Good point. Is it correct that C# is comparable to "java, the language" and.Net is comparable to "Java" (or should that be "the Java platform"? or...?)
Below are the en.swpat.org analyses. Two of the biggest things in Java's favour are that they have distributed OpenJDK under GPLv2, with the implied patent grant that gives, and Oracle is a member of OIN and there are thus a bunch of GCC and Classpath packages they've promised not to use their patents against.
> that's not what happened. [...] People used FAT because it did what they wanted
Microsoft had a dominant position on the desktop. Being incompatible with Microsoft would have been a show-stopper. Microsoft's filesystem was FAT, so if you wanted to be compatible, with then-current Windows and will all future versions, then you use FAT.
For your disagreement, a link to a contradictory story would be very interesting. Or if you don't have a link (and I won't hold it against you, given that I've no link), could you at least say what part of this story you see a flaw with?
I usually ignore stories about hardware patents, but this one highlights a problem that exists in software patents: interoperability is essential.
Microsoft can develop a wonky filesystem (FAT), and use their market power to force it on everyone. When they finally realise that 8-letter filenames is a broken idea, they add a fix, patent the fix, and sue people who use the fix.
That fix isn't patentable because it's valuable, it's simply valuable because it's patented. It's an arbitrary idea, not necessarily better than any other solution (of avoiding the problem in the first place!), but it becomes a must-have because it's the idea Microsoft chose to implement.
Same with Word. Microsoft patents a few features in their file format and they're essential. You develop your own file format and patent some features, and they just get avoided by Micrsoft and nobody cares about your patents. How good your patents are, or how they compare to Microsoft's patents, is of no consequence.
And so it is with Lexmark. They make cartridges in a certain way. Might be good, might be wonky. You can patent a better idea, but it's useless because you're not looking for "best", you're looking for "compatible".
swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help with developing these arguments is very welcome.
Re:Wrong, because they are actually implementing J
on
The Case For Oracle
·
· Score: 1
> the goal of the other projects is to pass the tests and thus be considered a real VM.
Ok, if they were complete implementations, then they'd get patent coverage under the Java Language Specification. One major inconvenience though is that the code would have to be developed behind closed doors until it's 100% complete. Developing in the usual free software community style would count as distributing subsets.
Another protection that certain projects do have comes from being on OIN's list of covered software. Since Oracle is a licensee of OIN, they can't use their Java patents, or any other of their patents, against software on the protected list.
The things I mentioned are all nonrival. My downloading of songs my parents played when I was a kid doesn't interfere with anyone else's ability to appreciate those songs.
Gardens are rivalrous. You sitting in a paddling pool drinking beer in my front garden, would interfere with my use of my front garden.
I think you're ignoring a large part of the question.
There are two types of knowledge a good programmer needs. One part is general programming theory, and that knowledge can be moved pretty easily to a new language. The second part is practical use. That's APIs, nuances, related tools (debuggers, profilers, memory checkers), documentation, the community. That sort of knowledge is usually quite language-specific.
Right. You would prefer that a public accusation on a Friday would circulate in the press until late Monday morning before being reviewed?
I think the round-the-clock system they have, which allowed them to cut the drama short by having judges working on Saturday, sounds like a good idea.
It's not just theirs, it's also ours
on
The Case For Oracle
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I have to disagree.
The people who learn and write Java are humans. Writing Java is part of their life and they have a right to continue doing it.
Much like culture. I think copyright should be limited to 10 years because it's not only *their* music, it's also *my* music. It's my childhood, and it's my culture. I want to re-live it whenever I choose, and I want to pass it on to friends and family if and when I choose.
Java would have no value if people didn't use it. When people use it, they're investing themselves in it. Java's value thus comes from the users, not only from Sun/Oracle, so the users should have rights to use that thing they contributed to.
If they can do it to Google, they can do it to you
on
The Case For Oracle
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Problem is, if they can do it to Google, they can do it to any distributor of a free software JVM.
To be safe, you have to either follow the Java Language Specification exactly (no subsets or supersets), or build your software on the OpenJDK software that Oracle distributes under GPLv2. Here's what info swpat.org has gathered so far about this case and its implications:
I've nothing against that suggestion. It would certainly achieve the aim of getting rid of our software patent problems. But, abolishing the whole system isn't my goal.
