Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Case For Oracle

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the flip-side-of-the-coin dept.

Google 341

An anonymous reader writes "In a lucid writeup, InfoWorld's Neil McAllister takes a different angle on the Oracle-Google lawsuit, giving an explanation why Oracle was right to sue Google. McAllister argues that Google is splintering the Java platform, just like Microsoft was doing back in the 90s, and should be held up to the same standards. He further cites Google's Josh Bloch calling for Oracle to take a lead role in steering Java, concluding that Bloch maybe 'should have been more careful what he wished for.'"

cancel ×

341 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Find the truth about Islam from the Qur'an itself! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33332174)

Re:Find the truth about Islam from the Qur'an itse (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33332968)

The story goes-- it's a book that was written down by the wife of the profit who her husband dictated what happened in his dreams. This begs the question: why should we believe his dreams are truth about what to believe with regards to religion and faith over anyone else's dreams that were dreamt? Most people in todays world would either write such a person off as brilliant story teller or someone hard to take seriously. This does not mean one can not find things within it worthy of belief-- just that all things need to be taken with grains of salt.

Hey Google (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33332182)

No soup for you!

NEXT!

Re:Hey Google (2, Insightful)

object404 (1883774) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332326)

But hasn't Java been doing a good enough job splintering and fragmenting the platform with J2EE, J2SE, J2ME MIDP 1.0/2.0/3.0, JavaFX on its own?

Re:Hey Google (1)

object404 (1883774) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332408)

That being said, mobile developers would be a heck of a lot happier if Android devices would run J2ME/JavaME apps out of the box instead of needing to port & recompile apps for Android/Dalvik.

How much would it cost for Google to pay Oracle a license to bundle the JavaME VM on Android? If anything, hopefully that's one thing that comes out of this as porting for different platforms is a $%@#$^. The less steps needed, the better.

Re:Hey Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33332420)

If I want to make 25 different soups, that's my right. But nobody can have my recipes!

NEXT!

How soon... (1)

achyuta (1236050) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332188)


..before someone calls for an raid of McAllisters property saying he's been paid off by Oracle? :)

I think Google should solve this the easy way (0, Flamebait)

JamesP (688957) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332224)

Block all searches for Oracle and Java on its search engine, until this issue is resolved

problem solved

Re:I think Google should solve this the easy way (5, Insightful)

KarmaMB84 (743001) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332266)

I don't know why anyone ever suggests this. It would be suicide for Google. The moment they revealed they would even consider blocking search terms in retaliation for anything they're no longer trustworthy as a search engine.

MOD PARENT UP PLEASE (5, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332316)

I wish that I had mod points left. I would modded you up. The fact is, that if Google were to do what the GP did, well, that would make them JUST LIKE MS. That is why MS was sued, and lost. The last thing that Google needs to do is something that stupid. It helps in the short term, but kills in the long.

However, Google does not have to help Oracle either. And if I were Google, I would start exploring, along with the other phone companies, another VM. And let it slip that they are now exploring a different route for ALL OF THE SMART PHONES AND PHONES. At that point, Oracle will become VERY concerned about the idea of losing that market. Sun had the same issue. Wanted to make LOTS of money, and they were not content to simply control it as well as be the top money maker. They wanted the largest profits possible in the shortest time. That approach is what Oracle is doing.

Re:MOD PARENT UP PLEASE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33332384)

And if I were Google, I would start exploring, along with the other phone companies, another VM.

Like ECMA-335? (http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-335.htm)

Re:MOD PARENT UP PLEASE (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33332396)

And if I were Google, I would start exploring, along with the other phone companies, another VM.

After blocking Oracle in it's search, I would say this is the second worst thing Google could possibly do. The Android platform had a late start against iOS, and while it's done a great job gaining market share, it's just now starting to catch up in terms of getting developers to develop for the platform. If they had to start over from scratch, they'd never catch Apple. Not to mention how angry they'd make all the end users who find their brand new, very expensive phone running a suddenly abandoned platform.

Re:MOD PARENT UP PLEASE (1)

Kalidor (94097) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332618)

I really want to expand upon this, because it really is a very good point.

Take the assumption that even if G was able to come out with a way port the new OS to the old phone users (which as we can already see is a slow process, and questions may exist of any hardware dependencies) users would still have to rely on application developers to recode any apps they have already bought. Next assuming the apps are developed, I suspect it will be a bit of a shock to see how much apps cost when re-buying a whole lot of them. Micro-payments have a way of adding and no necessarily getting noticed until you need to repay for stuff you've lost. (Caveat here, hopefully being that G would eat this cost being a good corporate citizen and all that.)

Ironically, this is exactly where Microsoft seems to be going with it's mobile devices. I can't help but wonder if the good that comes from the new UI, will counteract the uncertainties and negatives of the change in the underlying framework, the expandability with the HC-micro-sd cards, the cut and paste loss, and the loss of functionality when the pre-7 apps can't run. While not every application was able to make the migration without problems or relativity minor code changes from WM2002 to WM6.5 a majority of the gems applications migrated so easily that you only really had to re-buy an application if there was a major product enhancement or feature add. With the way 7 is locking down applications I suspect there's going to be a major re-purchasing of applications (if the developers are even willing to recode for 7 or go through the necessary bureaucracy that they didn't have to deal with before...) and I have to wonder if that overhead is going to stop those that are already running a wm type smart-phone that they have customized to the point that they are very satisfied with it.

Re:MOD PARENT UP PLEASE (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332478)

And according to TFA, parallels are drawn between the Sun->MS Java suit and the Oracle/Sun->Google suit.

My take: Sun and Oracle didn't enforce Java patents, let other numerous other forks occur, licenses all of it under protected terms that don't necessarily require full Java implementations, and otherwise permit competing products to blossom wherever they happen.

Oh, and Steve complained to Larry about Eric, and Larry said, 'no worries, I'll take care of it'.

