Convention. I don't know, however, how many countries have such a law; for example, I didn't find anything that says the USA does.
Re:When evil battles evil by HornWumpus · 2019-03-28 08:02 · Score: 1

What we need is the shakespearean punishment.
First we kill ALL the lawyers.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:When evil battles evil by green1 · 2019-03-28 08:49 · Score: 1

I never called it false. I called your ridiculous interpretation of it false. There's a big difference.

As for law. I'm still waiting for you to show me the specific wording in the law that sets out minimum prices you can charge for a copyright license. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Re:When evil battles evil by green1 · 2019-03-28 08:59 · Score: 1

Even the US government you are stating signed this in to law doesn't believe your take on it, as they themselves specifically place items in the public domain (e.g. see the copyright page on the CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/contributor_copyright.html) which despite a publishing date of 2016, is explicitly in the public domain.

If you don't find the CIA authoritative on this matter, let's go to the Copyright Office itself, and look at the Federal Regulations as they pertain to software (from https://www.copyright.gov/title37/201/37cfr201-26.html):
Title 37 Part 201.26:
(b)(3) Public domain computer software means software which has been publicly distributed with an explicit disclaimer of copyright protection by the copyright owner.

So you're the only person who seems to think that you absolutely must charge for licenses from all people, and cannot distribute work for free if you want to (despite millions of pieces of work that fall under that category)
Re:When evil battles evil by jonwil · 2019-03-28 09:28 · Score: 1

Oracle is FAR more evil (both in this case and in general) than Google is.
And the harm to software development more generally if Oracle wins could be very bad.
Re:When evil battles evil by Darinbob · 2019-03-28 10:19 · Score: 1

But then... I'm just trying to imagine what an Oracle Phone would have looked like. It would have made the Microsoft Phone look awesome in comparison.
Re:When evil battles evil by Greyfox · 2019-03-28 11:02 · Score: 1

And Sun and Oracle would not have built a smart phone in any event. Sun wouldn't have done it because everyone with any vision left the company when it went all ISO-Processy after they hit it big. The only people who were left by the time they went bankrupt were useless twatwaffles who would sit in their cubes all day boasting about how they were ISO blackbelts and were going to some important convention next month. And Oracle wouldn't have built one because the bottom line on consumer devices doesn't have enough digits in it to justify risking an R&D project. If they wanted to get into the smartphone market now, they could build a thing on top of Linux just like Google did, and that thing would have a pretty low bar of entry on the suckage to be better than the iPhone and Android interfaces today, but they won't. And if they did, the interface would be ass, just like every other thing Oracle makes.
It's not like we haven't seen this exact scenario play out before. SCO was in the same boat back when Linux came out. People started asking why they should drop 4 or 5 digits on SCO licenses when there was that awesome free software over there that did exactly the same thing, only better because the GUI didn't suck (IIRC SCO was some variant of CDE or something that looked like it, and the early gnome/kde/enlightenment projects all put it to shame.) So right now companies are asking, in ever increasing numbers, why they should deploy an Oracle database when they could just drop Postgres or MariaDB in, and the vast majority of those companies can absolutely get away with doing that. And in the same history-repeating-itself fashion, Oracle seems to be pinning their future hopes on copyright lawsuits. Now they have much more money than SCO did back in the day, so maybe they can afford a better lawyer. Or at the very least they probably won't die off as quickly as SCO did. Although every once in a while Zombie SCO rises from the dead and reminds us that it's still here, so maybe not.
In any event, if they had any actually good ideas, they'd just STFU and go build something cool, but they won't, because they are not cool and they never have been. At least Sun was cool for a while back in the '80's. Not Jurassic Park cool, but pretty cool nonetheless.

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Re:When evil battles evil by drinkypoo · 2019-03-28 12:03 · Score: 1

The only difference I can see is that Google gave it a weird name while MSFT called it MS Java so by this logic MSFT would have been perfectly fine to rip off Sun if they would have called their version something like flexfair or some other BS name.
That's correct. M$ actually got dinged for violating their trademark and deliberately creating confusion in the marketplace by calling their non-conforming implementation "Java". You are entirely correct that if they had not called it Java, they would have been fine. But they did, and the court ruled that they did it deliberately.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:When evil battles evil by drinkypoo · 2019-03-28 12:19 · Score: 1

People started asking why they should drop 4 or 5 digits on SCO licenses when there was that awesome free software over there that did exactly the same thing, only better because the GUI didn't suck (IIRC SCO was some variant of CDE or something that looked like it,
SCO had a non-CDE Motif desktop in the Unix product they called SCO Open Desktop. It still used the same Motif libraries as CDE, though. Motif has been open source all along, in fact Motif for Linux was delivered as source code. I'm pretty sure Caldera threw away SCO ODT and replaced it with a new and highly similar Motif-based desktop when they released Caldera Network Desktop, which was an early version of redhat bundled with Motif.

and the early gnome/kde/enlightenment projects all put it to shame.)
It's important to remember that at the time, the state of desktop environments for Linux was not very good. There were no complete desktop enviroments when Caldera Network Desktop came out in 1996. Open Desktop 2.0, which I believe was the first recognizable SCO Motif desktop, dates from 1992. There were no complete desktop environments on Linux even in 1996 — 1996 is when KDE was founded, and GNOME didn't come out until 1999. Back in those days, Enlightenment was only a window manager, not a desktop environment. It didn't have any file manager, and AFAIK it still doesn't have a good one. Actually, even CDE wasn't released until 1993, and when it came out it was the only non-proprietary desktop for Unix.
It's easy to laugh at SCO Unix from a modern vantage point, but at the time it was the most complete Unix commercially available for the PC. Before SCO Unix, it was SCO Xenix, and before SCO Xenix it was Microsoft Xenix.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:When evil battles evil by Tablizer · 2019-03-28 12:21 · Score: 1

Isn't x86 and x86-64 just an interface? Why does it need to be licensed?
My understanding is that the names of the machine language commands and registers are copyrighted. One can make a compatible chip without IP infringements, but if your documentation uses the commands or register names, then you face copyright problems. The names of the parts are not really an interface because the actual commands and register names are actually just numbers in practice. In machine language, the "FU" register may be "23" as in register 23. "FU" is just a nickname for programmers to use for human-to-human communication.
Thus, if one wants to write technical documentation that uses the common nicknames, such as "Register FU" instead of "Register 23", they'd have to license the rights to use the names. Because there is chip competition, to get system designers and programmers to use your (cloned) chip instead of the original, you want decent documentation. There's where the license pressure comes.
I'm no IP lawyer, so don't quote me on this.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re: When evil battles evil by aliquis · 2019-03-28 13:38 · Score: 1

Yeah US company case lawyers are the good guys.
Re: When evil battles evil by Tablizer · 2019-03-28 17:20 · Score: 1

It could be a borderline case that could go either way, or at least take a long time to get overturned such that co's would rather just negotiate royalties instead of pay for more lawyers.
Even if one estimates there is say a 75% chance of winning, it could still take a lot of money to get to that eventual win. There's plenty of judges who fuck up technology cases.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:When evil battles evil by tricorn · 2019-03-28 21:33 · Score: 1