Software is different in that it's an activity in which individuals and communities participate, and even when it's done within a company it's often done with a direct financial motive (the software can be a side effect of getting the real work done).
This means that regulations on software development/distribution translate to social problems (what can people do to help themselves and each other?) as well as economic problems (will we produce enough of X at a sufficient quality and a reasonable price?).
Patents on the manufacturing of cars are only an industrial regulation (mass production of cars is exclusively done by medium- to large companies). So there are only the economic problems to consider.
For production of cars, I don't know if patents create or solve economic problems. For software, I've studied the issue and I know that the problems (social and economic) are atrocious. So if you want to get rid of the whole system, you'll get no resistance from me, but for how I use my own time and resources, I'll focus them on abolishing *software* patents.
Most patent stories on Slashdot are about silly patents, but raising standards will not solve our problem. Quality is just too hard to judge with something as abstract as software. A reduction of 50% wouldn't solve the fact that MPEG is covered by dozens of patents, and none of the people complaining about silly patents have proposed a way to raise the standards (not to reduce granting by 50%, and not even to reduce it by 1%). Now, we see that granting is still rising. We'll never get quality standards to catch up. The only way to win, and the only clean solution, is to simply cut software out of the list of things that can be patented.
> They'd also have to gpl every single android maker's software
Not so. And where there's doubt, they could just use the Classpath exception, just as Sun used for OpenJDK (distributed under GPLv2 plus the "Classpath exception").
> The developer should unit test, and the test group should system test.
In my experience, the developer should participate in system testing too.
System testers have to know what the corner cases are. They can't guess them all (unless they're more skilled at each unit than the unit's developer is, in which case what's this product genius doing in the system test group!). Brute force takes too long for most systems, and even brute force requires knowledge of what variables to change and what ranges to span for each variable.
I used to program embedded systems for oil pipeline tools. (Not a sector with a glowing reputation for reliability right now, but bear with me.) The system testers had decades experience in pigging, hydraulics, tool operation, an ISO certification, but they weren't programmers. The whole team participated in system testing (or a member of each unit group did), so that we'd collectively know all the combinations worth testing.
(As for answering the question of the story, I think the asker really should have given a hint as to what sort of software it is.)
Careful gramps, your age is showing. The page your currently is 131k - a little short of what you call a behemoth. Maybe you'd call it a Hydra, or at least an ogre's big brother.
> regardless of whether Dalvik pulls directly from Sun code
Not true. Sun released code under GPLv2, which includes a patent grant - one which isn't cancelled by modification or by subsetting, supersetting, or ignoring the specification. If Dalvik was based on Sun's code, Google would be ok.
> You only get a patent grant if you provide a full J2SE implementation,
That might be the general case for Java, but for the GPLv2'd version of Java distributed by Sun/Oracle there's additionally the protections granted by GPLv2.
OpenJDK is distributed under GPLv2, and sections 6 and 7 say that if you can't pass on the four freedoms, you can't distribute. It is distributed by Oracle, which means we all get the four freedoms, so a modified version, or a subset or superset would be safe.
(Summary of what I'm replying to: It's Google's fault, they should have paid the licence fee.)
Problem is, if Oracle can sue Google, they can sue anyone. What if there was GNU javavm, or what if Red Hat decided to distribute the Dalvik virtual machine?
I would, however, understand if Oracle told Google to stop using the "Java" name and trademark.
One lesson to be drawn, as suggested by Miguel de Icaza,[4] is that people should move to Mono and C# because Microsoft's patent terms are better than Sun's.
On the other hand, one could draw the lesson that it's foolish to use languages / platforms controlled by companies that use patents aggressively.
Another point is that if Google had used IcedTea (the GPL'd version of Java), they never would have been at risk from Sun/Oracle's patents.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. Is it correct that C# is comparable to "java, the language" and .Net is comparable to "Java" (or should that be "the Java platform"? or ...?)
Below are the en.swpat.org analyses. Two of the biggest things in Java's favour are that they have distributed OpenJDK under GPLv2, with the implied patent grant that gives, and Oracle is a member of OIN and there are thus a bunch of GCC and Classpath packages they've promised not to use their patents against.
swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.
