Oracle Sues Google For Infringing Java Patents 510
Bruce Perens writes "Oracle has brought a lawsuit against Google claiming that Google has infringed patents on the Java platform in Android. Scribd has a copy of the complaint. But there's a patent grant that should allow Google to use Java royalty-free. Has Google failed to meet the terms of the grant?"
documenting it on http://en.swpat.org (Score:5, Informative)
There's more info on en.swpat.org at:
It's a publicly-editable wiki; feel free to help out.
Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org (Score:5, Informative)
the patents themselves mean pretty much nothing, (hello? Bilski scotus ruling?)and also because Java is licensed under the GPL. So unless google is breaking GPL (very unlikely), it'll be hard to get a clear picture of what is going on at all until this case moves forward.
Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org (Score:5, Informative)
First, you seem to think the Bilski ruling said a lot more than it did: it did not invalidate software patents and only some of the justices involved even cast any doubt on the idea that they should be valid.
The GPL is irrelevant in this case. Google's VM is not based on Sun's GPL'd code, it is an independent implementation (under a BSD-style license, as I recall). The GPL only protects derivatives of the GPL'd code from patent liability. It does not protect any other code.
Perens seems to be unable to read the text that he quoted in his blog too. The grant there only covers complete Java 2 SE implementations. Android is not a complete J2SE implementation. But, hey, he got it on Slashdot and got paid for the ad impressions down the side...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's also only the preamble.
IANAL, but so what that it's in the preamble? The statement is pretty clear itself, it's even preceded with the phrase we have made it clear.
Anyone who distributes the GPLed work is licensed or nobody is.
That's not so. First of all, with the patents it's the "use" that's licensed not the distribution. Second, to me "everyone's free use" means what it says and it's not limited to distributors or program in question only*. Third, if you read the patent section in the license "everyone" includes any person who receives the software "directly or indirectly through you" - t
Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org (Score:4, Interesting)
and also because Java is licensed under the GPL.
"Java" isn't licensed under the GPL. A single Java implementation, derived from Sun's proprietary source code, is licensed under the GPL. Furthermore, the patent grant applies only if you meet specific compatibility conditions, which no implementation other than Sun's meets.
Google implemented the Java language, not its libraries, and did it by themselves. Android (and Dalvik) are licensed under a mix of Apache and GPL, but that doesn't matter; the license under which a third party implementation is released is not relevant for the patent grant.
Google rolled their own implementation and libraries for good reason: the full Java platform would have been far too obese for Android, and embedded versions of Java aren't free at all.
There is effectively only one Java implementation, the one controlled by Sun/Oracle. Sun killed most of the others early on with legal threats, and the few remaining ones seem to fail to meet the conditions of Sun's public patent grant.
Anybody who writes Java software is pretty much stuck with running it on Sun/Oracle's proprietary implementation or its nominally GPL derivative. You're joined at the hip with Oracle, in the bending over kind of sense.
Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org (Score:5, Informative)
and also because Java is licensed under the GPL.
"Java" isn't licensed under the GPL. A single Java implementation, derived from Sun's proprietary source code, is licensed under the GPL. Furthermore, the patent grant applies only if you meet specific compatibility conditions, which no implementation other than Sun's meets.
Google implemented the Java language, not its libraries, and did it by themselves. Android (and Dalvik) are licensed under a mix of Apache and GPL, but that doesn't matter; the license under which a third party implementation is released is not relevant for the patent grant.
Google rolled their own implementation and libraries for good reason: the full Java platform would have been far too obese for Android, and embedded versions of Java aren't free at all.
There is effectively only one Java implementation, the one controlled by Sun/Oracle. Sun killed most of the others early on with legal threats, and the few remaining ones seem to fail to meet the conditions of Sun's public patent grant.
Anybody who writes Java software is pretty much stuck with running it on Sun/Oracle's proprietary implementation or its nominally GPL derivative. You're joined at the hip with Oracle, in the bending over kind of sense.
Almost but not quite , check out this interesting read: http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/110/ [betaversion.org]
So, Android uses the syntax of the Java platform (the Java “language”, if you wish, which is enough to make java programmers feel at home and IDEs to support the editing smoothly) and the java SE class library but not the Java bytecode or the Java virtual machine to execute it on the phone (and, note, Android’s implementation of the Java SE class library is, indeed, Apache Harmony’s!)
The trick is that Google doesn’t claim that Android is a Java platform, although it can run some programs written with the Java language and against some derived version of the Java class library. Sun could prevent this if they had a patent on the standard class library, but they don’t and, even if they did, I strongly doubt it would be enforceable since Android doesn’t claim to be compatible (and in fact, could very well claim that their subset/superset is an innovation on the existing patent and challenge Sun’s position).
Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org (Score:5, Interesting)
Miguel de Icaza gives a pretty good guess [tirania.org] about what's happened.
The gist is that Sun very carefully licensed Java under the GPL with an agreement that anyone who implements Java 100%, without supersetting, would get access to the patents. Apparently Sun's embedded implementations have some special functionality not included in the GPLed version. This is where the "very carefully" bit comes in -- it means others can't implement their own embedded versions (adding that special functionality would be supersetting), and would have to license Sun's version. Their embedded implementation generates the bulk of the cash for them, and they wanted to protect that.
Google wanted to use Java but didn't want everyone to need to license the embedded version. So they implemented their own. To get around the supersetting issue, they changed their implementation (Dalvik) to not infringe on Sun's patents -- even going so far as to change the bytecode format and implementing a Java->Dalvik bytecode translator.
Now Sun sees everyone hopping on the Android train for all sorts of devices, and no licensing fees coming in from any of them. And they're suing.
It sounds plausible to me but Miguel is the author of Mono, so take this with a grain of salt. He's usually the one having an argument against someone saying how everyone should use Java because Microsoft will pull the same type of stunt against Mono some day, so this must be a humorous day for him.
Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org (Score:4, Insightful)
Now Sun sees everyone hopping on the Android train for all sorts of devices, and no licensing fees coming in from any of them. And they're suing.
Small correction, Oracle is sueing. I personally like to think Sun was more a bunch of business/social-awkward techheads trying to stay afloat with technology, rather then the blood-sucking vampires that run Oracle's legal/licensing department.
Ellison, much like balmer has an air of megalomania about him...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
An air? He is the textbook megalomaniac.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, even if not, I'm sure he THINKS he wrote it. :-)
Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org (Score:5, Informative)
Except that, as it happens, that's not quite right. Sun's license only prohibits supersetting by adding functionality in the java.*, javax.*, and possibly com.sun.* class heirachies. So Google could've used Sun Java but added their own Android-specific mobile functionality in com.android.* that weren't compatible with Sun's and still benefitted from the patent license. (They already did this as well as creating the Dalvik VM.) If they used .Net, they'd have to do exactly the same since Microsoft doesn't have any openly-licensed mobile or GUI APIs; this happens to actually be more risky than doing the same with Java.
The real killer for mobile and embedded applications is probably the prohibition on subsetting. You don't want to have to include the entire .Net or Java API on a device with limited RAM...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now Sun sees everyone hopping on the Android train for all sorts of devices, and no licensing fees coming in from any of them. And they're suing.
Actually Sun's grievances go way back to 2007 [cnet.com] ("Sun's worried that Google Android could fracture Java".) It's just that Oracle's bite is worse than Sun's bark. Oracle see Java as probably the most important part of the Sun acquisition and it's logical they would want to protect it from fracturing as Sun did with MS in the early years. They're too big to be pushed around by Google too which sadly couldn't be said of the waning Sun.
Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org (Score:4, Insightful)
Oracle see Java as probably the most important part of the Sun acquisition and it's logical they would want to protect it from fracturing as Sun did with MS in the early years
If they don't want to see Java fracture, they should stop wasting everyone's time with JavaME -- it's been a decade now and no one has ever done anything useful with it -- and embrace whatever's in Android as the official mobile Java solution.
The writing's on the wall.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, I dunno. I'd wonder how many developers are looking at this and deciding to use some language other than Java until the courts tell us that it's safe to use Java again.
Not that I expect the courts to say that. More likely, they'll s
Larry Ellison is the Rupert Murdoch of Technology (Score:4, Insightful)
A powerful, mean and hateful man - who's wealth and power have brought no comfort to his cramped and ugly little self. The paucity of his humanity is demonstrated with every pathetic grab he makes.
Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not for MySQL (to kill) or their overpriced shitty hardware (to commoditize). They bought Sun for Java - you know how many other companies Oracle might have by the short and curlies now?
Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sun is to blame (Score:5, Interesting)
It was Sun who never submitted Java to ISO or ANSI, it was Sun who created a dual-licensed Java, it was Sun who filed hundreds of patents on Java-related technologies, and it was Sun who created the limited patent grant under conditions that nobody could meet.
And it was predictable that Sun would eventually fail and get bought by someone who might start to enforce those patents; in fact, the reason Oracle was willing to outbid everybody else was probably because they realized that these patents hadn't been placed fully into the public domain.
I had been warning about this for years, but all the Java fanboys were arguing that Sun was the good guys, that they would never sue, and that Java was a free and open platform.
Do your homework people: what has happened was predictable, and the evil seeds were sown by Sun itself.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, they were going to submit to ISO... but then the complaints suddenly started coming in about being a standard from a single company. One of said complaints was from Microsoft, naturally.