Re:MOD PARENT UP PLEASE (3, Insightful)

rs79 (71822) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332490)

If I were Google I'd start exploring a drop in replacement for everything Oracle made, and making it open source.

Google actually made something out of Java. Nobody else put it in the hands of so many consumers; they may as well change the spec for Java to what Google produces.

What goog did splinters Java in the same way Apache splintered the NCSA web server or Linux splintered Unix sys III; this is just leechy Larry's money grab in a world where small databases are diminishing the need for big database iron and the reason they bought Sun - just so they could do this.

This is just SCO all over again.

Re:MOD PARENT UP PLEASE (2, Informative)

Hooya (518216) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332512)

> another VM

It *IS* another VM. They just used Java the *language*, it's associated tools (Eclipse) in order to capitalize on the the developer marketshare. The resulting compiled code is targeted to this other VM (the dalvic VM). To steer clear of Java, they would have to stop using Java - the language.

(I would be all for it. I *Hate* Java. The tools make it bearable.)

However, using another language will present all kinds of issues - which language do they use?

Python might be a close candidate as they already have an interpreter that runs under the Dalvik VM - although I don't think it's installed by default and the API coverage might not be a 100%. Also, running an instance of the interpretor for every app might suck some major ass - which is why they used Dalvik as opposed to the VMs that come as part of the Java platform. If, as the alternative, they ran one VM, the seperation between the apps aren't there which can cause all sorts of other issues.

Re:I think Google should solve this the easy way (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33332464)

I don't know why anyone ever suggests this. It would be suicide for Google. The moment they revealed they would even consider blocking search terms in retaliation for anything they're no longer trustworthy as a search engine.

No, but up until a while ago, they did it when China asked politely.

Re:I think Google should solve this the easy way (1)

Trivial Solutions (1724416) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332556)

Is it just me or is the elephant in the room God? Jail? Ha, you should be so lucky. Try hell!

Re:I think Google should solve this the easy way (2, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332340)

Block all searches for Oracle and Java on its search engine, until this issue is resolved

problem solved

Not really. Google is hardly the only search engine giant out there, and the ensuing public-relations disaster would be far worse than if Google ends up dropping Android entirely. Android is just an experiment for Google, a way to give more eyeballs access to its services (and hence advertising, which is where Google earns its revenue.) Granted, Google needs Android (or something like it) in order to continue its growth because the mobile market is enormous and growing exponentially, and it has heavy-duty competition that wants a slice. Either way, it wouldn't really be in Google's interests to try and play hardball there, especially since it would likely draw the attention of Federal regulators. I doubt they want that.

That would be an antitrust violation (1)

FlorianMueller (801981) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332450)

As the dominant search engine, Google has an obligation to treat everyone on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) basis. Anything else would be an antitrust violation. That's why it won't happen. (If it theoretically did, it would just lead to the next lawsuit, plus potentially hefty fines levied by regulators around the globe, particularly the US Dept. of Justice and the European Commission.)

I assume we all want the rule of law, not the law of the strong.

Complaints against Google for unfair and discriminatory rankings of certain competitors on SERPs (search engine results pages) have already been lodged in several countries. I don't mean to comment on whether those complaints are credible or not, but one way or the other Google can't take any chances in that area.

There are reasons for which I increasingly believe this case isn't all about "evil Oracle vs. the good guys at Google". I oppose software patents and particularly the use of patents against free and open source software. In Google's case, we are however talking about a company that is very much pro-patent as far its own patents (especially the search engine patents) are concerned and just despises everyone else's when used against it. Now Google effectively calls on the community, but Google doesn't support the community in the fight against software patents. It's a typical case of wanting to have its cake and eat it.

There are also other reasons for concern, but this was just one important example and it has to do with the search engine.

Re:I think Google should solve this the easy way (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332460)

Okay, so you are pretty much the reason why things are the way they are -- everyone thinking in terms of fighting, fighting back, vengeance and the like -- failing to take into consideration the long term effects of one's actions or how it might compromise them, their product and their future to do so. In short, the people who think before they do things are "smarter" and the people who just do things without thinking them through end up in prison.

I know this is a harsh way of putting things, but if you pause for a moment and actually take this as constructive criticism instead of as an insult, you have the opportunity to improve the way you think and reason and ultimately your whole self and your future in the process.

History has shown that abuse of position and power frequently leads to bad things. Leaders get overthrown, assassinated or even publicly executed in massive numbers as in the case of the French revolution. In business, there is only so much abuse of position and power can only go so far before something bad happens.

I recognize your smart reply was a quick and knee-jerk reaction. But it is precisely those reaction that say who you are and how you think. As a conscious and thinking human, you have the opportunity to recognize this and address it. Now go fix your mental defect before it gets you into more trouble than it already has. (Oh yeah, and learn to blame yourself instead of others... you can't change the world, you can only work with it.)

Re:I think Google should solve this the easy way (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332746)

I can't help wondering if you really believe what you wrote, or if you're just mindlessly stroking your epeen in public.

" by KarmaMB84 (743001) writes: Alter Relationship on Sunday August 22, @11:18 (#33332266)
I don't know why anyone ever suggests this. It would be suicide for Google. The moment they revealed they would even consider blocking search terms in retaliation for anything they're no longer trustworthy as a search engine."

Like millions of other people, I trust Google to give me decent, reliable, honest results when I do a search. There is some, minimal, censorship, imposed by government. But, overall, I trust Google.

I don't even much LIKE Oracle, but if my searches for Oracle were blocked, I'd be pretty damned pissed. And, I'd abandon Google instantly.

By this logic SCO was right (1, Funny)

paziek (1329929) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332238)

By this logic SCO was also right to sue IBM or whoever. Those bastards splintered SCO's "property" after all!