You lost me at "cat".
Where can I find this blog. Sounds like a riot.
> that's not what happened. [...] People used FAT because it did what they wanted
Microsoft had a dominant position on the desktop. Being incompatible with Microsoft would have been a show-stopper. Microsoft's filesystem was FAT, so if you wanted to be compatible, with then-current Windows and will all future versions, then you use FAT.
For your disagreement, a link to a contradictory story would be very interesting. Or if you don't have a link (and I won't hold it against you, given that I've no link), could you at least say what part of this story you see a flaw with?
I usually ignore stories about hardware patents, but this one highlights a problem that exists in software patents: interoperability is essential.
Microsoft can develop a wonky filesystem (FAT), and use their market power to force it on everyone. When they finally realise that 8-letter filenames is a broken idea, they add a fix, patent the fix, and sue people who use the fix.
That fix isn't patentable because it's valuable, it's simply valuable because it's patented. It's an arbitrary idea, not necessarily better than any other solution (of avoiding the problem in the first place!), but it becomes a must-have because it's the idea Microsoft chose to implement.
Same with Word. Microsoft patents a few features in their file format and they're essential. You develop your own file format and patent some features, and they just get avoided by Micrsoft and nobody cares about your patents. How good your patents are, or how they compare to Microsoft's patents, is of no consequence.
And so it is with Lexmark. They make cartridges in a certain way. Might be good, might be wonky. You can patent a better idea, but it's useless because you're not looking for "best", you're looking for "compatible".
swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help with developing these arguments is very welcome.
> the goal of the other projects is to pass the tests and thus be considered a real VM.
Ok, if they were complete implementations, then they'd get patent coverage under the Java Language Specification. One major inconvenience though is that the code would have to be developed behind closed doors until it's 100% complete. Developing in the usual free software community style would count as distributing subsets.
Another protection that certain projects do have comes from being on OIN's list of covered software. Since Oracle is a licensee of OIN, they can't use their Java patents, or any other of their patents, against software on the protected list.
> I think that your garden is also my garden
The things I mentioned are all nonrival. My downloading of songs my parents played when I was a kid doesn't interfere with anyone else's ability to appreciate those songs.
Gardens are rivalrous. You sitting in a paddling pool drinking beer in my front garden, would interfere with my use of my front garden.
I think you're ignoring a large part of the question.
There are two types of knowledge a good programmer needs. One part is general programming theory, and that knowledge can be moved pretty easily to a new language. The second part is practical use. That's APIs, nuances, related tools (debuggers, profilers, memory checkers), documentation, the community. That sort of knowledge is usually quite language-specific.
Right. You would prefer that a public accusation on a Friday would circulate in the press until late Monday morning before being reviewed?
I think the round-the-clock system they have, which allowed them to cut the drama short by having judges working on Saturday, sounds like a good idea.
I have to disagree.
The people who learn and write Java are humans. Writing Java is part of their life and they have a right to continue doing it.
Much like culture. I think copyright should be limited to 10 years because it's not only *their* music, it's also *my* music. It's my childhood, and it's my culture. I want to re-live it whenever I choose, and I want to pass it on to friends and family if and when I choose.
Java would have no value if people didn't use it. When people use it, they're investing themselves in it. Java's value thus comes from the users, not only from Sun/Oracle, so the users should have rights to use that thing they contributed to.
Problem is, if they can do it to Google, they can do it to any distributor of a free software JVM.
To be safe, you have to either follow the Java Language Specification exactly (no subsets or supersets), or build your software on the OpenJDK software that Oracle distributes under GPLv2. Here's what info swpat.org has gathered so far about this case and its implications:
Abolish the whole patent system?
I've nothing against that suggestion. It would certainly achieve the aim of getting rid of our software patent problems. But, abolishing the whole system isn't my goal.
Software is different in that it's an activity in which individuals and communities participate, and even when it's done within a company it's often done with a direct financial motive (the software can be a side effect of getting the real work done).
This means that regulations on software development/distribution translate to social problems (what can people do to help themselves and each other?) as well as economic problems (will we produce enough of X at a sufficient quality and a reasonable price?).
Patents on the manufacturing of cars are only an industrial regulation (mass production of cars is exclusively done by medium- to large companies). So there are only the economic problems to consider.
