Except for the white elephant in the room which are these patents that Oracle owns and have tested in court already when a 2003 court settlement with Microsoft created a 10 year cross licensing agreement that allows Microsoft to develop CLR.
I'm not advocating Oracle's position, and I'm against most software patents.
I was asking how a lawsuit that doesn't affect any of the JVMs in existence, or any Java or other JVM implemented languages that run within them, make JVM less viable? I would actually think the lawsuit could make the JVM more viable since it strengthens the power of the consortium that defines the Java standard and its related technologies.
So, Oracle are suing Google and making the JVM a less viable platform.
What?
Oracle is suing Google for making a non-compatible VM call Dalvik that uses technology found in the JVM without paying a license. Since Google wasn't using JVM, how does Oracle's actions against Google make JVM less viable?
Looks like it may finally be time for the LLVM to step up to the plate and provide an open source alternative.
LLVM is a low level virtual machine used to optimize compiler operations and runtime linking. JVM is a high level virtual machine providing objects, garbage collection, and according to Oracle technology patented by Sun. From LLVM website:
The LLVM Project is a collection of modular and reusable compiler and toolchain technologies. Despite its name, LLVM has little to do with traditional virtual machines, though it does provide helpful libraries that can be used to build them.
Actually I would view this proposal much worse if it did involve more than 1 carrier. It would signal that Google was openly and blatantly moving toward a monopoly position as a internet media producer, where Google would have negotiated a bandwidth advantage over any of its competitors. This is a huge red flag that signals that Google sees it acquired enough market and influence covertly that it now can make bolder moves to strengthen its market position.
What is meant by "Reasonable Network management" and is it coincidental that wireless networks were exempted and Google is striving to be the largest presence on the wireless networks with its Android based handsets.
No it isn't. That was over the use of the JAVA trademark.
Trademark was only part of the litigation. J++ extensions to Java and use of Java technologies was also part of the litigation.
This was all finally settled in 2003, as reported by CNET (emphasis mine):
Under the 10-year pact with Microsoft, the software company will pay Sun $700 million to resolve antitrust issues and $900 million to resolve patent issues, the companies said. The companies will pay royalties to use each other's technology; Microsoft is paying $350 million now, with Sun to make payments when it incorporates technology later.
Yea that is what I meant. I tried to do the same but Android Market always stall at 34% when downloading the update. I'll have to debug it with ADB this weekend.
An expanding company makes Java part of their platform.
Google is being sued over Dalvik which is a clean room implementation of part of the Java language with incompatible byte-codes. It is not directly compatible with or can be labeled as Java.
The short-sighted company which owns Java sues the expanding company.
A company defending its technology is not being short sighted. Things would have been different if Google used actual Java code which is GPLed and made a Java based phone OS. The way Oracle sees it, Dalvik is competing with Java in the phone space and they see a problem with that.
The expanding company drops Java and carries on expanding. The short-sighted company realizes its mistake too late.
The problem with your argument is that Google isn't using Java on the PHONE. Oracle makes money on Java by licensing the language for use on embedded devices and Dalvik is cutting into that profit. Adding insult to injury is that Dalvik is not even byte-compatible with Java so Oracle can't even claim Android phones in their marketing material promoting the growth of Java.
Oracle sees a need to protect their investment in Java when it comes to licensing agreements. You may have noticed that they don't charge for their SDK and runtimes, so they must get the money somewhere.
Everyone should have seen this coming when Google decided to make an incompatible version of the Java language since this is the Sun versus Microsoft lawsuit all over again.
Well apparently some people have friends and colleagues that like to call them and have discussions. While others apparently are loners and use their phone only to order take out.
Keep in mind that you may lose some stability using cyanogen instead of the manufacturer's version. Not to mention you have to acquire the Google apps separately (usually hosted on a friendly server). I've rooted my phone and am playing with CM6RC2. Even though it's bleeding edge, I am having better results than CM 5.0.8. Neither version is as stable as the Donut 1.6 that T-Mobile provided.
I'd always take a manufacturer's actively updated firmware over a DIY Cyanmod version. I'd just finally got tired of waiting on T-Mobile and took the plunge.
Looks like we have to choose between "Direct manufacturer support and stability (iPhone)" and "freedom of applications (Android)".