Funny how MS doesn't have that same problem when it's t
Re:Sun is to blame (Score:4, Interesting)
Sun made a promise and commitment to make Java an ANSI/ISO standard and they failed to live up to that, period. As a result, the industry is stuck with a proprietary and badly designed language.
As for the reasons, in the 90's, the industry and standards bodies were highly sympathetic to Sun; they could have gotten Java through fast track and without any changes from Microsoft. It was Sun's decision not to standardize Java, precisely because they did not want it to be an open platform.
As for C#, yes, Microsoft didn't have much of a choice at that point: they needed a Java-like language and they couldn't use Java. What were they supposed to do?
Sun overplayed their hand and they lost; their control of Java never translated into a sufficiently large business. If they had gone through with Java standardization in the 90's, they might even still be in business.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sun made a promise and commitment to make Java an ANSI/ISO standard and they failed to live up to that, period. As a result, the industry is stuck with a proprietary and badly designed language.
I disagree, Sun made a promise.(full stop)
The industry believed them, and as a result is stuck with a proprietary and badly designed language.
NEVER take action based on a companies "promises". Either it's a legally binding agreement, or it doesn't even belong in your decision-making process.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You have been warning all this years that Google will be sued over patents for a Virtual Machine? In this patent minefield in the USA it's a wonder if you are not been sued over a Hello World application. I think so
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The under the GPL licensed Java VM will become a much more proprietary platform then the C# from MS one.
The GPL-licensed Java VM is already proprietary, it can't become any more proprietary than it is.
I think every C# fan boy is so happy about this news, but can you please try a little harder?
Don't use Java, it's a patent trap. That's all I can say. Personally, I use Python, Ruby, and C++ instead. If C# is your thing, fine.
Re:Sun is to blame (Score:4, Insightful)
No, this isn't "like any other company" or like any other patent portfolio. Sun claimed that Java was an open platform when, in fact, it was highly patent encumbered, by design.
And open source developers had other choices. They chose Java because they erroneously believed that Sun's platform was open.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not true at all. For example, that's exactly what Apache Harmony is: a clean room implementation that meets all the conditions.
Stop lying. Apache Harmony does not meet the conditions.
http://www.javaworld.com/community/node/4439 [javaworld.com]
The goal of the patent grant was clearly to avoid fragmentation.
No, the goal of Sun's patent and licensing shenanigans was to gain control of key APIs in the industry. "Fragmentation" was merely a smokescreen.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, it's not about whether Sun was good or evil, it's about having open source developers avoid being so gullible in the future. Companies fail and you can't rely on their supposed good will or track record. What matters is the licenses and patent situation.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, SUN is good or evil is the subject of this thread BTW.
Who cares? Sun is dead. We need to make sure this doesn't happen again.
I think that GPL is the best option, but it's my opinion.
And that's the problem: the GPL is not sufficient. Dual-licensing, lack of a clear patent grant, breaking promises, and requiring copyright assignment are red flags.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? (Score:5, Funny)
None of the really hip companies, they all shave.
Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? (Score:5, Interesting)
Google should have bought Sun. They had all kinds of interesting projects, people, patents and research happening. Plus they also would have had the SPARC platform (not big iron, but the CMT implementations) that, given enough investment, could have paid off in the long run for their commodity datacenters.
For 7 billion, Sun was worth it. I wonder why they just let it pass.
Re:Why do you think Oracle bought Sun? (Score:5, Funny)
Why do you think Oracle bought Sun?
For Solaris?
Serious questions raised by Oracle patent attack (Score:5, Interesting)
It will be hard to find out whether Oracle planned this kind of aggression when buying Sun, but it can certainly be stated that the free software/open source community hasn't benefited from the acquisition.
There's a number of important questions that Oracle's patent attack raises [blogspot.com]:
This is a patent dispute with very wide-ranging implications.
Re:Serious questions raised by Oracle patent attac (Score:5, Informative)
tl;dr summary since I got pretty long-winded: The problem is that Java was never open in the first place. Users of FOSS need to learn to decide for themselves when technologies aren't really open, and avoid using them.
It will be hard to find out whether Oracle planned this kind of aggression when buying Sun, but it can certainly be stated that the free software/open source community hasn't benefited from the acquisition.
There's a number of important questions that Oracle's patent attack raises:
* Did Oracle try to resolve this amicably with Google (by way of a license deal) or is Oracle pursuing purely destructive objectives?
Does this really matter? It would have been good for PR, but is anyone really under the illusion that Oracle wants to play nice with anyone? Personally I'd rather companies make it clear when they intend to swing around the "government-sanctioned monopolist hammer" instead of pretending that they're really quite reasonable, but that you do owe them quite a bit of money for using that technology they insisted was really open. Regarding PR, this kind of activity does put companies in my, "prone to dangerous legal demands" category, but frankly, Sun and Oracle were already both in that category.