They did not copy any of Sun's code. They started off with the Harmony version of the Java API, and followed the terms of the Apache license it was released under.
At the time they started, the Sun source code was not under the GPL. Sun wanted them to use Java ME, and wouldn't agree to let them use Java SE.
The license that Harmony was developed under allowed for development of an independent version of the Java API, under whatever license they wanted to release it as. The sticking point for the Apache Foundation was that the TCK, used to validate an implementation as conforming to the interface specification, couldn't be released as open source. Without that, you can't use the Java trademark on your product.
So Apache decided to just not get it certified as conforming.
Google never used the Java trademark. Their implementation of individual methods, and the documentation (as javadoc comments) was also found to be non-infringing.
What the CAFC found to be protected, that Google had copied, was the interface itself, the hierarchy of names and the structure of the relationships (e.g. class and interface inheritance). They also found that Google had infringed on the declarations from the Java API source code (which can only be written one way in Java if you want to describe the same API).
Re:When evil battles evil by Lonewolf666 · 2019-03-28 22:46 · Score: 1

A strict interpretation in favour of Oracle would mean that you could never use anyone's API to interface with them without violating their copyright (or paying royalties, etc)

Unless they have given you a license. Which is the case for virtually all Open Source projects, unless I'm badly misreading the legal situation. Competition wise, corporations that don't readily hand out such licenses might hurt themselves quite a bit.
This said, I'd still prefer if the Supreme Courts would throw out Oracle's argument. It would give everyone a safer legal situation.

--
C - the footgun of programming languages
Re: When evil battles evil by cpt+kangarooski · 2019-03-29 00:32 · Score: 1

Well, the Berne Convention is not the law in the US, so it really doesn't matter what it says or doesn't say. See 17 USC 104(c). All we care about here is what our own laws say (whether they are in agreement with Berne or not).

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re:When evil battles evil by Greyfox · 2019-03-29 02:48 · Score: 1

Sure, my first job was on a SCO Xenix box running on a 286. We installed an Intel Aboveboard on it for another megabyte of RAM. I got the card and a loose handful of RAM chips and was told to get to it. Good times!
IIRC I got my first PC in '91 or '92. Prior to that I had some somewhat more esoteric machines. The system had 4 MB of RAM and a small (40 or 80 MB I think) hard drive. I initially installed OS/2 on it, and slackware a little later on. Couldn't run X11 on it, though -- it had a VGA card but the system just couldn't handle the load of graphics. It was a few years later when I finally upgraded to a system powerful enough to run X, and by then early Gnome, KDE and Enlightenment projects were getting underway. Although I don't remember the exact timeline, around the turn of the millenium or so Loki games was porting some popular games to Linux, you could kind of run Ultima Online either via a native client or early Wine, and people were actually started to get interested in Linux.
SCO was a complete UNIX for a PC, yes, but if you wanted all the stuff that makes UNIX UNIX, you had to spring for a fair bit of additional stuff. IIRC a C compiler and TCP/IP were both neighborhood of $1500, and I think I recall that they wanted $600 or something for nroff/troff. My first job was cheap so I ended up doing a software project for them with shell scripts and foxbase. I did get UUCP up and running on the machine for a while though.

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Re:When evil battles evil by green1 · 2019-03-29 03:23 · Score: 1

Do you really think Microsoft will happily hand over a license to Wine? or LibreOffice?
I doubt the various free SQL servers would have much luck getting licenses either.

Sure, open source software would happily grant licenses, but more often than not the open source project is on the other side of the equation, relying on interoperability to survive.

An order like this would cripple most of those projects.
Re:When evil battles evil by drinkypoo · 2019-03-30 05:38 · Score: 1

I got Xenix for my 286 (on 5.25" HD floppy) from someone on the dev team. By the time I got a 386, Linux was a thing, and I installed Slackware from a bunch of 3.5" HD floppies...

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:Wow by MightyMartian · 2019-03-28 03:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm fascinated to hear what products Oracle had in the works that Google wrecked by re-using Java library headers.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Re:Wow by ZorinLynx · 2019-03-28 03:37 · Score: 1

Yeah, I'm a bit confused here. I don't recall Oracle or Sun ever trying to break into the smartphone market.

And frankly knowing Oracle I'm so incredibly glad they didn't.

API... not code by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 03:41 · Score: 1

Precedence... Google might look to a certain OS MS-DOS that copied the API of CP/M.

Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't admit that I prefer to be abused by Google to being abused by Oracle. So I might be biased.

Re:API... not code by jabuzz · 2019-03-28 04:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

Don't worry IBM are quietly rubbing their hands in glee. Should Oracle succeed, they should expect to find themselves in court for ripping off IBM's SEQUEL back when they where Relational Software. It's a bit of a silly game for Oracle to play IMHO.
Re:API... not code by bongey · 2019-03-28 07:11 · Score: 1

Technically IBM through the sub Red Hat, came out for Google. Microsoft I think is coming out for Oracle to be evil. IE don't use java because Oracle will sue you, use .NET instead.
Re:API... not code by jfdavis668 · 2019-03-28 08:36 · Score: 1

I was thinking the very same thing.

If you have to license an API -- make your own by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 03:42 · Score: 1

I'd like a list of the # of entity's that have actually paid Oracle a license fee for a single Java API. I betting the number approaches ZERO.

Could you imagine.... by IWantMoreSpamPlease · 2019-03-28 03:45 · Score: 3, Funny

A smartphone developed by Oracle?
I've been fortunate enough never to have crossed paths with Oracle's infamous licensing terms, but I could picture it now:

Every time you used your phone for any purpose whatsoever, you'd have to pay a fee to Oracle.

--
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.

Re:Could you imagine.... by Kernel+Kurtz · 2019-03-28 03:59 · Score: 1

A smartphone developed by Oracle?
I've been fortunate enough never to have crossed paths with Oracle's infamous licensing terms, but I could picture it now:
Every time you used your phone for any purpose whatsoever, you'd have to pay a fee to Oracle.
This was my first thought also. WTF would by an Oracle phone? Google, for all their faults, at least provides some value. Oracle is just a douchey company with little redeeming value at all.
Re:Could you imagine.... by nikhilhs · 2019-03-28 04:04 · Score: 2

> Java licenses are free to developers, but companies incorporating the technology into their platforms are required to pay, Oracle said.
> But Google rejected a deal for the proper Oracle license because it didn't want to meet Oracle's demands for Java compatibility—it didn't want Android apps to run on other platforms, Oracle said in the brief.
> That strategy ultimately prevented Oracle from licensing and competing in the developing smartphone market.
But seriously, what was their phone strategy? They weren't developing their own mobile phone. Android was released in 2008. Oracle didn't buy Sun until 2010. I guess Sun had this one: https://www.engadget.com/2006/... They released over 2 years ahead of Google. Over a year ahead of Apple And then nothing.
Were they just planning on nickel and diming platforms for Java usage?
Re:Could you imagine.... by squiggleslash · 2019-03-28 04:15 · Score: 1