Re:By this logic SCO was right (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332306)

Not really, Oracle offers Java for free to anybody that's willing to follow the licensing terms. Google has apparently opted to not do so and as such is legitimately infringing upon Oracle's IP, provided it really is true that they haven't held up there end. As opposed to SCO who didn't own the IP and tried to sue parties for implementing from scratch a semi compatible code base.

This sort of thing is completely legitimate, there's no point to a cross platform language of this nature if there's no assurances that even standard libraries are properly supported on whatever platform you wish to use.

Android is *not* a Java platform (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33332440)

and doesn't pretend to be. Using a language inspired by Java and a library along the lines of Java's library should be legally OK, right?

Re:Android is *not* a Java platform (3, Interesting)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332574)

This is why this is a patent suit and not a license violation suit.

The situation is more like Oracle trying to sue Microsoft over dot.net.

Re:By this logic SCO was right (4, Interesting)

boxwood (1742976) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332604)

They don't offer the embedded version of java for free. And there are a lot of requirements to to get the patent exemptions, ie. cannot implement a subset or a superset of the features in Sun's VM.

Google basically just wanted to implement a language that a lot of developers were familiar with. Pretty much all the developers of phone apps were familiar with Java, so they implemented a VM similar to Java.

Java has some similarities to the C++ syntax. They made the Java syntax similar to the C++ syntax because developers were familiar with it. Same goes for C#. If someone owned some patents on C++, should they be allowed to sue Oracle and MS?

This does not bode well for makers of software development tools. By saying Oracle is allowed to sue anyone for making anything similar to Java means that no one can make a language with similar syntax to Java, and they can't implement libraries similar to Java's. So everyone has to check with a lawyer before they make software tools now. And that may not be enough since I'm sure Google did check with there lawyers while developing Dalvik, and made their best effort to build it so as not to infringe on patents. And they're still getting sued. What hope does anyone else have?

I know I'm going to steer clear of Java from now on. .Net and Mono seem much safer than Java at this point. At least MS hasn't sued anyone for implementing libraries too similar to what they've implemented.

Re:By this logic SCO was right (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33332310)

By this logic SCO was also right to sue IBM or whoever. Those bastards splintered SCO's "property" after all!

Whether or not SCO had a case for copyright infringement or not was never tested in court because it turned out that they did not in fact own the copyrights in question. It may well be that IBM had been putting Unix code into Linux, but we'll never know because SCO had no grounds to sue over it.

If they can do it to Google, they can do it to you (4, Informative)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332254)

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:

Who's the idiot mod who marked this as "Redundant" (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33332520)

Here's a clue to the mods: A post is not redundant if it's the first post in a story to bring up a particular point.

I think Oracle is right (1, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332264)

Java is their language. Don't like it? Don't use Java.

Myself, I never use Java because I don't like the language, that's my personal choice. But if Google wanted to use Java in a different way they should create their own derivative like Microsoft did with C#.

It feels kinda strange to defend Microsoft, but that's the way it is.

It's not just theirs, it's also ours (4, Interesting)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332348)

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.

Re:I think Oracle is right (1)

camcorder (759720) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332374)

They've already created Go [golang.org] . But nobody wanted to learn it, yet.

Re:I think Oracle is right (1)

curtis (18867) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332474)

Go is a little different, it is aimed at systems level programming and implements some modern language features. Java is a general purpose language with implementations for a lot of target platforms: originally web applets (Java 1.0/1.1) but then desktops (J2SE) then devices (J2ME) and now finally server side (J2EE).

Re:I think Oracle is right (2, Informative)

epiphani (254981) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332530)

Reposting as necessary:

Java (the language) is free and open. Java (the trademark) is not. Provided google is not doing business advertising "Android - with Java(tm)!", they're doing nothing wrong. Oracle owns ONLY the trademark.

Re:I think Oracle is right (4, Insightful)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332954)

not quite. Java - mobile edition - is not free and open at all. They opened up the 'legacy' Java and kept the 'future' java for all the juicy licencing cash they expected to get. Quite a sensible move as it turns out, as there's lots of money to be made in mobile computing, far more than you get flogging licences to Enterprise app developers.

Still, its their language, VM, patents and copyright. You (and Google) never had to use it, but if you do, you have to play by their rules. So although I'm a fan of Google and what they've done, I think their manipulation of Oracle's rules on the use of Java isn't as decent and honest as I'd expect.

And yes, I'm sure it'll end up with Google dumping Java and making their own language (G# perhaps, or something truly open like Python and C)

Re:I think Oracle is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33332546)

Oracle may or may not be right but the argument that this is a fragmentation similar to what MS got sued for and lost is a fallacy. In the case of MS's derivative Java platform it was intended as a equivalent to the Java platform. A developer would create an applet and deploy it with the intent of having it run in the browser.The problem arose in that it might work in the MS JDK or the Sun JDK but not both. This caused significant challenges for developers.

An application meant to run on Android though has no intent for binary compatibility with a standard Sun JDK. No one should be confused on the deployment options for an android application versus a Java application, they are completley distinct. Android and Java are not meant to have compatible VMs and there has been no intent to market it as compatible with the Java VM.

Re:I think Oracle is right (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332568)

Java is their TRADEMARK. So why do you lie? Actually I don't think you are lying, you are just ignorant on what is happening and on what Java is (which is at this point a Free Source application). There are free implementations of Java platform and there are thousands if not tens of thousands of Free applications created in Java.

Oracle vs Google is a patent war and it is also a copyright war, you are not involved until you create your own platform that is supposedly for Java but does not work with actual Java.

If you call something Java it better be Java and behave like Java, that's the trademark part of the lawsuit.

Re:I think Oracle is right (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33332674)

Java is their language. Don't like it? Don't use Java.

Myself, I never use Java because I don't like the language, that's my personal choice. But if Google wanted to use Java in a different way they should create their own derivative like Microsoft did with C#.

Sorry but that is horse crap.