* Will Google solve this patent problem in a way that the entire Android ecosystem (including the makers of Android-based phones and the authors of Android apps) will be reassured, or will Google only take care of its own risk?
Valid and important question, but as a non-Android and non-Java developer, I'm not interested in the answer.
* Is Java less of an open standard now than C#? I don't really buy the argument that Oracle may only be suing because of deviations from the standards definition. This kind of patent attack is evil no matter whether Google adhere to certain specififcations or not.
I wouldn't say Java is "less" open than C#. I do and always have put them in the same boat, which is "IP minefield, never develop in these environments." Also, this action changed NOTHING. Java has ALWAYS been an IP minefield just as much as C#, it's just that Sun managed to fool quite a few more people about it than Microsoft could. The only good patents are patents that are effectively neutered by PERMISSIVE patent grants. Sun's patent grant has always been a joke.
* Isn't this now the ultimate proof that the Open Invention Network doesn't really protect the Linux ecosystem from patent attacks? This is case of one OIN licensee (Oracle) suing another (Google).
Another interesting question, OIN's license only grants acces to patents specifically related to the Linux System [openinventionnetwork.com] as defined by OIN. After a quick look through the listing, the Java SDK itself doesn't seem to be there. There are several components that rely on Java (ant, an eclipse java compiler, a gcc Java runtime), but if those packages don't exercise the patents in question, then Oracle is acting exactly as the OIN is designed to allow them to act.
I don't see this as a failing of OIN. The way I see it, the fact that the Java SDK isn't considered a part of the "Linux System" by OIN means that Oracle doesn't consider Java to be open, which means to me that I don't want to use or rely on Java. It's nice for PR to say things like, "OIN protects licensees from patent threats related to Linux", but if you're going to be doing business based on that assurance, you should definitely be checking the definitions and making sure that what you think is covered is actually covered.
After putting in a bit more thought before posting, I have to say that while my previous comments are valid, your point is also valid. The "Linux Ecosystem", a more broadly defined set of software than the quite narrowly-defined "Linux System" according to OIN, is not at all fully covered
Re:Serious questions raised by Oracle patent attac (Score:4, Insightful)
From what I'm reading, it could be python Syntax and it just wouldn't matter. It's the running of code in a bytecode virtual-machine where the patents seem to have bite.
Interpreted scripts are going to be a hard sell to developers, it either needs to natively compile or at least compile into a bytecode blob.
I personally would be resistant in investing hundreds of hours, or millions of dollars in marketing and development for a big title to only have Python scripts being passed around for the world to take and use.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Considering that there is very much PRIOR ART [wikipedia.org], that dates back to the 1966 and again in the early 70's on that act in question , I don't think that what Oracle's doing is a wise move on their part. They're taking on someone that can actually afford to litigate that position and win- with the end result of Oracle eating the expense of the lawsuit and losing a handful of patents in their portfolio.
I can't imagine what's going through Ellison's mind right now that he'd play this move this way.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They're taking on someone that can actually afford to litigate that position and win- with the end result of Oracle eating the expense of the lawsuit and losing a handful of patents in their portfolio.
Thanks. I've been going through post after post wondering when someone would mention this. No owner of software patents WANT to appear in court - it's just too risky.
Hooray Patent Minefield! (Score:5, Insightful)
Patent Minefields - helping drive innovation forward!
Re:Hooray Patent Minefield! (Score:5, Interesting)
Your satire is well taken. Here's an example, Rare Sharing of Data Leads to Progress on Alzheimer's [nytimes.com], that shows how much can be accomplished when everyone agrees to share and work together. Perhaps this collaboration is not perfect and the outcome not certain, but perhaps it's a start. We accomplish more when we work together.
This is the real point of the story (Score:3, Insightful)
People will draw conclusions about Sun, Oracle and Google, about Android and Java, but this is all missing the point.
This is about software patents, which cannot coexist with a functioning software industry.
There are hundreds of thousands of them. No one can read them all, let alone remember them all. Not even Microsoft, Google and Oracle can do it, so they infringe thousands of patents at the end of each day of work. Even if the baby jesus came came down from heaven and granted them perfect knowledge of al
So don't use Java (Score:4, Interesting)
Or at least, fully support native binary apps right now, at the same time as trying to clear up Dalvik's legal situation. Java is actually an idiotic choice for mobile devices. Running on an interpreter means it uses many times the battery power to get things done compared to native apps. Just expose a native app loader so folks who want to build native apps don't have to jump through demented JNI hoops.
Java may have its advantages - mainly, a garbage collector, which is also a disadvantage - but C++ apps run way faster, even if Java is JITted. And a JIT sucks battery life too, as well as introducing annoying, user-visible startup latency and imposing a huge memory footprint. Just take a deep breath and go native, it's the best solution for everybody.