To give some context, I think they're talking about J2ME. J(2)ME was a "popular" (that is, widely preinstalled) platform on cameraphones in the early 2000s. It's true that it pretty much died once Android got started, but that's because cameraphones died. I don't think Sun/Oracle ever made a serious effort to produce a smartphone OS, and if they had J2ME would probably have needed serious revisions to be taken seriously.
But that'd be an interesting alternate history, something like Android but with a JVM instead of Dalvik and Solaris instead of Busybox/Linux.
AAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! CAN'T UNTHINK! CAN'T UNTHINK! *gibbers helplessly in corner*

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Could you imagine.... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 06:02 · Score: 1

Horse shit. There's no way it would be that simple.
You'd first have to pay an annual service fee, 8 year contract minimum, for the privilege of paying Oracle use fees.
You'd also need to pay them use fees for everyone on your contacts list, because they'd be considered users too.
Re:Could you imagine.... by Aighearach · 2019-03-28 06:15 · Score: 1

A smartphone developed by Oracle?
I've been fortunate enough never to have crossed paths with Oracle's infamous licensing terms, but I could picture it now:
Every time you used your phone for any purpose whatsoever, you'd have to pay a fee to Oracle.
Also, for not using it when they thought you should have.
Re:Could you imagine.... by sfcat · 2019-03-28 08:14 · Score: 1

A smartphone developed by Oracle? I've been fortunate enough never to have crossed paths with Oracle's infamous licensing terms, but I could picture it now:
Every time you used your phone for any purpose whatsoever, you'd have to pay a fee to Oracle.
This was my first thought also. WTF would by an Oracle phone? Google, for all their faults, at least provides some value. Oracle is just a douchey company with little redeeming value at all.
Hahahahahaha, no...If I want my data lost and my queries to fail, I look to Google. If I actually want performance and accuracy of the result, then I use Postgres or Oracle. Google is a good search engine and once upon a time they made great software. 2008 was a long time ago and almost everything coming out of Google these days is crap. As bad as dealing with Oracle business folk is, at least I won't get hung out to dry by their software (well maybe but far less than with Google). Something I absolutely can't say of Google who seems to be trying to prove that HP isn't the worst possible software vendor.

--
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
Re:Could you imagine.... by HornWumpus · 2019-03-28 08:17 · Score: 1

Do you realize how parallel a human brain is?
Oracle would figure out a 'reasonable' core count for the human brain and charge license fees based on that number times the (number of people your address book can hold + 1).
Then after a year, they would 'realize' they had 'made a mistake' and triple that core count.
Woe to the user that exceeded their max address book size without informing and paying Oracle, and don't forget to pay double or triple for any schizo people you know.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Re:Wow by DarkOx · 2019-03-28 03:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well while I don't agree with Orcacle's theory that interfaces can be subject to copyright. I would agree with the assessment Google by creating their own JVM essentially drove Oracle out of the mobile market place. J2ME Was pretty widely used in what we think of as the pre-smartphone era.

I don't see any reason why it would not have become the defacto application platform going forward, except for entrants like Google with resources enough to implement their own JVA not wanting to pay Oracle for theirs.

Remember when blamer said "developers..developers..developers.." same thing applies here its not like Google chose Java as their implementation language for Android because the syntax is so sexy and everyone love it. They picked it because a lot of people know it. J2ME would have probably continued as a force without Davlik and just got some sexy new interface libraries to bring all the existing mobile phone developers and desktop java developers over.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Re:America has forgotten. by green1 · 2019-03-28 03:47 · Score: 2, Informative

That's not how it works.

You hire lawyers and politicians to make it legally impossible for people to go with a competing product, then you launch your own inferior product and wait for the money to roll in.

THAT's how it works.

Competing on actual merit is so last century.

No, I think it was Oracle by bob4u2c · 2019-03-28 03:48 · Score: 1, Funny

Oracle believes Google destroyed its hopes of competing as a smartphone platform developer with the Java platform,

The only ones who destroyed their hopes of making a phone people would buy was Oracle. They have done a great job of getting their name out there in the market and setting expectations. The problem of course is that their name and those expectations are not well regarded. So if I were in the market for a phone and went into the store and saw an Oracle one I would definitely pass it up. But then again I was never of the normal, so maybe its just me.

Re:Wow by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-28 03:49 · Score: 2

Java was the most popular language for mobile apps before Android came along. Nokia's Symbian OS in particular had many Java based apps, and the industry could see where things were going: apps that run on phones, TVs and laptops, basically everywhere.

Symbian was crap though and apps were generally terrible. Android quickly took over, and how Android apps so in fact run on phones, TVs and laptops.

Oracle is arguing that they could have been a major player if Android hasn't used their API, but in reality Java failed because it and the Symbian OS and the non-touch phones it ran on were all shit.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

patent troll by sdinfoserv · 2019-03-28 03:52 · Score: 1

So it's devolved to the level where Oracle is little more than a gigantic patent troll so Larry can have a bigger sailboat. F#ck them all, Larry, Oracle and that spyware company, Google..

Re:patent troll by drinkypoo · 2019-03-28 04:08 · Score: 2

So it's devolved to the level where Oracle is little more than a gigantic patent troll so Larry can have a bigger sailboat.
They're a lot more than that. They also have a bunch of lawyers just for suing their customers.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:patent troll by Dragonslicer · 2019-03-28 04:27 · Score: 1

So it's devolved to the level where Oracle is little more than a gigantic patent troll so Larry can have a bigger sailboat.
Did you fall asleep in 2005 and just wake up?
Re:patent troll by msauve · 2019-03-28 04:47 · Score: 1

ORACLE: One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law

they should team with MS by kiviQr · 2019-03-28 03:56 · Score: 1

That would be glorious - Oracle phone running Java Applet with MS Clippy.

I must have missed it... by SpeedRacer · 2019-03-28 03:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

Oracle was in the smartphone market?!? When the heck was that?

Re:I must have missed it... by Tough+Love · 2019-03-28 09:37 · Score: 1

Maybe they had a database app, with per-core licensing.

--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Re:I must have missed it... by thegarbz · 2019-03-28 20:25 · Score: 1

Not the smartphone as you know it, precisely because you only know iPhone and Android. But J2ME basically was the underlying platform for every other phone in the world.
The fact that it was a bucket of shit not withstanding.

Re:Wow by bill_mcgonigle · 2019-03-28 03:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

J2ME's UI options and system services were terrible for mobile.

Android, for all its warts, was substantially better. Java just happened to be a decent language for the time that could be hooked into the Android stack.

If it had been Swift or Python or Ruby it still would have pantsed any J2ME phone offering. Java isn't all that special. Look at iPhone - lots of people learned Objective-C just to use its mobile stack and in that case Apple itself showed how non-optimal a language that is by developing Swift.