Google did exactly as you say. They did NOT use Java. They don't claim to use Java. They made their own derivative like Microsoft did, except called Go instead of C#.

Yet they still got sued, and people are still in favor of that.

Re:I think Oracle is right (1)

tronbradia (961235) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332686)

But if Google wanted to use Java in a different way they should create their own derivative like Microsoft did with C#.

They did create their own derivative. It's called Dalvik [wikipedia.org] .

Re:I think Oracle is right (3, Insightful)

yyxx (1812612) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332786)

Java is their language. Don't like it? Don't use Java.

Companies don't own languages unless they can claim a patent or copyright on the language. Oracle has neither. Their patents are on something completely different.

If they did, neither Sun, nor Oracle, nor Microsoft would exist. In fact, much of what any of those companies got started with was ripped off from others.

Re:I think Oracle is right (1)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332808)

Can a language be owned? Of course an implementation of it can, as can a broader platform, but isn't google just using the language syntax? They aren't calling it Java, nor are they using any of Sun's tools, nor do they claim you can run Java byte code.

All that is left is true innovation in the Java platform that could be patented that Davlic infringes on as a platform...

Re:I think Oracle is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33332870)

Why do people say silly things like "But if Google wanted to use Java in a different way they should create their own derivative like Microsoft did with C#".

C# is not a derivative of Java. Come on people.

Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation (5, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332274)

Google isn't advertising Android as a Java platform. It's a platform that you can write code for in the Java language, yes, but this is a world away from claiming you're shipping "Java", and virtually no end users are under the impression Java has anything to do with the Java platform. Be very clear about this: no applications shipped as .jar (or .class) files for J2ME, J2SE, or J2EE, will run under Android, and nobody thinks they will.

By comparison, Microsoft was shipping a supposedly compliant, but actually semi-incompatable, JVM with Windows that gave users and developers the idea it was a full implementation, which caused programs supposedly written for Java to often fail if either written for the Microsoft JVM and run under a standard stack, or vice versa.

If this is the crux of the author's argument, he's an idiot. If Google is "fragmenting" Java by allowing you to write programs in the language for its platform, then I suppose every operating system author, from Microsoft to Commodore, has been "fragmenting" Unix by allowing you to write code in C for their non-Unix operating systems.

Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation (0, Redundant)

tibit (1762298) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332296)

Agreed. Very insightful.

Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation (2, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332332)

If it's a platform that you can write code for in Java language, then it damn well better compile under the standard Oracle Java, otherwise you're very blatantly infringing upon Oracle's trademark. Additionally, if you can do it the other way around, then it's really not Java language programming. This isn't C where platforms are allowed to be incompatible, the whole purpose of Java was theoretically to allow it to be written once and run on any platform with Java support. What Google has opted to do damages Oracle's trademark by referring to non-compatible software as Java language.

Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332360)

What Google has opted to do damages Oracle's trademark by referring to non-compatible software as Java language.

Fine, then Google can change the name to "Javoid or "Andra" or something like that.

Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation (4, Interesting)

boxwood (1742976) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332716)

or Dalvik?

Actually you never see Google say "Java" without it being immediately followed by either "Programming Language" or "Language Compiler". Anytime there's mention of "virtual machine" its always immediately preceded by "Dalvik".

I'm not an expert on trademark law, but I'm sure Google has checked with people who are, so it seems that saying "Android has Java" would be a violation, but saying "Android has Dalvik which uses the Java programming language" is not.

But I guess thats for the courts to decide.

Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation (1)

iserlohn (49556) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332406)

While what you are saying may be true, we're talking about software patents here, and not about trademarks. Please try to keep up.

Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation (2, Insightful)

epiphani (254981) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332482)

Java (the language) is free and open. Java (the trademark) is not. Provided google is not doing business advertising "Android - with Java(tm)!", they're doing nothing wrong. Oracle owns ONLY the trademark.

Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation (5, Insightful)

diegocg (1680514) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332518)

What Google has opted to do damages Oracle's trademark by referring to non-compatible software as Java language.

Oracle disagrees with you. They aren't suing Google because of some trademark issue, they are doing it because of patent infringement. And the patents are more about the dalvik VM than about Java itself - .NET probably infringes those patents too, but Oracle probably won't take Microsoft to court.

And there is nothing wrong with "forking" Java. What's the problem with the Dalvik VM and the Harmony classes? Maybe it can replace Oracle's Java in the embedded market? Well, I think that's better than letting C# kill Java, like Sun has been doing in the last years.

Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33332864)

They probably won't take Microsoft to court because Microsoft has a patent cross-licensing agreement with Oracle. They did it so they

Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33332526)

This supposedly super-insightful post completely misses the fact that Oracle is suing over patents, not trademarks.

Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation (2, Interesting)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332676)

Additionally, if you can do it the other way around, then it's really not Java language programming.

Enter Dalvik, stage left.

The VM in Android (Dalvik) is said to be a 'clean room' reverse engineering of a JVM and is not an actual JVM. In fact it does not run .class or .jar files but runs .apk and .dex files which are a format compiled from code written in Java (or C, C++, etc). How big of a difference this makes legally is debatable, but there has been precedent and it's in Google's favor.

See Case law under: Clean room design [wikipedia.org]

So are you bound by Java licensing if you used it to cross compile into C? What about software that converted all your Java to Ruby? I'm not sure, but food for thought. Could they not just make the case that they are having developers code dex files, but are letting them write those dex files in Java and converting it for them? Sounds very semantic I know but this seems to be what the lawsuit comes down to. If I made a platform with custom apis and functions, could I not tell people that they can code in C# and I will convert their code to my format if they want? To me, neither side has a open and shut case here. The trademark question may only come into play if they wre claiming it as a Java Platform (and using the little coffee cup logo, etc). Simply metioning the name Java isn't infringing a trademark as far as I know.

