×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

236 comments

way to go! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34202278)

Free as in "free to pay microsoft and oracle".

But outside the US? (4, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202288)

I wonder how Oracle will go suing Android integrators in Korea, Taiwan and China?

Especially outside of USA (1)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202388)

I wonder how Oracle will go suing Android integrators in Korea, Taiwan and China?

It helps to have "friends" in "high places."

Re:Especially outside of USA (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34202674)

"what" do you mean "by" that?

Re:But outside the US? (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202402)

I wonder how Oracle will go suing Android integrators in Korea, Taiwan and China?

I'm sure they're big enough to have an overseas law firm rack up the billable hours. I wonder if they'll go after the US or European distributors of Android products? Or even the developers of Android apps?

Re:But outside the US? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34202422)

Injunction against imports? Kind of like what they did when those LCD manufacturers in a certain Asian country got into trouble?

Re:But outside the US? (1, Interesting)

williamhb (758070) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202532)

I wonder how Oracle will go suing Android integrators in Korea, Taiwan and China?

This filing doesn't mean that even Google think the defence will succeed.

From the article:
Overall, Google's answer takes an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach, including seemingly contradictory defenses, such as that Android developers are in fact "licensed to use the Patents-in-Suit and the copyrights in the works that are the subject of the Asserted Copyrights."

Sounds a little like "Uh oh! Quick! Everyone think up some kind of a defence for this! Maybe if we have enough, they'll negotiate and settle on one of them!". Surely Google would not normally like to put up a big neon sign saying "WARNING: Use Android and you may be sued!" by making public claims that their customers should be liable in a lawsuit.

Re:But outside the US? (4, Informative)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202636)

Groklaw disagrees with your assessment.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101111114933605 [groklaw.net]

Come on Sheeple, Android is *NOT* Google's OS (4, Informative)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 3 years ago | (#34203234)

I expect the average layman to be somewhat clueless, but this is Slashdot, so PLEASE people, get this through your head!

If you don't want to do the research to verify that I am correct, at least read this part from Groklaw:

""Other than the Harmony libraries, the Android platform – including, without limitation, the Dalvik VM – was independently developed by the OHA," Google points out. The OHA is the Open Handset Alliance, which is 78 companies and entities, not just Google. "The Android Open Source Project (“AOSP”) is tasked with the maintenance and further development of Android, including incorporating code and submissions from the community of developers who contribute to Android and the tens of thousands of developers who create applications for Android." "

I must have pointed out about 20 times here on Slashdot that Android is not Google's OS any more than Linux is a Red Hat OS. It is an OS produced by 78 different companies who are members of the Open Handset Alliance and also has numerous unaffiliated contributors.

Re:But outside the US? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34203580)

What a shocker, Groklaw takes the position everyone wants to hear.

Re:But outside the US? (4, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#34203684)

Oh look, another stupid SCO investors bitter because PJ called it right. Pal, even your momma thinks you're stupid.

Re:But outside the US? (5, Informative)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202884)

This filing doesn't mean that even Google think the defence will succeed.

It's my understanding that if you want to preserve your rights to assert a defense, you have to assert it up front. This prevents dramatic Perry Mason-style maneuvers where you pull a new defense out of the hat near the end of the trial.

But the predictable consequence of this rule is that lawyers will assert any and all possible defenses up front, so as to preserve their client's options.

Re:But outside the US? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#34203266)

what makes you think they have to go after a country?

they'd have to go after the entire open handset alliance, which spans probably 3/4 of the world.

this is why it will never succeed.

Troll (-1, Troll)

rebot777 (765163) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202292)

Troll

Flame (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34202390)

Flame

Take that, you troll.

nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34202306)

so basically leaving the customers (phone makers) twisting in the wind?

Re:nice (3, Insightful)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202372)

I think it may be Oracle that's left "twisting in the wind". Google is a huge target, but suing several dozen developers instead is probably not going to be nearly as easy or lucrative.

Re:nice (5, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202412)

I think it may be Oracle that's left "twisting in the wind". Google is a huge target, but suing several dozen developers instead is probably not going to be nearly as easy or lucrative.

Does it have to be lucrative or just effective at preventing anyone from using it without a licensing fee?

Re:nice (4, Insightful)

Proudrooster (580120) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202934)

Oracle just got $4B from SAS so they have cash to spend on lawyers. I imagine Oracle will make this part of their standard business practice now. Sue everyone, sue big, demand license fees even on stuff you don't own. :)

Re:nice (3, Interesting)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 3 years ago | (#34203090)

Perhaps you mean SAP.