Oracle is attempting to mislead the Court.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 04:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

Oracle's argument is: I couldn't go to the party because Google was already there wearing the dress I wanted to wear?

Re:Wow by minkwe · 2019-03-28 04:04 · Score: 1

Tough luck. The courts are not there to make sure one company's profits are protected at all cost. Even if it is true that Google drove them out of the mobile market, it still doesn't mean APIs can be copyrighted. The case in court is not about whether Google hurt Oracle's feelings or not.

--
"Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."

Re:Wow by DarkOx · 2019-03-28 04:04 · Score: 2

Apple did not make native apps a choice for iphone until after the product was released. The chose obj-c because that is was OSX was being built with and that is what all the smart people they had pulled in from Next knew. So the choice of obj-c was very much one about developers..developers..developers it just so happened to be internal developers when that call got made.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 04:05 · Score: 5, Informative

Well, "most popular language for mobile apps" is misleading. C was the most popular language for mobile code.

But C didn't have sandboxing capabilities, etc. Fault isolation and data protection in native code relies on a memory protection unit, which was too complex/expensive to be included in dumb phone processors.

So downloadable "apps" mostly used Java which had some inherent security features based in a mandatory type-safety system.

But "smartphones" have always had better hardware, and in particular they've had MPUs, so there was no reason to use (slow, bloated) Java except for portability. And in the early days of smartphones there were only 3 or 4 processor architectures in use, and any OS that had more than one had enough smarts built into the app deployment systems (for example, ActiveSync for WinCE) to pick the right binary for the phone.

So Java never had a foothold on honest-to-God smartphones before Google introduced Dalvik and Android -- only on feature phones. So you may be able to make the statement true by adding enough qualifiers -- "the most popular language for MMS-downloadable applets on feature phones" -- but that was a doomed niche.

causing incalculable harm to its business by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 04:05 · Score: 1

Oh, I'm sure they'll figure out a "calculation" for the judgement.

Re:Wow by DarkOx · 2019-03-28 04:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

Did I say it was? Oracle is not entitled to the mobile market. Like you I disagree with the premise that interfaces can be subject to copyright. If the court however finds otherwise; than damages will have to be figured. If we are forced to presume by the courts finding that interfaces can be copyright; than all I am saying is Oracles argument that Google cost them the mobile space probably does follow, and Google will in that instance be required to pay dearly.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Re:Wow by minkwe · 2019-03-28 04:12 · Score: 1

Java was the most popular language for mobile apps before Android came along.

It still is. Android is an operating system not a programming language.

Oracle is arguing that they could have been a major player if Android hasn't used their API.

The case in court is not about which player is major or minor or how much profit Oracle would have made if Android did not exist. The case is about whether APIs can be copyrighted. If you are allowed to copyright APIs then you are also allowed to copyright a file format.

If they had a patent on it, it would be a different discussion but I don't see how it can be copyrighted.

--
"Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."

Re:Wow by dromgodis · 2019-03-28 04:12 · Score: 1

I don't know Symbian native development but I work with developers who say it was pretty decent at the time.

However, in my experience J2ME on phones was a horrible developer experience. The implementations were terrible, incompatible, incomplete, hard to get decent documentation for, even harder to get developer support for, easily crashed some phones (hey Siemens) etc. Write once, work nowhere. Nokias Symbian phones were the most pleasant ones I got to develop J2ME apps for. Yeah, it was still crap.

Re: FALSE by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 04:13 · Score: 1

Oracle is shit, and their java is a piece of garbage.
They want my sympathy - they need to create a product I'd want to use.

Thank you! by AVryhof · 2019-03-28 04:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

We should make Google a Thank You card for keeping Oracle out of the Smartphone market.

--
Make America grate again!

Re: FALSE by lord_mike · 2019-03-28 04:16 · Score: 1

You have it reversed. With the new standard tht APIs are copyrighted, it will kill open source software.

Oracle should thank Google. by e70838 · 2019-03-28 04:20 · Score: 1

Oracle has caused a lot of harm to java with this litigation, with its bad handling of security issues and its general bad governance. The fact that Google has made so much effort to use java in android is a testimony to the qualities of this language.

Re:Oracle should thank Google. by Aighearach · 2019-03-28 06:18 · Score: 1

And by "qualities" we're talking about, millions of jr. level programmers around the world already know it, and so they can spew out Appy Apps.

Oracle purchased a poorly managed technology, JAVA by Locutus · 2019-03-28 04:21 · Score: 5, Interesting

When Google came on board with Dalvick, Sun was having a grand time putting JAVA in the browser and on the server. Those wanting to put it into embedded devices, it's original intent, were ignored by Sun Microsystems. As HP about that since they wanted to license JAVA for use in their printers but Sun would not address their requests for licensing. HP had to do a clean-room implementation which they called Chai or something like that( as in the tea ). No doubt there were many others since we all know HP is no small printer manufacturer and landing them would have been a large deal.

But somehow we are to expect, or the judges are, that it was all Google's fault? Java on mobile phones, back when phones were not very smart, was a mess with many different layers of API's to follow. I forget what they called that mobile version of JAVA but each phone vendor had different application stores and different application requirements.

Apple showed that the market for downloading applications on mobile devices was viable again( remember Palm did it years before ) and Google just followed their lead. Had the phone vendors considered their Sun JAVA mobile API's sufficient they could have competed but they were stuck with what Sun provided and it was not really so good for the rich smartphone OS which was becoming the norm.

Oracle purchased Sun thinking they'd leverage JAVA everywhere but Sun left the mobile market and focused on the server side and browser...

LoB

--
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus

Dog ate my homework by cloud.pt · 2019-03-28 04:24 · Score: 1

No seriously, that might as well be the excuse from Oracle. They are pretty much saying "since Google used this language/API that we wanted to patent troll AFTER they forked it and already had Android all rolling, we pretty much can't be on that market, because the way we WOULD be on that market was to do nothing more than demand royalties from Google by using this technology that we simply purchased without actually thinking through that it was OPEN SOURCE BEFORE".

I could say this is funny. But it is actually way more than that.

Re:Dog ate my homework by bluefoxlucid · 2019-03-28 04:41 · Score: 1

Oracle's Java is actually just open source OpenJDK compiled with Oracle's name on it.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.

Yeah, right. by Qbertino · 2019-03-28 04:30 · Score: 1

We all remember those beautiful sleek end-user friendly and exciting products from Oracle, before evil Google came along and destroyed de poor liddle Oracle and their beautiful consumer products lineup.

Sooo mean, sooo sad.

--
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca

Re:What about Blackberry? by bob4u2c · 2019-03-28 04:34 · Score: 1

I think it was just about the money. Fame and glory they could make up later, how they saved java from the evil hands of Google. All praise be Oracle!

What stopped Oracle forking Android? by presidenteloco · 2019-03-28 04:37 · Score: 5, Interesting

and taking "back" control of the mobile platform.
Maybe it would have had to rebrand it. e.g. Orafix, Mava (mobile java),..., what have you.