I'm confused by your story. You seem to be mixing 2 unrelated topics in your post:
1. "NetworkManager"
Back in KDE 3.x days, NetworkManager was just getting started, and Unbuntu shipped a very bad snapshot of it which prevented network connections.
2. "KDE 4.x not being released by Ubuntu soon enough for you."
At the time Unbuntu shipped this broken copy, the KDE NetworkManager group had already shifted dev work to the 4.x series, but Unbuntu didn't ship a 4.x KDE until much later. As a result, Unbuntu's poor QA and packing practices led most people to think that NetworkManager didn't work under KDE, rather than the correct conclusion, which is that Unbuntu didn't do proper QA with its packaging.
The end result for that Unbuntu release was that most KDE Unbuntu users either switched to Gnome, stayed on the previous release, or changed distros to see a working NetworkManager in KDE.
I can't say much about the network manager, because I don't use it.
But I believe the reason for the slow adoption for KDE 4 was the fact that KDE 4.0 was released as a poorly labeled bug ridden beta version.
Luckily this is old news and information is already out there.
"Apparently the Senate was in such a rush to get out of town that it forgot to name an 'important' bill that it passed, so the bill goes to the House as The ______Act of____. That's how it appears in the Congressional Record, though the Library of Congress has it listed as The XXXXXXAct ofXXXX.
Yes there appeared to be a last minute decision to replace the text of HR. 1586 with the contents of what will eventually become known as the "State Bailout Bill". Apparently there was a need to replace the contents of the "FAA Modernization Bill" with this emergency spending bill. Possibly the senators figured out that the fastest way to get this to the President's desk was to amend the last house passed bill to replace its contents, and then have the house reconvene to approve the change. No big conspiracy here, but some comical fodder about forgetting to put the final name of the bill into the text.
As for what's in the bill, well that appears to be as mysterious as the name. It was officially announced as a bill to tax bonuses to execs who received TARP money. But then someone simply deleted the entire bill and replaced it with text about aviation security.
No one did such thing, That's amendment S.AMDT.3486 to HR. 1586 Sponsor: Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] (introduced 3/11/2010)
And then it was deleted again, and replaced with something having to do with education.
See my explanation above, and this was not "deleted again". By the way the amendment is S.AMDT.4575 to HR. 1586 Sponsor: Sen Murray, Patty [WA] (submitted 8/2/2010) (proposed 8/2/2010)
However, because of these constant changes, many of the services that track the bill have the old details listed. On top of that, Nancy Pelosi called the House back for an emergency vote on this unnamed bill, and anyone trying to find out what it's about might be misled into thinking its about aviation security or something entirely unrelated to the actual bill. And people wonder why no one trusts Congress."
With the summary so full of political hyperbole, I can see why the submitter remained anonymous. The fact that the article actually provides the PDF of the congressional record proves that the submitter is completely wrong with his assertions.
This supposed conspiracy doesn't rise to the level of the shenanigans that the Republicans performed when they passed the "Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999" that Clinton signed into law. It was that bill ultimately got us in the sad shape we are in now...
People actually started using it. This gave corporations an incentive to "privatize" the net to their advantage, and governments the fear that maybe too much freedom is being allowed.
I disagree. I'll have to take the approach (similar to the NRA's method of lobbying) which is to consider any partitioning off network traffic as a slippery slope that will eventually lead to no net neutrality.
Seriously the cable companies will not be happy until we go back to the days of Compuserve, Prodigy, and AOL where you stayed within their network and only had limited access to the Internet.
I think you meant like Packet Radio (ax.25 Amateur Radio) but using wifi. The old BBSes used FidoNet which was for forwarding mail during non-peak usage hours.
I may be wrong and you're referring to another BBS network.
Nope T-Mobile and ATT have 3G networks that are incompatible with each other.
I do have a friend who use an old iPhone purchased on eBay with data access only on the edge network. I don't because it seems foolish to get edge connectivity at a 3G price.
Given the extremely small proportion of local workers on H-1Bs and the relatively high starting salaries in those regions, you'd need to back that up.
If you are saying that the starting salaries in those regions are higher than the rest of the US, then you are correct. This due to the salary adjustments needed to overcome the high cost of living in those regions. This affects the absolute minimum of what it would take to pay a salary worker, meaning I can take the national average salary for a given profession and then apply the required adjustment to offset the cost of living and voila you have the "relatively high starting wages". Since average wage is floating (non-fixed) it can lower each year and thanks to the cost of living adjustments these regions will still have a relatively high starting wage. So you made an accurate statement while masking the effects of the H1B program. I'll also point out that you qualified your wages as "starting" which equates to the lowest salary range of a given profession, and presumably below the average career wage.