The real question are the patents, which look, at a cursory glance, to be ridiculous:

* Protection Domains to Provide Security in a Computer System (2000)
* Controlling Access to a Resource (2000)
* Method and Apparatus for Preprocessing and Packaging Class Files (1999)
* System and Method for Dynamic Preloading of Classes through Memory Space Cloning of a Master Runtime System Process (2008)
* Method and Apparatus for Resolving Data References in Generate Code (2003)
* Interpreting Functions Utilizing a Hybrid of Virtual and Native Machine Instructions (2005)
* Method and System for Performing Static Initialization (2000)


I did find it funny though, that Google had criticized Sun in the past for letting Java fall apart amidst (paraphrasing here) a sea of lawsuits and trademark infringement claims.

Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation (2, Insightful)

yyxx (1812612) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332752)

If it's a platform that you can write code for in Java language, then it damn well better compile under the standard Oracle Java, otherwise you're very blatantly infringing upon Oracle's trademark.

Language syntax does not define a trademark. The trademark is on the word "Java", nothing else.

This isn't C where platforms are allowed to be incompatible, the whole purpose of Java was theoretically to allow it to be written once and run on any platform with Java support.

The law doesn't give a damn what pipe dreams Sun had for Java.

What Google has opted to do damages Oracle's trademark by referring to non-compatible software as Java language.

You use Oracle's Java compiler to compile software for Android. Google is correct to refer to that as a "Java compiler" because Oracle refers to it that way. The fact that they do something different with the class files afterwards is none of Oracle's business.

Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation (1)

Nushio (951488) | more than 4 years ago | (#33333010)

I'm an android developer, and whenever someone asks me about developing for Android devices, the first thing I tell them is that it may look like java and it might be syntax-compatible, but calling the Android Development Language 'Java' is a huge mistake that'll cost you a couple dozen hours in development time.

Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation (1)

tomhath (637240) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332362)

Be very clear about this: no applications shipped as .jar (or .class) files for J2ME, J2SE, or J2EE, will run under Android, and nobody thinks they will.

Isn't that the whole problem? If they call it a Java platform, it should run software written in Java.

Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation (4, Insightful)

SilentMobius (10171) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332426)

Which is why Google _don't_ call it a java platform. It's dalvik, it runs dalvik bytecode on a dalvik VM. You can write in any high level language you like as long as you have a compiler that results in dalvik bytecode.

As a convenience, Google provide a java->dalvik bytecode compiler, which is nice of them, but they don't ship a JVM nor a java system.

Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332536)

But Google doesn't call it a Java platform.

And Android does run software written in Java, but compiled using their compiler. They don't mention J2EE, j2me, j2se, or any other "official" Java platform library. Or mention things like Java 6 or 7 or Java 1.7.

And the articles I've read seem confusing, because they jump between suing over patent violations, then talking about copyright violations.

Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation (1)

yyxx (1812612) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332666)

Isn't that the whole problem? If they call it a Java platform, it should run software written in Java.

They don't call it a Java platform.

Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33332430)

If Google is "fragmenting" Java by allowing you to write programs in the language for its platform, then I suppose every operating system author, from Microsoft to Commodore, has been "fragmenting" Unix by allowing you to write code in C for their non-Unix operating systems.

Actually, by the author's argument the guys from Bell Labs started fragmenting C in 1973 by retargeting Ritchie's PDP-11 C compiler to other computers. See http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/chist.html

Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation (5, Insightful)

ADRA (37398) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332532)

Firstly, on a strictly legal sense, they're suing over Patents and Copyrights. The copyright route seems rather fishy, and I wouldn't be surprised if this argument gets dropped later. The patent suit is like all others, and has little if anything to do with the spirit of java, etc..

On a philosophical sense, Oracle is correct. Android may never claim to be Java, but anyone who isn't a retard knows that Google is enticing Java developers into their pseudo-compatible platforms. From a personal perspective, it is annoying porting existing java apps into AppEngine / Android. The standard class libs limitations make interoperability between stock java and Google's platforms more difficult. This IS similar to the tack that Microsoft made proprietary core feature additions. Microsoft was never forced to use Java when coming up with their proprietary JVM. They chose java because it had buzz, and they assumed it would be next good language to assimilate and conquer. I don't think Google wants to kill Java, but I think they want to steal the large pool of existing Java developers and coerce them to use their platforms. Does this diversity hurt java (the language) in the end? Yes. Much of the advantage of java is in the rich set of additions built upon existing platforms. If those libraries now have to choose which platform to track against, it means two versions of common libraries, and smaller guys may just not bother to support J2SE,Android,AppEngine,GWT, etc...

Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation (0)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332738)

"Google is enticing Java developers into their pseudo-compatible platforms"

Pseudo-compatible with exactly WHAT?

JSE (desktop Java) never run on mobile devices. J2ME is a joke, and it's NOT compatible with other versions of Java.

Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation (1)

Ecyrd (51952) | more than 4 years ago | (#33333012)

N900 runs J2SE. In fact, it runs even J2EE...

Re:that's incorrect (1, Insightful)

Calibax (151875) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332630)

Actually there are a number of similarities. I'm not taking sides here - I don't write Java and don't care about it myself. However, I do care that licenses are upheld as I've personally been bitten by people ripping off my code for their profit.

When Google decided to use Java they had full access to the Java license, and they had full knowledge of the very public lawsuit between Sun and Microsoft. They still chose to do what Microsoft did and ship an incompatible version of Java. I suspect that (like Microsoft) they feel they are above the rules that govern other developers.

Google knew what they were doing. Why they did it, I don't know - did someone decide to ignore the license, or did they forget to involve the legal folks, or maybe they didn't think the license applied to them. The point is that they did use a great deal of the Java code, but then they discarded the bits and pieces that they didn't need. Can't blame them for that - why do work that you don't need to do. One answer: because the license says you must. Same with the executable format - you can come up with a better one, but it clearly breaks the Java license and the whole spirit of Java (as I understand it) if you make it the only way to execute code on your system.