Nothing stopped Oracle from pulling a CyanogenMod move, but backed by Oracle's money.

Nothing except lack of willpower, imagination, and skill.

--

Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?

Re: What stopped Oracle forking Android? by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · 2019-03-28 05:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

When you lay people off regularly to maintain an environment of fear, the truely talented go elsewhere, or avoid you entirely. Meanwhile those left are more concerned with survival than innovation.

--
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
Re:What stopped Oracle forking Android? by UnknownSoldier · 2019-03-28 06:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think the bigger question is:
If Google was able to bring out a Smart Phone what stopped Oracle from doing the same before Google in the early 2000's? Seems like Oracle is whining about not being able to ride on the coattails of a competitor AFTER the fact. Notice how Oracle bought Sun AFTER Android was released.
Timeline for those that forgot the details:
*Java came out in 1995.
* Google announced Android in 2007 and shipped the first device in 2008.
* Oracle bought Sun in 2010.
--
The Lie of Islam: God commanded his children to kill one another.
Re:What stopped Oracle forking Android? by Altus · 2019-03-28 06:15 · Score: 1

And a good way to make money. Google makes money off android with data gathering, use of google services for more data gathering and then ultimately advertising. What is Oracle going to do? Charge phone manufacturers for use of their OS that is identical to googles? They aren't set up to make money off of something like android.

--
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Re:What stopped Oracle forking Android? by Lehk228 · 2019-03-28 09:38 · Score: 1

there was mobile java before android it was unmitigated hot steaming shit

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Re:What stopped Oracle forking Android? by Darinbob · 2019-03-28 10:34 · Score: 2

Oracle didn't want to be in the smartphone market. They just wanted to get X% of all smartphone sales by requiring fees of everyone who uses Java.

Oracle?! by pi_rules · 2019-03-28 04:38 · Score: 1

I'd be more inclined to buy a phone branded Etch-A-Sketch than Oracle.

Re:Oracle?! by gweihir · 2019-03-28 05:19 · Score: 1

Nice!

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

J2ME by JBMcB · 2019-03-28 04:42 · Score: 1

Funny thing is, J2ME was pretty big business pre-iOS and Android. Probably had the largest market share of any mobile platform, at least up there with native Symbian apps. Oracle did basically nothing with it, as they bought Sun primarily for enterprise Java and server hardware. Then, when Android blew up, Oracle finally realized they could make some money off of a mobile Java platform, but it was too late. They had done nothing with J2ME and it was so far behind anything else as a platform the only way they could monetize was to sue.

--
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.

Android running on SPARC? by mnemotronic · 2019-03-28 04:44 · Score: 1

Oracle had such overwhelming success with SPARC chips, how about a SPARC T4 in a smartphone? It could also act as a handwarmer. Let's see Apple top that!

--
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.

Re:Android running on SPARC? by cb88 · 2019-03-28 10:17 · Score: 1

Sparc is Scalable Risc Architecture... the fact is it probably would have worked for phones just as well as ARM as they aren't all that terribly different. The T4 is a massively multithreaded machine so of course it gets hot. An S7 only uses under 400 watts active power for an 8 core 4.3Ghz 16GB ram system.... so that's not out it of reason for a chip like that. 400/8 = 50 W at 1 core 4 threads, 4.3Ghz... at half the frequency it would probably be in the 10-20W range already with very little power management.

Typical Smartphone active power is around 4-5W, and 0.5-1w idle... applying the same power saveing techniques to Sparc as to ARM would probably result in about the same performance. Add to that that they probably would have built in java hardware acceleration in addition to the Sparc core.

I'm a big fan of old Sun hardware, Oracle is evil though :/ sad days....

Absurd argument by angel'o'sphere · 2019-03-28 04:54 · Score: 1

No one stops Oracle to take Android (or would they need to pay a license fee?) and sell their own Android device.

However if they put their Oracle database on it, I would ski :P

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.

Re: Absurd argument by angel'o'sphere · 2019-03-28 05:46 · Score: 1

You dont understand. Google has used Java contrary to license terms.
No they have not ...
If you think otherwise give an example.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.

Re: FALSE by slack_justyb · 2019-03-28 05:08 · Score: 1, Insightful

With the new standard tht APIs are copyrighted

Minor correction, can be copyrighted. Not every API that comes into existence automatically becomes copyrighted unless the author says so and even then if they only enforce it.

I don't agree with the idea that APIs can be copyrighted, but, what I do and don't agree to means nothing in the legal system. That said, I don't see this as something that kills open source software. Not giving something a legal definition leaves it in murky waters. With APIs being something that can be copyrighted, it's easy for projects to require the APIs be copyleft/GPL/BSD/etc. Copyrighted APIs become an issue for people who've done projects with APIs with less than clear legal language, which was the case since APIs were pretty much just assumed to public domain/just how things work. And trust me I would love to see APIs having that legal distinction, but they don't and you work with the reality your handed.

A lot of the modern APIs in major use today are already open sourced and apply either a copyleft/GPL/BSD requirement to the licensing of the API. Hell, even Java today is GPL API via the OpenJDK. And OpenJDK's special exception that was irrevocably granted by Sun before they gave up Java, is how Google to this day keeps Android alive. Google was once upon a time not down with going GPL and wanted to use Apache License. Which you cannot convert simply relicense a GPL project to Apache License project, which was the entire argument that Oracle made in court against Google.

I don't like the notion of copyrighted APIs anymore than the next person, but I do see that APIs being copyrighted isn't the death knell for future projects. But I totally see it as a submarine issue for projects from the past. Much like how patent submarines were once used before a change in the patent law.

Phones by Oracle? Gods preserve us! by gweihir · 2019-03-28 05:16 · Score: 1

And I say that as an atheist. Oracle is the proverbial Evil Inc. that only cares about fucking its customers over.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

Re:Oracle good at complaining by gweihir · 2019-03-28 05:18 · Score: 1

Too many companies that made abysmally bad strategic IT decisions and not cannot get rid of Oracles crap. My students tell me they expect Java to be dead within a few years (due to the upcoming fees by Oracle), but it will be decades until all legacy stuff is gone.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

Re:Solaris Phone? by gweihir · 2019-03-28 05:19 · Score: 1

Slowlaris on a phone? Could the ideas get any worse?

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

Re:America has forgotten. by green1 · 2019-03-28 05:22 · Score: 1

You left out "Engage in regulatory capture to lock out competition".

I thought I covered that with hiring politicians.

Re: FALSE by Dragonslicer · 2019-03-28 05:23 · Score: 5, Informative

Minor correction, can be copyrighted. Not every API that comes into existence automatically becomes copyrighted unless the author says so and even then if they only enforce it.

Your correction is incorrect, at least in the United States. Creative works are automatically protected by copyright from the time they are created; no additional action by the author is necessary. Unlike trademarks, copyright (as well as patent) protection is not lost for failure to actively defend it.

Oracle put itself out of the market by WCMI92 · 2019-03-28 05:31 · Score: 1

Oracle's crap software and their high pressure sales goons put them out of business.