Like most things in the legal system..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Either you're trolling or you don't understand what patent law is.
Re:Like most things in the legal system..... (Score:4, Informative)
Patent law creates the tort of patent infringement, granting patent owners the right to sue those who practice their inventions without permission the right to sue for the tort of patent infringement. No violation of law is involved. If there were it would be the government taking the infringer to court, not the patent owner.
Sun released Java under the GPL (Score:3, Informative)
Groklaw [groklaw.net]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah but I think this is about non-sun implementations which use sun/oracle patented techniques.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sun released Java under the GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
Congratulation ORACLE (Score:2, Insightful)
You're retarded
No, really. Whose idea was that? How's that MBA called? Ok, then Google says, "ok, here's your billion dollars, go away"
Or Google can absolutely block Oracle with its patents and other dirty tricks.
And then MS will have a field day with this.
Of course, Google in using Java in the first place for android, is debatable, still
Re:Congratulation ORACLE (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, Google in using Java in the first place for android, is debatable, still
Google isn't really "using Java"; they are using the Java language, but almost none of the implementation or libraries.
Why did they choose the Java language? Because they needed a safe, statically typed, garbage collected language that people had experience with and that there were tools for. There is little else out there that fits the bill (C# wasn't an option at the time they started).
Re:Congratulation ORACLE (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right, and I understand that. I have friends developing for android and they say it's a breeze.
But not even the best solution is without faults
Re:Congratulation ORACLE (Score:5, Insightful)
Google isn't really "using Java"; they are using the Java language, but almost none of the implementation or libraries.
Which is why Bruce Perens' blog entry is irrelevant. If he'd bothered to read the text that he quoted, he'd see that the patent grant only applies to complete implementations of the Java SE environment. Android uses Java-the-language but not Java-the-platform, so is not covered by the patent grant. This was intentional on the part of Sun: the aim of Java was 'write once, run anywhere' and this is not possible if various implementations have incompatible standard library implementations.
Re:Congratulation ORACLE (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Congratulation ORACLE (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Apparently some did see it coming. I don't remember it being reported at the time but here's what the Trolltech CTO said back in 2007 :
"They are using Java, but they aren't implementing any well-known Java framework, and really that just creates another standard to support. The risk they take here is that they might fragment the market further," Benoit Schillings, Trolltech chief technology officer [said]." ("Google's Android parts ways with Java industry group")
Of course Google was, and still is, the tech darling that could do no wrong and nothing seemed to come of it for a couple of years. Unfortunately for Google it seems that Oracle is very much a business company first and a tech company second. One with very deep pockets no less. This could get interesting, if someone could give Google a run for their money it'd be Oracle. Oracle might even see it as a preemptive strike against a company that wants to move data out of the datacenter and into their cloud.
Epic Fight on the way.. (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder if this could be as big and as interesting(for the geek community) a fight as SCO v Novell
There's an interesting comment on James Gosling's blog http://nighthacks.com/roller/jag/entry/the_shit_finally_hits_the [nighthacks.com]
"Not a big surprise. During the integration meetings between Sun and Oracle where we were being grilled about the patent situation between Sun and Google, we could see the Oracle lawyer's eyes sparkle"
And yet more money get syphoned out of the IT industry into the lawyers pockets. Sigh
Re:Epic Fight on the way.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Boies, Schiller & Flexner (Score:5, Insightful)
God, it's like SCO & IBM again.
Stepping on the toes of just one the world's largest corporations not enough for them?
Re: (Score:3)
Copyright too ? (Score:4, Interesting)
The link mentions both patent and copyright infringement. Is that accurate?
I'm far more interested in alleged copyright violations in an open-source ecosystem than patent violations. What does it mean for other players trying to build on Java if you're going to get done for copyright infringement by doing so ?
Stallman rolling in his, er, house (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
RMS is really a great visionary but Oracle actually proves him wrong because he recently warned against Mono, DotGNU and C# because of patent concerns. I disagreed and said that those platforms are the last pieces of software against Microsoft would consider using its patents because those basically help the .NET ecosystem. More importantly, I said that other programming languages are also patent-encumbered, and I mentioned Java [blogspot.com]. That's why I thought it was wrong to single out C#.
Oddly enough, right now --
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Stallman rolling in his, er, house (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this is a proof of how dangerous is to bet your future in platforms controlled by companies like Oracle or Microsoft. I don't care if mono it's a bit safer to use, it's still dangerous if it's in the hands of a company that can change its opinion depending of what Wall Street does. I think opensource should avoid platforms "owned" by companies in some way and bet into open plataforms like python. Python could be sued for patents, but python itself will never sue anyone.