I like Google, I really do. Google has done great things in the last few years, but they are starting to do some really boneheaded stuff also (net neutrality comes to mind immediately). Their corporate attitude seems to be "we're changing the world, get out of our way." Which is fine provided that you don't trample on other people and their rights in the process. I also worry about all the free stuff they give away - Microsoft used to do a bunch of free stuff in the early 80s, and look how that changed - will Google's shareholders eventually demand that they monetize everything?

I suspect this is just a ploy by Oracle to monetize Java by making Google pay for a new and special license for the Android platform. Nobody ever accused Oracle of being a philanthropic institution. I don't think this has any negative sides for FOSS - it's just a case of getting companies to follow the license that goes with the code they use, otherwise they have no license to use the code. It's no different than suing companies who don't follow the terms of the GPL license, and I don't see people up in arms about that.

One difference, Oracle has a pile of money and can afford to the best lawyering around. But so can Google. It will be interesting to see how this goes.

And this won't cause more splintering? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33332288)

And this won't cause more splintering? Really?

I'm a bit out of my depth here, so I'm asking... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332290)

While I can definitely see the value of non-fragmentation for Java, which is why something like Microsoft's "mostly java + some MS stuff" pissed them off back in the day; it is my understanding that Sun themselves had several variants of java for different environments, with Java Card on the low end, for SIM-level embedded environments, up to Java EE. I am told that these are not entirely identical, nor is something like the Java ME on different phone models entirely similar between devices.

To what degree is Android basically a "Java, Smartphone Edition", produced by Google because Sun never got around to producing something other than Java ME for phones vs. being a "Java + proprietary bits" in the MS java mold?

Re:I'm a bit out of my depth here, so I'm asking.. (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332818)

Those editions are supposed to be standardized by the Java Sham Community Process, but when it comes to Android Google didn't participate in the JCP.

What the hell is he talking about? (5, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332312)

McAllister argues that Google is splintering the Java platform, just like Microsoft was doing back in the 90s, and should be held up to the same standards.

What the hell does that mean? Microsoft got sued because it failed to live up to a contract (huge surprise there.) There are no contractual issues here, so far as I'm aware (if I'm wrong someone please correct me.)

Java isn't some religious manuscript that needs to be kept "pure" so the true believers won't rise up and slay those who would adulterate it. It's a goddamn PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE. If Oracle is suing Google, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Java being held to some standard (I could believe that of Sun, who held a certain vision for their progeny and a justifiable pride in their work) but is part of a some strategic plan. Matter of fact, that was Sun's strategy: keep Java consistent across all platforms so that "write once, run anywhere" would work. Do you really think that is a part of Oracle's planning? Is it even of the slightest concern?

Larry Ellison is a lot of things (I've heard appellations such as "real son of a bitch", "bastard", and "prick" applied to him on a regular basis) but he's not exactly a visionary. This is about money and access to specific markets, and trying to spin it as being about the welfare of the Java programming language is ridiculous. If I were a real conspiracy theorist I would have to wonder if one of Google's real competitors in the advertising space were behind this, but I'm not. I leave that to other posters.

Re:What the hell is he talking about? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33332650)

"write once, run anywhere"

Want to know how J2ME games deal with fragmentation? There's a different build for each phone. Why? One of the reasons is that the fucking platform pretends that all devices are equal. I can't dynamically check for a detail whose existence the platform doesn't acknowledge.

Re:What the hell is he talking about? (2, Funny)

sco08y (615665) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332768)

Java isn't some religious manuscript that needs to be kept "pure" so the true believers won't rise up and slay those who would adulterate it.

It may as well be, because a computer is about as fanatical a purist as you can get. I mean, I drop one fucking semicolon and, by the pages of errors and warnings, gcc wants me hung drawn and quartered for apostasy.

Re:What the hell is he talking about? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33332798)

Java isn't some religious manuscript that needs to be kept "pure" so the true believers won't rise up and slay those who would adulterate it. It's a goddamn PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE.

No, it's a programming language + API. They come as a pair, with optional APIs that can also be added. Nobody who writes in Java thinks of it solely in terms of it being a programming language, in isolation from the large standard APIs. Nobody who writes in Java doesn't know about the foundation classes and packages, like java.lang, and java.io. That was one of the big advantages Java had over C++. Now, Sun did make different versions for particular platforms, but they're the ones who own Java and they can do that -- they probably had their joke of a standards committee vote on and approve them -- where as other companies can't do that.

For instance, the Java standards body refused a formal request ("JSR", I believe) by an IBM engineer that would have made it possible to use high performance features like SIMD processing on platforms that had such capabilities. When refused, IBM didn't go write a new version of Java that had such capability built-in -- despite the fact they surely have the money and the brainpower to do so -- they instead lived with Java's a gaping hole in performance, despite it being utterly idiotic for Sun to ignore vector processing.

Google decided for some godawful reason to take Java, a mediocre pseudo-OO language, and write an illegitimate and non-standard version. In every way, this was a stupid decision. They should have seen a lawsuit coming. They should have also been bright enough to know they could have picked another language, or made their own doppleganger-with-a-moustache (e.g., C#) version of it and avoided these problems. And maybe they'd have made something better than Java, to boot.

Re:What the hell is he talking about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33332910)

According to Sun press release from then:

the complaint charges Microsoft with trademark infringement, false advertising, breach of contract, unfair competition, interference with prospective economic advantage, and inducing breach of contract.

Note that breach of contract (real or not) is only one part of the complaint.

Java is inferior anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33332344)

The lack of good games on the Android platform speaks for itself.

Re:Java is inferior anyway (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332634)

Shocking revelation: There are some people who use computers for actual work! Hard to believe, I know, but I hear they're out there. They do things like view documents, run simulations, and perform calculations. Even more amazingly, they'll do so in whatever language suits them best for whatever job they're doing. Weird, isn't it?