--
Corporatism != Free Market

Re:Oracle put itself out of the market by Locke2005 · 2019-03-28 06:01 · Score: 1

As a former Oracle employee, I heartily agree with you! Actually, the technical implementation of their database wasn't that bad, but their marketing department was full of crooks. I.e. I had a manager that pulled down his $40k quarterly bonuses by billing customers for contract work that wasn't actually done... I wonder where Ken Ross is now...

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.

Google didn't even reimplement most of the API.... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 05:45 · Score: 1

They took the 95 percent completed Harmony 5/6 libraries, reimplemented by the Apache Foundation and hundreds of paid and volunteer developers, and finished the remaining 5 percent or so after Sun open sourced Java. So this is even more questionable than Oracle is making it out because it was already 'second source software' before Scroogle ever got ahold of it.

The fact that they made a better hammer than the original hammer-maker is entirely down to Sun and Oracle's lack of vision. Or google's for that matter, since Android was bought, not developed in-house.

Re:Wow by dargaud · 2019-03-28 05:52 · Score: 1

Oracle is attempting to mislead the Court.

No shit Sherlock ! Understatement of the year. Anybody with 10 minutes of reading on the subject can see that, so why haven't they been thrown out yet, with prejudice ?

--
Non-Linux Penguins ?

Thanks, Oracle! by Locke2005 · 2019-03-28 05:58 · Score: 1

Suing Google for using Java for Android pretty much guarantees the death of Java!

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.

Re:Thanks, Oracle! by nadass · 2019-03-28 06:47 · Score: 1

There's the saying, "Bite the hand that feeds it!" (Also the slogan used by The Register, but their "it" is I.T.)

Re:There's no mechanism for that by green1 · 2019-03-28 06:00 · Score: 1

There are many, many, people who have successfully done so. Your disagreement with their choice does not make it any less valid. You legally get copyright, but you are free to license it any way that you want, including free for everyone with no strings attached.

Re:Oracle purchased a poorly managed technology, J by sconeu · 2019-03-28 06:03 · Score: 1

I forget what they called that mobile version of JAVA

I believe it was, oddly enough, Java ME (Mobile Edition)

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.

Re:Wow by Aighearach · 2019-03-28 06:13 · Score: 1

Android is an operating system not a programming language.

And it might actually be just a Linux distro.

Re:Solaris Phone? by Aighearach · 2019-03-28 06:22 · Score: 1

I thought the problem was that it was slow on x86, but worked fine on RISC platforms? Phones are mostly ARM.

That wouldn't be the problem. The problem would be, where would apps come from, and where would security come from?

Re:Wow by pjt33 · 2019-03-28 06:26 · Score: 2

J2ME's UI options and system services were terrible for mobile.

Careful. You may be committing the common and understandable error of thinking that J2ME = J2ME CLDC. There was a less stripped down framework called CDC which had a couple of profiles with UI based on AWT. IBM had an implementation for PocketPC. It would have been a suitable basis for something which went beyond feature phones if a company with the right vision had taken it on in about 2003.

Those bastards at Google! by Trailer+Trash · 2019-03-28 06:27 · Score: 1

They did the same damned thing to my company. I tell you, if it weren't for them and their Java rip-off, everybody would be making cell phones.

--
Do you have ESP?

Re:Oracle purchased a poorly managed technology, J by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 06:31 · Score: 1

Apple showed that the market for downloading applications on mobile devices was viable again

Quite the opposite. Apple didn't want to ship a SDK and have 3rd party developers write apps for the iPhone. They pushed for web apps only (and their own native ones of course). They did end up giving in and shipping a SDK. So it wasn't Apple showing that the market existed, the market was so overwhelming that Apple had to join in even as it held it's ears and claimed it wasn't important.

There were plenty of app stores and app platforms that pre-dated the iPhone that were doing just fine. Apple reluctantly joined in too.

Re:Oracle purchased a poorly managed technology, J by nadass · 2019-03-28 06:41 · Score: 1

Java on mobile phones, back when phones were not very smart, was a mess with many different layers of API's to follow. I forget what they called that mobile version of JAVA but each phone vendor had different application stores and different application requirements. Apple showed that the market for downloading applications on mobile devices was viable again( remember Palm did it years before ) and Google just followed their lead. Had the phone vendors considered their Sun JAVA mobile API's sufficient they could have competed but they were stuck with what Sun provided and it was not really so good for the rich smartphone OS which was becoming the norm.

J2ME (Java 2 Mobile/Micro Edition) was their primary mobile platform, and it was successfully deployed in may places. BlackBerry OS was built upon JME itself (before Java 1.0 got to Java 1.2 aka "Java 2").

Along those lines of Oracle's current claims, the future success of Java as a mobile platform/ecosystem was somehow stunted by Android OS... and not the continued failures and feature deficits of the underlying Java ME platform and their existing commercial mobile OSes. If I recall, the Java ME platform had such a lousy stench to it that Apple quickly dismissed its usage in creating iOS (so it was in the running but tripped on its own insufficiencies).

I agree, LoB, that Oracle's purchase of Sun (and thus Java) was not primarily for mobile ambitions because Sun quick the mobile market before talks began! Sun needed an exit strategy and Oracle came with open arms.

Re: FALSE by slack_justyb · 2019-03-28 06:43 · Score: 1

Your correction is incorrect, at least in the United States

You are correct on this. That is Trademark that requires legal defense and Copyright requires overt act to release to public domain.

That said, in the United States, I believe the majority of what I said still applies. Modern APIs are more explicit about the licensing requirements for the API and GPL et al convey an open agreement for the APIs. Additionally, Copyright in the US permits fair use as well. While I wouldn't want to attempt playing within that domain, new projects convey fair derivative use of APIs be it in explicit terms for non-standard licenses or in some of the more commons ones we've come to know. Additionally, I think people are more aware of APIs usage today than they once were.

Again, the biggest problem I see with copyrighted APIs is prior projects that implemented "fuzzy" in legal terms APIs. So that being said, I don't see copyrighted APIs as a hindrance for future open source projects. However, I will reaffirm that my preference here is APIs not being a copyrighted thing.

Re:Oracle purchased a poorly managed technology, J by nadass · 2019-03-28 06:44 · Score: 1

I forget what they called that mobile version of JAVA

I believe it was, oddly enough, Java ME (Mobile Edition)

It was Micro Edition (embedded) before it picked up the temporary marketing rebrand of Mobile Edition.

Re:Solaris Phone? by gweihir · 2019-03-28 06:45 · Score: 1

Solaris is pretty slow on anything. And it has a really bad network stack and that is after it was cleaned up.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

Re:Solaris Phone? by Aighearach · 2019-03-28 06:55 · Score: 1

Doesn't Oracle already have the old BSD network stack, though?

Re: Wow by illiac_1962 · 2019-03-28 06:58 · Score: 1

Python!? ROFLMAO. What a steaming pile of holy shit.