For production of cars, I don't know if patents create or solve economic problems. For software, I've studied the issue and I know that the problems (social and economic) are atrocious. So if you want to get rid of the whole system, you'll get no resistance from me, but for how I use my own time and resources, I'll focus them on abolishing *software* patents.
Of the two reported accusations (rape and assault), investigation of the rape accusation has now been cancelled:
google translation:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http://www.lalibre.be/actu/international/article/604038/wikileaks-le-parquet-annule-l-avis-de-recherche-visant-assange.html&prev=_t
Original (in French):
http://www.lalibre.be/actu/international/article/604038/wikileaks-le-parquet-annule-l-avis-de-recherche-visant-assange.html
Raising examination standards won't fix much. The series of MPEG video formats is covered by over 1,000 patents. If we raise standards massively, we can hope that it will only be covered by a few hundred patents.
Doesn't really solve much, huh?
Most patent stories on Slashdot are about silly patents, but raising standards will not solve our problem. Quality is just too hard to judge with something as abstract as software. A reduction of 50% wouldn't solve the fact that MPEG is covered by dozens of patents, and none of the people complaining about silly patents have proposed a way to raise the standards (not to reduce granting by 50%, and not even to reduce it by 1%). Now, we see that granting is still rising. We'll never get quality standards to catch up. The only way to win, and the only clean solution, is to simply cut software out of the list of things that can be patented.
With all the talk of Java's patent problems, I've done a summary and a comparison to C#. Java's pretty safe, if you stay in certain boundaries.
> They'd also have to gpl every single android maker's software
Not so. And where there's doubt, they could just use the Classpath exception, just as Sun used for OpenJDK (distributed under GPLv2 plus the "Classpath exception").
I've done two other analyses of Oracle v. Google:
> The developer should unit test, and the test group should system test.
In my experience, the developer should participate in system testing too.
System testers have to know what the corner cases are. They can't guess them all (unless they're more skilled at each unit than the unit's developer is, in which case what's this product genius doing in the system test group!). Brute force takes too long for most systems, and even brute force requires knowledge of what variables to change and what ranges to span for each variable.
I used to program embedded systems for oil pipeline tools. (Not a sector with a glowing reputation for reliability right now, but bear with me.) The system testers had decades experience in pigging, hydraulics, tool operation, an ISO certification, but they weren't programmers. The whole team participated in system testing (or a member of each unit group did), so that we'd collectively know all the combinations worth testing.
(As for answering the question of the story, I think the asker really should have given a hint as to what sort of software it is.)
Careful gramps, your age is showing. The page your currently is 131k - a little short of what you call a behemoth. Maybe you'd call it a Hydra, or at least an ogre's big brother.
If you've any other links, I'd like to add them here:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/GSM
> regardless of whether Dalvik pulls directly from Sun code
Not true. Sun released code under GPLv2, which includes a patent grant - one which isn't cancelled by modification or by subsetting, supersetting, or ignoring the specification. If Dalvik was based on Sun's code, Google would be ok.
> You only get a patent grant if you provide a full J2SE implementation,
That might be the general case for Java, but for the GPLv2'd version of Java distributed by Sun/Oracle there's additionally the protections granted by GPLv2.
OpenJDK is distributed under GPLv2, and sections 6 and 7 say that if you can't pass on the four freedoms, you can't distribute. It is distributed by Oracle, which means we all get the four freedoms, so a modified version, or a subset or superset would be safe.
Right?
(Summary of what I'm replying to: It's Google's fault, they should have paid the licence fee.)
Problem is, if Oracle can sue Google, they can sue anyone. What if there was GNU javavm, or what if Red Hat decided to distribute the Dalvik virtual machine?
I would, however, understand if Oracle told Google to stop using the "Java" name and trademark.
With Oracle attacking Google over Java patents...
One lesson to be drawn, as suggested by Miguel de Icaza,[4] is that people should move to Mono and C# because Microsoft's patent terms are better than Sun's.
On the other hand, one could draw the lesson that it's foolish to use languages / platforms controlled by companies that use patents aggressively.
Another point is that if Google had used IcedTea (the GPL'd version of Java), they never would have been at risk from Sun/Oracle's patents.