After all, it just makes sense that smart phones should be able to run the latest shooter game in full 1080p at 60 frames per second, right? I mean, demoscene folks have been doing stuff like that for years, and it only takes them a few hundred times the effort of any other development work...

Oh, right... No, it doesn't make sense.

I already said this (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332394)

Now go read what I wrote and then the replies that refute my position.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1760290&cid=33311026 [slashdot.org]

The problem with the logical and technical reasons and why they don't apply to what I am guessing Oracle is thinking is that this stuff ends up in a court to be judged by people who have no idea what all of this means.

The danger of Google (1, Insightful)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332400)

While I like to feel that Google is somehow better than Microsoft in all ways, I know this is clearly not true. The problem I do have with Google and their Java VM is that they aren't really contributing back to the core Java platform, and their choice of a different VM byte code makes me think of some of the things that hurt Smalltalk. In the case of Smalltalk none of the differing VM implementations were compatible, so it meant the you lost of the ability of 'compile once, run everywhere'. In many way what Oracle should be pushing for is:

  - getting Google to use the standard Java byte code
  - working with Oracle to contribute their work back to the core

J2ME is in many ways a dead platform, for GUI based devices, (at least, I am not aware of places proudly taking it forward), and Android is the best chance for seeing Java on low resource mobile platforms.

If Google does end up taking the same road as Microsoft with J++, then is could hurt very much what makes the Java appealing and even hurt the long term viability of Java as a cross-plaform language.

Re:The danger of Google (4, Insightful)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332838)

"While I like to feel that Google is somehow better than Microsoft in all ways, I know this is clearly not true. The problem I do have with Google and their Java VM is that they aren't really contributing back to the core Java platform"

And how can they do it? JCP is dysfunctional, just look how long it takes to release JDK7. And there are other even more blatant examples:

What else? Google has written a lot of splendid Java libraries (like http://code.google.com/p/google-collections/ [google.com] ). Sun/Oracle are free to take and integrate them into the JDK - they did this with Xerces and other libraries.

But they won't do this. Why? Because Java is dead. For example, a request to add Multimaps was filed in 1998 and is still open: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4155149 [sun.com] Sun can't be bothered to take one of available Multimap implementations and add it to the core JDK.

"In many way what Oracle should be pushing for is:
    - getting Google to use the standard Java byte code"

What for? To make devices run slower?

" - working with Oracle to contribute their work back to the core"

Contribute back what? Android implements core libraries very faithfully.

Re:The danger of Google (1)

OdinOdin_ (266277) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332952)

What a load of hogwash.

Google's Java-like VM and the majority of the Android plattform is open source. That is contributed back to humanity. Even the rumours about lack of Kernel developments being thrown back are not really a bad problem, the code is out there for the community to look at, clean up, and push into mainline itself. Be thankful that Google took the time to write the code in the first place. It is not as-if the Android platform is mature yet and the amount of new hardware arriving on the scene each year adds to the fact that some of the drivers used in todays handsets could well be out of date by the time you replace it in 2 years time, out of date as in no one makes anything using them anymore.

Google often represents itself in the Java Community Process for the real Java(tm). Google make heavy use of real Java(tm) across their various public and private project. They (and their employees) provide a great many resources online from projects/code to documentation to videos on for new stuff that their R&D dreams up.

So to say Google is not contributing to the core Java platform show ignorance.

Dalvik is not a Java VM (5, Interesting)

liloldme (593606) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332404)

I stopped reading right where it said Dalvik is Java based. It doesn't even run Java byte codes...

Is it a requirement for a tech reporter to be completely clueless? Is not doing basic research part of the job requirement?

Following this logic Google Web Toolkit is "Java-based" too. Nevermind that the whole thing compiles to HTML and JavaScript.

Just because Google provides language bindings in Java (and is able to cross-compile the Java class libraries to another runtime), does not make Dalvik runtime "Java-based". It does mean Google is able to leverage existing developer base on their new platform though. Smart move.

What's next, Oracle going to sue GCJ for compiling Java to native?

Re:Dalvik is not a Java VM (4, Funny)

Hast (24833) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332504)

Is it a requirement for a tech reporter to be completely clueless?

No; but it helps.

Re:Dalvik is not a Java VM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33332580)

I stopped reading right where it said Dalvik is Java based. It doesn't even run Java byte codes...

You should have kept reading. That is specifically mentioned in the FA, as part of Oracle's complaint against Google, that their product is based on "Java, but not Java."

Is it a requirement for a tech reporter to be completely clueless? Is not doing basic research part of the job requirement?

Perhaps. And apparently it's a requirement for /. readers not to read the stories they're flaming.

Re:Dalvik is not a Java VM (1)

funkatron (912521) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332842)

Is it a requirement for a tech reporter to be completely clueless? Is not doing basic research part of the job requirement?

Following this logic Google Web Toolkit is "Java-based" too. Nevermind that the whole thing compiles to HTML and JavaScript.

This is unfair to reporters. They're not completely clueless. All reporters have to be computer literate enough to copy and paste the text from the press release.

Re:Dalvik is not a Java VM (4, Informative)

Haxamanish (1564673) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332852)

From wikipedia [wikipedia.org] :

Specifically the patent infringement claim references 7 patents including US Patent No. 5966702 [uspto.gov] "Method And Apparatus For Preprocessing And Packaging Class Files", and US Patent No. 6910205 [uspto.gov] "Interpreting Functions Utilizing A Hybrid Of Virtual And Native Machine Instructions".[15] It also references US Patent No. RE38104 [uspto.gov] "Method And Apparatus For Resolving Data References In Generated Code" authored by James Gosling [...]