What utter bullshit by viperidaenz · 2019-03-28 07:19 · Score: 1

If Oracle had the vision at the time, Google using the same platform for app development would have helped them significantly.

Re:What utter bullshit by Tough+Love · 2019-03-28 09:33 · Score: 1

Google could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by just dropping Java in favor of C++. It's not like app development would have slowed down at all. They can still do that and it would still be a win.

--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.

Re:Oracle good at complaining by viperidaenz · 2019-03-28 07:22 · Score: 1

Except Google started using Java when it was still owned by Sun Microsystems.

Oracle is still around because it has lots of money. Money from entrenching itself in a lot of large companies.

I needed a good laugh by nightfire-unique · 2019-03-28 07:25 · Score: 1

It's been a tough week, and I needed this. An Oracle phone. A successful Oracle phone.

Thanks guys. ^_^

--
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC

Re:I needed a good laugh by Tough+Love · 2019-03-28 09:34 · Score: 1

Don't laugh, it would be 100% waterproof so you can use it on your yacht.

--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Re:I needed a good laugh by RhettLivingston · 2019-03-28 10:36 · Score: 1

The government would love it. All communication would of course be via SQL queries using blobs in the world's largest Oracle DB. Everything 100% recorded all of the time.
Re:I needed a good laugh by nightfire-unique · 2019-03-28 12:04 · Score: 1

Eh, waterproofing is overrated. :p
Bigger boats don't tend to ship much water.

--
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Re:I needed a good laugh by Tough+Love · 2019-03-28 14:41 · Score: 1

Never sailed a yacht in heavy weather, hmm? If you meant, a harbour yacht doesn't ship much water then you'd be right. But that's not what we're talking about

--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Re:I needed a good laugh by nightfire-unique · 2019-03-28 19:39 · Score: 1

Haha. As a matter of fact, I live aboard a 46' ketch with about 5,000NM under her keel, singlehanded. I do avoid heavy weather to the best of my ability, but of course I've "seen some shit." Nothing worse than ~50 knots sustained.
In heavy weather, I'm never on the foredeck, and the cockpit is relatively well protected behind a dodger. I've never had a problem with my Note 3, which isn't waterproof. Knock fiberglass. :p

--
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC

Re:WORM by viperidaenz · 2019-03-28 07:25 · Score: 1

What are you talking about?

All Google did was build their own platform using the Java language and API. They didn't take or change any code.

Re:What stopped oracle from "competing"? by TheRaven64 · 2019-03-28 07:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

Not Oracle, but Sun has a lot of history in closely related spaces. The original Java platform (back when Java was called Green) was the 7*, a handheld computer that ran a modified Solaris that supported execute in place and ran happily with a 32-bit SPARC and 1MB of RAM. The vast majority of pre-iPhone smartphones and featurephones included J2ME, which (unlike J2SE) required a license fee from each phone maker.

This is the main reason that Sun was unhappy with Android. They'd been receiving royalties from pretty much every phone to be able to use Java and then suddenly Google came along with a Java implementation that didn't require anyone to pay Sun. Worse, as with Microsoft's J++, it wasn't a fully conformant implementation of Java - it did both subsetting and supersetting, so arbitrary Java code doesn't work on Android and arbitrary Android Java code doesn't work on other JVMs.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

Had an actual Java phone at one point by rsilvergun · 2019-03-28 07:30 · Score: 1

cheap phone and it felt that way. My provider loaded a breakout clone on it. Really simple, just ball, 10x10 colored blocks and a paddle. Kind of thing that make the Atari 2600 a household name in the late 70s/early 80s.

It was dog slow. Unplayably so. I mean, I know it's a cheap phone and all, but come-on. It's a clone of Atari breakout.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:Wow by bigpat · 2019-03-28 07:31 · Score: 2

I would agree with the assessment Google by creating their own JVM essentially drove Oracle out of the mobile market place.

That's utter horse shit. Google adopting Java was the one thing that kept Java alive and growing. Java was well adopted on the server side, but that was it.
The JVM had a half ass implementation on dumb flip phone mobile devices before the smartphone market took off.

If anything it was Oracle's idiotic move to sue Google for using Java that killed Java as an option on other platforms. Why would other platforms use Java if Oracle is just going to turn around and file a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Oracle shot themselves and Java in their own ass.

Re:Oracle purchased a poorly managed technology, J by viperidaenz · 2019-03-28 07:31 · Score: 1

Sun was in financial trouble.
Oracle had to buy it out to stop their competition acquiring Java. All their corporate products are built using it or embed it.

Having to call their flagship product "Oracle Database, powered by Microsoft Java" would be bad for them.

hard to believe Oracle = smartphones by swschrad · 2019-03-28 07:34 · Score: 1

for instance, how's it going to work putting an antenna on a SunServer and carrying it on the bus to talk to your significant other.

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?

Re: Buy Oracle by viperidaenz · 2019-03-28 07:38 · Score: 1

eBay would just do an Amazon and migrate away from Oracle.

Re:Oracle-phone, wot? No thanks! by viperidaenz · 2019-03-28 07:42 · Score: 1

Nah, they'd let you use it as much as you want, but every year they'd come in an audit your usage and send you an invoice.

Their database licensing model is to let their customer install it on as many machines as they want, when ever they want, without asking for permission. They then send an invoice based on how many cpu cores you're running it on.

Kind of like a loan shark or a drug dealer.

Re:WORM by HornWumpus · 2019-03-28 08:23 · Score: 1

Are you implying that SWING worked before Android?

Back when MS was forced to ship a copy of Sun Java, I thought they should retaliate by also shipping a copy of SWING and using it to render Sun's logo at startup.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Re:Oracle good at complaining by HornWumpus · 2019-03-28 08:25 · Score: 1

Oracle's database is good, not worth the money, but a good solid product.

Everything else they make/sell is _useless_ shit that makes SAP look good.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Re:Oracle purchased a poorly managed technology, J by medv4380 · 2019-03-28 08:35 · Score: 1

I believe they purchased Sun because they used Java for interacting with their Database, and the last thing they wanted was someone buying Sun and hitting them as they hit their customers. Once they had it they tried to do exactly what they thought others would have done had they got the asset. Had Sun been healthy I don't see Oracle being interested in it at all.

Re: FALSE by Dragonslicer · 2019-03-28 09:00 · Score: 1

Almost right. The SCOTUS, I think, just ruled that copyrights are not enforceable until the until the Gov't paperwork is completed. The long standing practice of assuming that everything created is copyrighted and immediately enforceable, has been shot to hell.

Can you cite to the Supreme Court case? The Berne Convention says that works are automatically protected by copyright.

Re:There's no mechanism for that by green1 · 2019-03-28 09:05 · Score: 1

The US government disagrees with you:

Federal Regulations as they pertain to software (from https://www.copyright.gov/title37/201/37cfr201-26.html):
Title 37 Part 201.26:
(b)(3) Public domain computer software means software which has been publicly distributed with an explicit disclaimer of copyright protection by the copyright owner.