I'd like to know where you came to the conclusion that there is an "extremely small proportion of local workers on H-1Bs". Did you mean proportion relative to the general population of workers, or relative to local workers of a given profession?
I think anyone who asks for citations, should at least back up their assertions to the contrary. Otherwise, its a lazy attempt to make your assertions seem more valid while at the same time asserting that the original poster is making stuff up.
There is a staggering amount of material searchable on Google that supports the theory that H1B is being used to keep wages low and being used unnecessarily. This is due to the fact that H1B is such a hot topic in the IT sector.
Anyway I googled for a hard number to give you and right off the bat I see studies citing that 9 out of 10 new jobs in the tech field during 2003 were being filled by H-1Bs.
I also found an essay written by John Miano whose conclusions included:
Since 1999, the United States has approved enough H-1B visas for computer workers to fill 87 percent of net computer job growth over that period.
Since 1999, the United States has had a net loss of 76,000 engineering jobs. Over the same time period, the United States has approved an average of 16,000 new H-1B visas each year for engineers.
If current employment trends continue and the H-1B quota remains unchanged, the United States will approve enough H-1B visas for computer workers to fill about 79 percent of the computer jobs it creates each year.
His data sources are:
H-1B figures come from the Annual Reports on H-1B visas issued by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and its successor, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (data available 2000-2005). This supplied the number of new H-1B visas and the number of new H-1B visas for computer and engineering workers.
Labor Condition Applications (LCAs) come from the Foreign Labor Certification Data Center, http://www.flcdatacenter.com/ (data available 2001-2007). The study used approved LCAs for computer workers.
Overall employment figures come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Census of Employment and Wages, http://www.bls.gov/cew (annual data available 1994-2006).
Employment figures for computer and engineering professionals come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/oes (data available 1999-2006).
Turnover rates are from Bureau of Labor Statistics Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, http://www.bls.gov/jlt/.
He was arguing that top rung foreign workers get paid middle-rung US salaries and are thus competing against middle-rung US workers.
If you read the article, neither Microsoft nor Intel are getting a free pass on anything. There's no free pass. The proportion of H1Bs at these companies isn't even close to the threshold beyond which it costs extra.
From the bill:
SEC. 402. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or any other provision of law, during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on September 30, 2014, the filing fee and fraud prevention and detection fee required to be submitted with
MDM10642 S.L.C. 7 an application for admission as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(L)) shall be increased by $2,250 for applicants that employ 50 or more employees in the United States if more than 50 percent of the applicant’s employees are nonimmigrants admitted pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of such Act or section 101(a)(15)(L) of such Act.
Fifty percent of the total number of employees are a poor measure of compliance. I can see 50% of the employees for a given job title applied for on the H1B, but not 50% total employees. Especially for companies whose number of sales and customer service employees would offset the number of high tech employees under H1Bs.
For example, I can have all my customer service, clerical, sales, and janitorial jobs done by US citizens and have all my higher paying skilled labor done by H1B applicants and not be penalized by this rule as long as I have less than 50% of my total number employees with a H1B status.
The bill does get around the "Equal Protection" clause by applying the 50% rule uniformly across all applicants.
Slashdot Mirror
Technically you are correct.
Except for the white elephant in the room which are these patents that Oracle owns and have tested in court already when a 2003 court settlement with Microsoft created a 10 year cross licensing agreement that allows Microsoft to develop CLR.
I'm not advocating Oracle's position, and I'm against most software patents.
I was asking how a lawsuit that doesn't affect any of the JVMs in existence, or any Java or other JVM implemented languages that run within them, make JVM less viable? I would actually think the lawsuit could make the JVM more viable since it strengthens the power of the consortium that defines the Java standard and its related technologies.
What?
Oracle is suing Google for making a non-compatible VM call Dalvik that uses technology found in the JVM without paying a license. Since Google wasn't using JVM, how does Oracle's actions against Google make JVM less viable?