As I understand it (disclaimer: I'm a philosopher in Belgium), not using Java on Android would not solve the problem, since Oracle is attacking the Dalvik VM. So, even if it were running JavaScript, Python, Go or C#, Dalvik would according to Oracle violate the Java VM Patents.

Solutions would thus be:
- Prove those patents are not applicable to Dalvik
- Find prior art to invalidate the patents (any lawyer-hacker who is familiar with, say, the inner workings of UCSD Pascal?)
- Reform the US patent system, the most drastic reform would be the abolishment of all "intellectual property"
- Move out of the US
- Pay Oracle or make another deal with them like swapping some patents and/or technologies

Re:Dalvik is not a Java VM (3, Interesting)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332964)

Might get even more unpleasant if Oracle will be able to demonstrate (hey, don't dismiss anything in regards to legal system) that the purpose of Dalvik was to appear different enough while doing essentially identical thing, too. You know, law & its intent, letter, etc....

Re:Dalvik is not a Java VM (2, Insightful)

Haxamanish (1564673) | more than 4 years ago | (#33333014)

Sorry for replying to self, but /. has no edit function...

The above "solutions" I suggest are solutions which keep Dalvik - I don't know why Google has chosen Dalvik over Java VM, I assume/hope it was on technical grounds. Dropping Dalvik, perhaps in favour of Java VM, might also be an option.

Re:Dalvik is not a Java VM (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332880)

I stopped reading right where it said Dalvik is Java based. It doesn't even run Java byte codes...

No, it runs "different" bytecodes that just happen to have exactly the same semantics as Java bytecodes. Dalvik can correctly execute Java programs, therefore it is a Java VM; everything else is syntactic hair-splitting.

What's next, Oracle going to sue GCJ for compiling Java to native?

Don't give them any ideas. Oracle's new policy appears to be "use OpenJDK or pay up"; since GCJ falls in neither category, it could be in trouble.

Ok so they might have a case against google (1)

funkatron (912521) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332410)

But that still doesn't explain why one of oracle's demands is for all copies of android to be destroyed. That demand just reeks of evil power trip. I would prefer it if my very nice phone continued to work and it needs android to do that. Oracle need to back off a bit.

Face the truth (2, Insightful)

TRRosen (720617) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332432)

Face the truth why didn't Google use a full implementation of java as they are required by the patent grants. Because they wanted people to write for there platform and not simply port software. Just like Apple not wanting Flash for the same reason.

Re:Face the truth (1)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332564)

Just like Apple not wanting Flash for the same reason.

Except Google really doesn't care what SDK you wrote the app in... be it Flash or that drag and drop tool they have.

Re:Face the truth (1)

Brian the Bold (82101) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332624)

Simple, because the additional code required for that would have led to poor performance on the platform Google envisaged for mobile devices.

wrong (4, Insightful)

yyxx (1812612) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332654)

Face the truth why didn't Google use a full implementation of java as they are required by the patent grants. Because they wanted people to write for there platform and not simply port software.

Google didn't use a "full implementation of Java" because J2SE is extremely bloated and unsuitable for mobile phone use. And they couldn't use Sun's implementation because that wasn't even open sourced when they started. J2ME doesn't have a patent grant, so making a cleanroom implementation of that wouldn't have helped them either.

Of course, Google didn't use "an implementation of Java" at all, they implemented something completely different that happens to use Java syntax. Oracle's lawsuit is not based on the parts that Android happens to share with Java, because those are not covered by any patents.

Re:Face the truth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33332886)

funny thing is, if Oracle wanted to port J2ME to Android, I doubt Google will prevent them from doing so. Apple OTOH...

Huge difference between then and now (1)

stox (131684) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332458)

When Microsoft was sued, Java was not yet open source. Microsoft had to buy the right to distribute Java. They were sued for breach of contract. Now that Java is open source, a whole new set of issues come into play. There are significant aspects of open source licensing that have yet to be decided in the courts. Those precedents may finally be set.

maybe Microsoft will sue Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33332538)

for violating their patent on "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish"?

Scott Meyers could sue Google's Josh Bloch for his "Effective Java, 50 items" thing.

bullshit (1)

yyxx (1812612) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332606)

McAllister argues that Google is splintering the Java platform, just like Microsoft was doing back in the 90s

So what? Companies don't have a right not to have their platforms "splintered".

Besides, Google isn't "splintering the Java platform", they created a new platform that happens to use the Java language.

Furthermore, Sun/Oracle's mobile efforts are largely dead, so Google isn't "splintering" anything, it is replacing them with something actually viable.

I think Google should solve this the easy way (1)

ysth (1368415) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332662)

Buy enough U.S. Congress votes to legislatively do away with software patents here. Hey, I can dream...

(plus one InformatiVe) (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33332664)

new language (1)

yyxx (1812612) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332812)

Maybe this would be a good time for Google to cut ties with the Java language altogether, by coming up with a new, better language that compiles to Dalvik. The Java language has too many problems anyway.

I'm waiting for a iOs-Android compatibility layer (1)

mattbee (17533) | more than 4 years ago | (#33332930)

What Oracle are objecting to, regardless of the legal mechanisms they're using, is the *their* developers are being diverted onto a platform they don't control. Google don't use any Java source code, trademarks and so on, but once they have a community of programmers using the Java language (without the current Java leadership in control of the platform) Oracle may find "their" developers wanting future "Androidisms" porting back to the JDK. Imagine a Java with unsigned integers, a quicker/dirtier native code layer ... Google are free to add any of these to Android without Oracle's say-so. That is the situation they don't want, the feeling that the Java language and platform is a variable commodity.

I'd place a bet that someone is working on an iOS SDK, toolchain & libraries - something to allow iOS developers to target Android without leaving Objective C, or mix & match Java + ObjC libraries. If you think Oracle's reaction to Android is bad, we can probably guess at the kinds of SDK machinations Apple would go to in order to stop "their" iOS developers from hedging their bets.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?