That means that you can in fact explicitly place something in the public domain. Once you do that, you can not go back on those people who have used that version. Now there's nothing stopping you from distributing a new version under a different license, but that's not the same as reversing the decision on the original.

Re: FALSE by Solandri · 2019-03-28 09:18 · Score: 1

What OP probably meant to say is that copyrights do not need to be enforced. The owner of an API copyright can simply state up-front that they will not be enforcing the copyright, and everyone can use the API freely without restriction. Which will cause people and companies to gravitate towards these open APIs instead of closed ones like Oracle is trying to make JAVA into. And eventually, the only APIs used between companies will be open ones whose copyright is not enforced.

Raising the question of what the hell was the whole point of making APIs copyrightable? When the only form of API which can self-perpetuate in the market is the kind which foregoes the protections offered by copyright?

Larry wants a free lunch by Tough+Love · 2019-03-28 09:30 · Score: 1

Let's all feed Larry.

--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.

Re:FALSE by Darinbob · 2019-03-28 10:21 · Score: 1

Oracle has the power to publicly destroy almost everyone as well. Oracle has destroyed a lot of open source projects, and if they win the right to prevent anyone from using an API means that this would destroy even more open source.

Re: FALSE by Darinbob · 2019-03-28 10:29 · Score: 1

And it's highly suspect in the first place that an API actually can be copyrighted. That's like copyrighting a table of contents. At the very least, fair use implies you can freely use an API.

I sometimes pass this building in Silicon Valley that has a banner in the window saying "We Love APIs". Which I have thought every time that the building must be full of morons. An API is like saying "I'll meet you at 2:30 in conference room B".

Re: FALSE by Dragonslicer · 2019-03-28 11:02 · Score: 1

And it's highly suspect in the first place that an API actually can be copyrighted. That's like copyrighting a table of contents.

Just to clarify, I don't disagree with this point. I only wanted to correct the mistaken statement that additional action is required by an author to get copyright protection for a work that is eligible for protection.

[Clarification] Re:When evil battles evil by Tablizer · 2019-03-28 12:05 · Score: 1

Clarification: "Before, copyrights were mostly limited to implementation."

--
Table-ized A.I.

The modern SCO vs Novell by Rick+Zeman · 2019-03-28 12:36 · Score: 1

Where's PJ to explain this to us when we need her?

Re: FALSE by brantondaveperson · 2019-03-28 13:22 · Score: 1

That's like copyrighting a table of contents.

It really isn't like that at all. An API, its design, data model, guarantees and so-on, is actually the hardest thing to design. Once designed, the implementation is relatively straightforwards. The main different between Android, and iOS, for instance, is that Android's APIs are horrible, and iOS's are really nice to use. This is an API design issue, it's nothing whatever to do with the underlying implementation.

Or look elsewhere, at a less divisive example. Microsoft's WIN32 API is terrible. Everything is a handle, one ends up having to cast things all over the place. The message queue takes only a couple of integers as payload. There's no support for basic things, like JPEGs. And hands up anybody that's ever tried to use their DirectShow media APIs. Oh, that's right, you can't. You've long ago chewed your own arms off in frustration.

That's poor API design. It's massively important, and very hard to get right. For the record, I don't believe that Java's APIs are particularly nice. An likening an API to a "table of contents" is disingenuous at best.

Re: FALSE by slack_justyb · 2019-03-28 13:52 · Score: 1

I only wanted to correct the mistaken statement that additional action is required by an author to get copyright protection for a work that is eligible for protection.

To which I am happy to have been corrected, might I add.

Re:Oracle purchased a poorly managed technology, J by brantondaveperson · 2019-03-28 14:30 · Score: 1

There were plenty of app stores and app platforms that pre-dated the iPhone that were doing just fine.

Well, I suppose 'doing just fine' is a statement that's opening to interpretation, but I can't think of any that fit my own personal definition of that term.

Oracle needs to share their drugs by RonVNX · 2019-03-28 15:29 · Score: 1

Whatever they're on is amazing!

Re: FALSE by cpt+kangarooski · 2019-03-29 00:12 · Score: 1

To be precise, copyrights are vested upon creation, but lawsuits to enforce the copyright may not be brought until the US Copyright Office issues a registration for the copyright or denies it (in which case the suit will also have to argue that the denial was wrong).

The case is Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, and the link is to the unanimous opinion of the Court.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Re: FALSE by cpt+kangarooski · 2019-03-29 00:17 · Score: 1

Correction, the link is https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-571_e29f.pdf and whoever runs the site now is a son of a bitch, who hasnâ(TM)t programmed it to figure out what to do with smart quotes from mobile devices and who doesnâ(TM)t offer a chance to preview the post from the mobile interface. Hopefully this works better.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Re: FALSE by cpt+kangarooski · 2019-03-29 00:26 · Score: 1

However, it is possible to have an API - or anything else - that is uncopyrightable if it is not sufficiently creative, or if the merger or scenes-a-faire doctrine kick in.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Re: FALSE by Dragonslicer · 2019-03-29 00:32 · Score: 1

Interesting. Thanks for answering that.

Re: FALSE by Dragonslicer · 2019-03-29 00:34 · Score: 1

Thanks for clarifying that. Yes, everything I said certainly only applies to works that are eligible for copyright protection in the first place.

Okay Oracle, show you were developing a phone. by sabbede · 2019-03-29 00:39 · Score: 1

If Oracle wasn't seriously planning to make phones, their argument collapses. And they'd have to show it would have had a chance in hell of selling. Microsoft couldn't survive in the phone market, why would Oracle?

Re:Oracle purchased a poorly managed technology, J by strikethree · 2019-03-29 02:11 · Score: 1

Those wanting to put it into embedded devices, it's original intent, were ignored by Sun Microsystems.

This is patently (lol) untrue. I recall seeing Java implementations running on smart cards in 15k of RAM back around the 2k time frame.

Licensing was likely a serious issue, but there was Java in embedded spaces, so it was not "ignored". There was some other reason... likely had to do with money.

--
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen

Incalculable? by tyme · 2019-03-29 08:49 · Score: 1

I agree: the amount of money they could have lost trying to sell an Oracle Smart Phone is incalculable

--
just a ghost in the machine.

Re:Simple choice: root for Oracle. by shentino · 2019-03-29 20:57 · Score: 1

Google is being blatantly honest that they're censoring for China.

If it was anyone else they probably would have done it quietly and we'd never have found out about it.

In this case I see that Google is doing the censorship under protest because otherwise the powers that be in Beijing wouldn't let Google operate at all, so they're doing it while giving the authorities the biggest middle finger they can without putting themselves in jeopardy.

And to be quite blunt I would rather have Google give openly censored results than have someone else filling the void who would not only hide that they're censoring, but likely trace anyone even searching for it and hand the results over to the authorities for persecution.

Slashdot Mirror

Oracle Tells Supreme Court Google Copyright Breach Knocked It Out Of Smartphone Market (crn.com)

171 of 290 comments (clear)