Re:No, not even close... (Score:4, Interesting)
OpenOffice.org does not implement the JVM and java compilers and libraries.
That is incorrect. Use of the JVM in OpenOffice.org is entirely optional at this point in time which is why a lot of people recommend disabling it to improve performance. A few years ago, OpenOffice was starting to rely heavily on Java with a lot of new features (such as wizards and templates), threatening to make the JVM a requirement. This is why Stallman suggested that the project be forked so people could strip Java out of the program. This was a brilliant move because it essentially prompted Sun to license Java under the GPL.
What Google has done, they created a coffee cup without lid, small handle and they want to call it Java, but it's not by definition.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe Droid was marketed as being based on the Java language as opposed to being an implementation of the Java spec. Whereas Microsoft took Java and poisoned the well by making platform specific additions to the language (thus negating, write once, run everywhere), I believe the makers of Droid built a Java like language from the ground up. To my knowledge, there have been no claims that standard Java programs can run on Droid. In fact, I believe a lot of standard classes in Java aren't even present on Droid. Again, I haven't developed on the platform so I don't know.
Not a grant; a licence (Score:3, Informative)
Boo Oracle (Score:2, Insightful)
Looks like a good reason... (Score:3, Insightful)
...not to use Java.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
To avoid being sued by Oracle or having the platform on which your software has been debugged sued by Oracle.
as predicted (Score:5, Interesting)
So much for all the people who said that Java was open, free, and not patent-encumbered. The Java patent grant [perens.com] set up conditions that you can essentially not meet unless you use Sun/Oracle's version. And the fact that Sun was going to be taken over was obvious for years. I had just hoped it was going to be IBM, who wouldn't have done this sort of thing.
Complete FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
There is only one latest version of Java (i.e. only one spec). You can be on a Java spec. committee and vote on what goes into next Java version specification, and everyone who wants to make the next version of Java (the language and JVM) has to implement all the same things agreed to be able to call it Java.
Thi
stop making things up (Score:5, Insightful)
Java is a spec and NOT an implementation. You are free to make your own implementation of the spec (IBM, Apple and many others do).
IBM and Apple have not "made their own implementations"; they have licensed Sun/Oracle's implementations and created derivatives.
You are not free to make your own implementation of the spec; you need to pass Sun's compatibility tests if you don't want to get hit by patent lawsuits because Sun hold essential patents for creating a conforming implementation.
For years now, there has been no implementation of Java conforming to the Java spec except for those derived from Sun's source code. That's not an accident: it's pretty much impossible to meet Sun's compatibility requirements without licensing their source code.
This would not be true if Apple cheated and did not implement some part of Java spec (which is the case with what Google did).
Google didn't "cheat", Google implemented their own platform and runtime; they just happened to use the Java language to do it. In principle, Sun/Oracle couldn't have done anything about that: Sun doesn't hold a patent on the Java language itself. But it appears as if the Android designers may not have been careful enough to avoid all of Sun's patents.
Re:Complete FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Google have implemented 1 and 2 according to the specs.
No, Android does not implement the JVM. Android's Dalvik VM is a register based machine, just like the CLR. In part, that's probably because they wanted to minimize the risk of getting successfully sued by Sun. Let's hope they did their homework.
Not even Sun/Oracle is insane enough to propose that you should use the java standard edition on mobile phones.
No, instead they want you to license their embedded Java implementation, which isn't covered even by the hokey J2SE specs/licenses.
If I was Google... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
...or appeal to the OHA members [openhandsetalliance.com] to put any relevant software patents into an arsenal to hit Oracle with. They exist to improve (and perhaps protect) the platform.
Interesting JAVA RESEARCH LICENSE (Score:5, Interesting)
Just for the record: What Sun said (now Oracle still says) about reading Oracle Java source code and creating a clean room implementation: JAVA RESEARCH LICENSE FAQ Question 18 [java.net]
18. Does the JRL prevent me from being able to create an independent open source implementation of the licensed technology?
The JRL is not a tainting license and includes an express "residual knowledge" clause which says you're not contaminated by things you happen to remember after examining the licensed technology. The JRL allows you to use the source code for the purpose of JRL-related activities but does not prohibit you from working on an independent implementation of the technology afterwards. Obviously, if your intention is to create an "independent" implementation of the technology then it is inappropriate to actively study JRL source while working on such an implementation. It is appropriate, however, to allow some decent interval of time (e.g. two weeks) to elapse between working on a project that involves looking at some JRL source code and working on a project that involves creating an independent implementation of the same technology
it says there's *no* grant (Score:3, Informative)
Reading a bit further, I don't think this is relevant. Here's the only mention of patents, and it's saying there's *no* grant:
B. Residual Rights. If You examine the Technology after accepting this License and remember anything about it later, You are not "tainted" in a way that would prevent You from creating or contributing to an independent implementation, but this License grants You no rights to Sun's copyrights or patents for use in such an implementation.