If Oracle goes after users, they're making 200,000 enemies a day.

Uh, sorry about your phone, dude, but Oracle says you can't use that Android stuff. I think they have their own version, but you have to get it at the Oracle App Store. Have a nice day. Oh, and there's this URL where you can jailbreak your Unbreakable Oracle Phone....

This is the direct opposite of what MS is doing (4, Insightful)

Giometrix (932993) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202346)

Microsoft promises to take legal responsibiliy in the case of patent lawsuits resulting from use of their platform. Interesting times we live in...

Re:This is the direct opposite of what MS is doing (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202434)

They also charge for that feature.
I am sure for enough money google could do the same.

Re:This is the direct opposite of what MS is doing (1)

Giometrix (932993) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202680)

They also charge for that feature. I am sure for enough money google could do the same.

I know... what's interesting is that it seems that either you pay upfront or in the rear; either way you pay.

Re:This is the direct opposite of what MS is doing (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202754)

I know... what's interesting is that it seems that either you pay upfront or in the rear; either way you pay.

That's one reason why the GPL3 is so great: the license prohibits legal distribution if the users are vulnerable to patent attacks on the distributed software. It prevents this kind of racketeering right at the source.

Re:This is the direct opposite of what MS is doing (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202780)

Will it work if the users don't actually use a GPL licensed software, but an Apache licensed software - Android - with code (allegedly) copied from GPLed code?

Harmony, used by Android, isn't an OpenJDK fork - it's a complete reimplementation, and if code was indeed copied, this is a GPL violation like any other.

Nothing to do with patents.

Re:This is the direct opposite of what MS is doing (2, Interesting)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#34203068)

Ahem,

Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version.

That doesn't do jack shit if you (google) distribute code that infringes on third party (oracle) patents.

Re:This is the direct opposite of what MS is doing (1)

lucm (889690) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202736)

> They also charge for that feature.
> I am sure for enough money google could do the same.

Can't argue with this. If Google did what Microsoft is doing, they would definitely not do the opposite.

Re:This is the direct opposite of what MS is doing (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202914)

HTC is paying Microsoft license fees for using android.

Re:This is the direct opposite of what MS is doing (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202990)

And Microsoft paid SUN over .NET.

The HTC fees have never been discussed and may in fact be nothing more than a way to make sure HTC builds WP7 handsets.

In short rent seeking sucks, no matter who is doing it. It stifles competition and innovation.

Re:This is the direct opposite of what MS is doing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34203018)

Then the old saying "you get what you pay for" is correct.

Re:This is the direct opposite of what MS is doing (1)

coolgeek (140561) | more than 3 years ago | (#34203212)

There are two points though. Much as I am loathe to suggest an ms solution to anyone, at least the cost is predictable with them. The cost of using Android just went to unpredictable, and also, you get the nice feeling of being tossed under the bus by a business partner.

Re:This is the direct opposite of what MS is doing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34202440)

But Microsoft doesn't offer a system released under an Open Source license, with (potential?) contributions to the project from anyone on the planet.

And you would use their software why? (1)

novar21 (1694492) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202564)

It may not work, or it might be full of bugs and you have to pay more for it... But since they cover you for patents, that makes all of the difference? yea, thats the route I would recommend. NOT. I look for solutions. If I can not find solutions, I write them! Go ahead and try to hunt down all of the corps that might infringe your patent.... Their software is not shared. Your access to the source is non-existent. Open source only exposes the code if it is shared. It doesn't have to be. And programmers are not that hard to find. They are cheaper than most software, if kept in house. Which would give you all the advantage any how. Custom answer to custom request. Arrg...

No, it's not. (3, Informative)

schon (31600) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202768)

Microsoft promises to take legal responsibiliy in the case of patent lawsuits resulting from use of their platform

What does that have to do with copyright claims?

Answer: absolutely nothing.

The summary is a bit short. (4, Informative)

migla (1099771) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202354)

Mayber some of the following paragraphs from tfa would have fit in the summary:

"""
"Any use in the Android Platform of any protected elements of the works that are the subject of the Asserted Copyrights was made by third parties without the knowledge of Google, and Google is not liable for such use," Google attorneys wrote in one of 20 defenses to Oracle's amended complaint.