LLVM is a low level virtual machine used to optimize compiler operations and runtime linking. JVM is a high level virtual machine providing objects, garbage collection, and according to Oracle technology patented by Sun. From LLVM website:
The LLVM Project is a collection of modular and reusable compiler and toolchain technologies. Despite its name, LLVM has little to do with traditional virtual machines, though it does provide helpful libraries that can be used to build them.
LLVM is not a drop in replacement for JVM.
Actually I would view this proposal much worse if it did involve more than 1 carrier. It would signal that Google was openly and blatantly moving toward a monopoly position as a internet media producer, where Google would have negotiated a bandwidth advantage over any of its competitors. This is a huge red flag that signals that Google sees it acquired enough market and influence covertly that it now can make bolder moves to strengthen its market position.
What is meant by "Reasonable Network management" and is it coincidental that wireless networks were exempted and Google is striving to be the largest presence on the wireless networks with its Android based handsets.
I forgot to raise this point. Google is not making Java part of their platform. They are using Java to bootstrap their implementation of Dalvik.
Trademark was only part of the litigation. J++ extensions to Java and use of Java technologies was also part of the litigation.
This was all finally settled in 2003, as reported by CNET (emphasis mine):
Under the 10-year pact with Microsoft, the software company will pay Sun $700 million to resolve antitrust issues and $900 million to resolve patent issues, the companies said. The companies will pay royalties to use each other's technology; Microsoft is paying $350 million now, with Sun to make payments when it incorporates technology later.
Yea that is what I meant. I tried to do the same but Android Market always stall at 34% when downloading the update. I'll have to debug it with ADB this weekend.
Tony Abbott reminds me of a soap opera villan. He always has something cheesy to say about the ruling party.
Google is being sued over Dalvik which is a clean room implementation of part of the Java language with incompatible byte-codes. It is not directly compatible with or can be labeled as Java.
A company defending its technology is not being short sighted. Things would have been different if Google used actual Java code which is GPLed and made a Java based phone OS. The way Oracle sees it, Dalvik is competing with Java in the phone space and they see a problem with that.
The problem with your argument is that Google isn't using Java on the PHONE. Oracle makes money on Java by licensing the language for use on embedded devices and Dalvik is cutting into that profit. Adding insult to injury is that Dalvik is not even byte-compatible with Java so Oracle can't even claim Android phones in their marketing material promoting the growth of Java.
Oracle sees a need to protect their investment in Java when it comes to licensing agreements. You may have noticed that they don't charge for their SDK and runtimes, so they must get the money somewhere.
Everyone should have seen this coming when Google decided to make an incompatible version of the Java language since this is the Sun versus Microsoft lawsuit all over again.
I noticed that the CM6RC2 had an old version of ROM manager. Did you install the new ROM manager and allow it to perform the upgrade to CM6?
Well apparently some people have friends and colleagues that like to call them and have discussions. While others apparently are loners and use their phone only to order take out.
Keep in mind that you may lose some stability using cyanogen instead of the manufacturer's version. Not to mention you have to acquire the Google apps separately (usually hosted on a friendly server). I've rooted my phone and am playing with CM6RC2. Even though it's bleeding edge, I am having better results than CM 5.0.8. Neither version is as stable as the Donut 1.6 that T-Mobile provided.
I'd always take a manufacturer's actively updated firmware over a DIY Cyanmod version. I'd just finally got tired of waiting on T-Mobile and took the plunge.
Looks like we have to choose between "Direct manufacturer support and stability (iPhone)" and "freedom of applications (Android)".
It's not like Google executives are like BP's... wait... never mind.
I'm confused by your story. You seem to be mixing 2 unrelated topics in your post:
1. "NetworkManager"
2. "KDE 4.x not being released by Ubuntu soon enough for you."
I can't say much about the network manager, because I don't use it.
But I believe the reason for the slow adoption for KDE 4 was the fact that KDE 4.0 was released as a poorly labeled bug ridden beta version.
You'd think there might be a political agenda.
Luckily this is old news and information is already out there.
Yes there appeared to be a last minute decision to replace the text of HR. 1586 with the contents of what will eventually become known as the "State Bailout Bill". Apparently there was a need to replace the contents of the "FAA Modernization Bill" with this emergency spending bill. Possibly the senators figured out that the fastest way to get this to the President's desk was to amend the last house passed bill to replace its contents, and then have the house reconvene to approve the change. No big conspiracy here, but some comical fodder about forgetting to put the final name of the bill into the text.