Am I missing anything?
Here's the lawsuit as a PDF (Score:5, Informative)
> The text of their lawsuit isn't available
Yes it is. I put it here:
Other info:
Re: (Score:2)
Oracle don't care. They are in it for the money, even more than IBM.
Re:How ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
That the first competing VM to be throttled by the patent holder would be a Java-based one, not a .NET-based one. I bet Steve Ballmer is laughing his ass off right now saying, "even I'm not that stupid."
Did you miss the part where SUN has (succesfully) sued Microsoft for the exact same thing?
Re:How ironic (Score:4, Informative)
No. Sun sued Microsoft because Microsoft was not implementing the JVM to spec, thereby violating the trademark agreement they had with Sun that allowed them to use the Java name for their JVM.
Mart
Re:How ironic (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, didn't Sun sue Microsoft for their usual Embrace, Extend, Extinguish tactics when they added proprietary extensions [wikipedia.org] to their Java version and claimed it was still Java, thus violating Suns patents/trademarks/copyright/license terms/whatever?
They didn't sue just because MS created their own runtime/JVM, they sued because MS distributed an incomplete Java implementation, and then passed it off as the Java, something which only Sun had the legal right to do.
Re:How ironic (Score:4, Interesting)
It wasn't the exact same thing. Microsoft was passing off a bastardized version of Java as Java so they were sued for trademark infringement and related matters.
Google doesn't claim their platform is Java and never has. Oracle can't sue them for the same reasons so they've pulled some generic patents out of their ass and are suing them for those. Google will probably pull a bunch of generic web patents out its ass and countersue. After a big noise both sides will settle.
Re: (Score:2)
Please, *you*, sue the patent office! (Score:4, Interesting)
> maybe it's time to show that each of these patents wasn't new
Ever heard of 1-click?? The review took five years (!) and the end result was that it was upheld and just narrowed. I wonder how much is costs to hire a lawyer for five years... please tell me in 2015 when you've done what you suggest :-)
Little more effort required... (Score:5, Informative)
What follows is a short association to each patent where I already heard of it (so like 10 minutes / patent .. something the patent office
obviously wasn't able to do .. )
The legal standard for denying a patent application isn't "I totally heard of something like this, here's a mention of something that may possibly be related, but I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine."
The legal standard is that:
(i) a claim is anticipated under 35 USC 102 if each and every limitation as set forth in the claim appears, either explicitly or inherently, in a single prior art reference; or
(ii) a claim is obvious under 35 USC 103 if a combination of prior art references teach or suggest each and every limitation as set forth in the claim.
The reason it takes longer than 10 minutes is you have to through every word of each claim and find it in the prior art.
So, looking at your first one:
-- cut 6,125,447 / 1997 -- 1. A method for providing security, the method comprising the steps of: establishing one or more protection domains, wherein a protection domain is associated with zero or more permissions; establishing an association between said one or more protection domains and one or more classes of one or more objects; and determining whether an action requested by a particular object is permitted based on said association between said one or more protection domains and said one or more classes. -- end cut -- -> This is C++ private / protected -- cut evidence 1983 -- C++ (pronounced see plus plus) is a statically typed, free-form, multi-paradigm, compiled, general-purpose programming language. It is regarded as a "middle-level" language, as it comprises a combination of both high-level and low-level language features.[2] It was developed by Bjarne Stroustrup starting in 1979 at Bell Labs as an enhancement to the C programming language and originally named C with Classes. It was renamed C++ in 1983.[3] -- end cut --
I don't see "protection domains" in your quote, nor do I see each protection domain associated with "zero or more permissions". I also don't see any associations between those protection domains and classes. I also don't see any determinations based on the associations.
If your answer is "but that's how C++ works," that's fine, but you have to actually show each and every element in the claim in the reference... Not just mention that the reference exists. That's why it takes more than 10 minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
How about Microsoft with the C# VM? Or perl with Parrot, and python?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A few days ago, I was checking the .Net Micro Framework (for embedded systems, not the regular one). Apparently (almost) the entire stack is open source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Micro_Framework [wikipedia.org]
"available along with the source code as a free download under the Apache 2.0 license at the Microsoft Download Center.."
And Microsoft is actually encouraging people to port it (thus .Net is used on more platforms). Given their patent pledge (which is now more open than Java's) there is almost no risk.
Oh the
Re:Oracle will win (Score:5, Insightful)
- Software patents are not considered valid in the majority of the world, precisely because they get in the way of perfectly reasonable actions.
- Software patents on an "open" standard might not be enforceable if those patents are required to implement that standard, and are the only sensible way to do so. Interoperability with an existing product can't be protected by a patent if that patent is the only (or only sensible) way to do things.
- All the mentioned patents have prior art except one, which is so far worded towards Java only use that it falls foul of the previous statement (I didn't think you *could* patent something that specific to a particular product).
- The Oracle patents are particularly weak, most of them re-iterating 1980's knowledge of programming.
- Google probably has one of the largest patent profiles ever, especially in the area of collating huge amounts of data into a database - this is commercial suicide for Oracle who could well see a retaliatory attack that they just can't afford to defend against (yes, THAT many patents). Google's patents are likely to be MUCH more substantial than these Oracle ones.
- Sun never had a problem with IP protection. You don't need to protect your IP when "Java" is in everything from mobile phones to servers - basically Sun *WAS* Java and not much else before it was taken over, and saw no need to sue anyone at all substantial over patent infringement when it could have done at any time for even more cash.
- Going for Google first is commercial suicide - there will be other, smaller, players using third-party Java VM's.
- Suing immediately is a sign of desperation. Much more conducive to receiving compensation would have been quiet negotiations (there hasn't been ANY time for that since the Oracle takeover) and/or asking them to work around the patent at least. The path chosen is the most stupid and expensive.
- The lawyers here are Boies, Schiller & Flexner - the same ones that handled the SCO case's IP side. That went well for them. *fall into fits of derisive laughter*.
Much more likely is a quiet settlement involving cash, or Google saying "Go for it" and filing a counterclaim for a whole host of patents they own. Google can pretty much take Oracle to the cleaners if it wants. It makes me wonder why Oracle has set itself up to be that target.
Re: (Score:3)
or Google saying "Go for it" and filing a counterclaim for a whole host of patents they own. Google can pretty much take Oracle to the cleaners if it wants. It makes me wonder why Oracle has set itself up to be that target.
This might make me a jerk but I would love to see this happen.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
- The lawyers here are Boies, Schiller & Flexner - the same ones that handled the SCO case's IP side. That went well for them. *fall into fits of derisive laughter*.
Did they fail? Novell isn't going to get any money, the lawsuits cost all sides far more than the value under contest, and most of them are still going on.
They failed if you believe that SCO was trying to really win. If their only tactic was to make the case as painful and expensive as possible (ie, to make it as attractive as possible for the defending party to settle), then Boies, Schiller & Flexner were massively successful.
IMHO... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oracle may win in court or force a settlement, but I don't think in the long view they will "win" because of this. Potentially they get some money out of "owning" Java, but they make that property less valuable in the process. Java having been picked for Android development is currently breathing a lot of life into the language -- for a while now Java has been one of the top choices for business app developments, but how long has it been since Java was associated with something cool? And what are the odds it'll be picked for something cool ever again now that people see how litigation-happy Oracle is about it?
Being used for cool, high visibility projects buys language mindshare in a way few things do.
*chop* *cut* There, take that, nose! That'll show my face.
Re: (Score:2)
But isn't that if you call it java? I don't know that google do that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The "of the current version" clause is interesting: It actually means that as soon as a new version is published, all those distributing the previous version cannot distribute anything until they changed the implementation to match the new specification. Change versions fast enough, and no one will have a real chance to comply.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
except that android does not have an acutal java implementation. It has a dalvik VM, which runs non-java bytecode.
The fact that the de facto standard syntax for writing code that gets compiled into dalvik bytecode happens to be java, does not mean an android phone has any java on it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, I don't; I do remember fully supporting their decision to sue Microsoft due to their breach of the licence though.
If Google truly have breached the licence, then they deserve to lose. If they have not, then they will beat this and Oracle will suffer (bad press, financial loss, etc). Given Google's size I'm really not seeing the problem here, beyond the potential that one company or the other has acted poorly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why did they choose the Java language? Because they needed a safe, statically typed, garbage collected language that people had experience with and that there were tools for. There is little else out there that fits the bill (C# wasn't an option at the time they started).
Objective-C on iPhone is a pain to learn, but at least the iPhone will not go down in flames from companies fighting over rights to language, runtime, tools and access to application markets.
They could have used python, and even reused Sugar.
Re:They're not using Java (Score:5, Interesting)
Android has its own VM called Dalvik. You use Java tools to compile to JVM bytecode and then there's a translater to Dalvik bytecode.
Maybe Oracle believe Dalvik implements their patented techniques.
Most are saying that they are going after google's jme which is quite interesting since google built (Dalvik) themselves to get around these licensing issues, although if they did use ip from Sun for Dalvik then maybe they have a case, although only the code will tell. Here are also some interesting reads on the matter besides those in the summary:
http://www.itworld.com/071116googlesun [itworld.com]
http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/110/ [betaversion.org]