No one did such thing, That's amendment S.AMDT.3486 to HR. 1586 Sponsor: Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] (introduced 3/11/2010)
See my explanation above, and this was not "deleted again". By the way the amendment is S.AMDT.4575 to HR. 1586 Sponsor: Sen Murray, Patty [WA] (submitted 8/2/2010) (proposed 8/2/2010)
With the summary so full of political hyperbole, I can see why the submitter remained anonymous. The fact that the article actually provides the PDF of the congressional record proves that the submitter is completely wrong with his assertions.
This supposed conspiracy doesn't rise to the level of the shenanigans that the Republicans performed when they passed the "Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999" that Clinton signed into law. It was that bill ultimately got us in the sad shape we are in now...
People actually started using it. This gave corporations an incentive to "privatize" the net to their advantage, and governments the fear that maybe too much freedom is being allowed.
You may want to look up the term Universal Jurisdiction.
Add that they can beat each other to death, we can call the show "Deadliest Attaché"
I disagree. I'll have to take the approach (similar to the NRA's method of lobbying) which is to consider any partitioning off network traffic as a slippery slope that will eventually lead to no net neutrality.
Seriously the cable companies will not be happy until we go back to the days of Compuserve, Prodigy, and AOL where you stayed within their network and only had limited access to the Internet.
Easy! The Supreme Court.
Look up "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission"
It happened in January 2010 and gave corporations first amendment rights.
I think you meant like Packet Radio (ax.25 Amateur Radio) but using wifi. The old BBSes used FidoNet which was for forwarding mail during non-peak usage hours.
I may be wrong and you're referring to another BBS network.
Funny the internet that I knew the longest was operated by big government.
Nope T-Mobile and ATT have 3G networks that are incompatible with each other.
I do have a friend who use an old iPhone purchased on eBay with data access only on the edge network. I don't because it seems foolish to get edge connectivity at a 3G price.
If you are saying that the starting salaries in those regions are higher than the rest of the US, then you are correct. This due to the salary adjustments needed to overcome the high cost of living in those regions. This affects the absolute minimum of what it would take to pay a salary worker, meaning I can take the national average salary for a given profession and then apply the required adjustment to offset the cost of living and voila you have the "relatively high starting wages". Since average wage is floating (non-fixed) it can lower each year and thanks to the cost of living adjustments these regions will still have a relatively high starting wage. So you made an accurate statement while masking the effects of the H1B program. I'll also point out that you qualified your wages as "starting" which equates to the lowest salary range of a given profession, and presumably below the average career wage.
I'd like to know where you came to the conclusion that there is an "extremely small proportion of local workers on H-1Bs". Did you mean proportion relative to the general population of workers, or relative to local workers of a given profession?
I think anyone who asks for citations, should at least back up their assertions to the contrary. Otherwise, its a lazy attempt to make your assertions seem more valid while at the same time asserting that the original poster is making stuff up.
There is a staggering amount of material searchable on Google that supports the theory that H1B is being used to keep wages low and being used unnecessarily. This is due to the fact that H1B is such a hot topic in the IT sector.
Anyway I googled for a hard number to give you and right off the bat I see studies citing that 9 out of 10 new jobs in the tech field during 2003 were being filled by H-1Bs.
I also found an essay written by John Miano whose conclusions included:
His data sources are:
From the bill:
SEC. 402. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or any other provision of law, during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on September 30, 2014, the filing fee and fraud prevention and detection fee required to be submitted with MDM10642 S.L.C. 7 an application for admission as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(L)) shall be increased by $2,250 for applicants that employ 50 or more employees in the United States if more than 50 percent of the applicant’s employees are nonimmigrants admitted pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of such Act or section 101(a)(15)(L) of such Act.
Fifty percent of the total number of employees are a poor measure of compliance. I can see 50% of the employees for a given job title applied for on the H1B, but not 50% total employees. Especially for companies whose number of sales and customer service employees would offset the number of high tech employees under H1Bs.
For example, I can have all my customer service, clerical, sales, and janitorial jobs done by US citizens and have all my higher paying skilled labor done by H1B applicants and not be penalized by this rule as long as I have less than 50% of my total number employees with a H1B status.
The bill does get around the "Equal Protection" clause by applying the 50% rule uniformly across all applicants.
Maybe because I was addressing the specific exploit mentioned by the GP...
No more coffee for you!