Another defense states that Android was "created independently and without reference to any works protected by the Asserted Copyrights."

Elsewhere in the document, Google discusses the formation of the Open Handset Alliance, the coalition of vendors, including Google, that worked together to develop Android.

The filing also notes that Android can be freely downloaded and developers are free to modify the source code to suit their needs.

In addition, Google states that Oracle's patent claims should be denied under the doctrine of misuse. "Oracle has come to the Court with unclean hands due to its practice of requiring licensees of its purportedly open software to pay for licenses to items not covered by Oracle's alleged intellectual property in order to receive a license under Oracle's alleged intellectual property."
"""
?

Re:The summary is a bit short. (5, Funny)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202452)

"Oracle has come to the Court with unclean hands due to its practice of requiring licensees of its purportedly open software to pay for licenses to items not covered by Oracle's alleged intellectual property in order to receive a license under Oracle's alleged intellectual property."

A sentence only the deranged mind of a lawyer could love.

Re:The summary is a bit short. (4, Informative)

guyminuslife (1349809) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202676)

I had to read it a couple of times. I parse it as: "Oracle says that they have patents on some of the stuff that's used in open-source software. We're not saying they do, but we'll talk about that later. The thing is, because they say they have those patents, they want people to pay them for stuff that they don't even pretend to have patents on. That's bullshit. Therefore Oracle sucks."

Re:The summary is a bit short. (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 3 years ago | (#34203524)

No no no, it boils down to this:

Oracle legitimately owns patent rights or copyrights to Object A.

Oracle's licensing terms for Object A include a requirement to also license Object B, which nobody wants and Oracle doesn't own any legitimate rights to.

It's like being required to purchase a copy of OSX from Microsoft in order to purchase a copy of Windows.

Re:The summary is a bit short. (4, Interesting)

markjhood2003 (779923) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202746)

I believe this sentence is a reference to the Java TCK conformance test suites. Java is supposed to be open source, but you can't claim to have a conforming Java implementation unless you pass the various TCKs. But the TCKs themselves are not open source and you have to pay for a license to use it on your Java implementation. This has always been Sun's (and now Oracle's) big stick.

Re:The summary is a bit short. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34202926)

Looks like a job for XML if you ask me.

Re:The summary is a bit short. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34203104)

It really rubs me the wrong way that you used a Python docstring to make your comment.

Not quite what Google says (3, Interesting)

Albanach (527650) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202366)

From TFA, Google filed 20 defenses taking an 'everything but the kitchen sink' approach. In other words, they listed every defense they could conceive of, so that Oracle has to defeat each individual defense. If one fails, Google will then rely upon the others.

Furthermore, it's a strategic move - if the others were responsible, Oracle could find itself in the position of trying to sue either companies with much smaller bank balances like the Open handset Alliance or some 20 year old student. That's a lot less attractive than a bumper payday from Google.

Re:Not quite what Google says (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202396)

Oh, phfew! For a second there, I thought Google hired SCO's legal team - you know the whole part about 3rd parties being liable and whatnot.

Re:Not quite what Google says (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34202496)

Actually, if you look carefully, Oracle hired both sides of the SCO vs Novell legal teams for this case.

Re:Not quite what Google says (1)

youn (1516637) | more than 3 years ago | (#34203078)

Lol, let's hope the sco team takes the lead then and messes up as badly as in the sco case :)

Re:Not quite what Google says (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34203158)

Hey, considering what they had to work with they did a great job. Not their fault the customer was an idiot.

Re:Not quite what Google says (4, Informative)

poena.dare (306891) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202596)

Yeah peeps need not get their knickers in a wad. PJ can explain things, as always:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101111114933605 [groklaw.net]

I love this:

"Wouldn't it be ironic if Oracle's patents ended up on the junk heap? Clearly that is Google's intention. I've been hoping for a settlement of this mess from day one. I smell that it is now a real possibility. You can take this amended answer two ways -- that it's Google angling for a better settlement or that it's Google looking to win the whole enchilada and free up Java for everyone."

Re:Not quite what Google says (1)

Stuntmonkey (557875) | more than 3 years ago | (#34203184)

The bully in the schoolyard tries to shake down another kid to take his lunch money. The other kid rolls up his sleeves and says f*#k off, you're going to have to take it by force. The bully then has a choice: Walk away embarrassed in front of all the other kids, or risk getting his ass handed to him?

Kudos to Google for not rolling over like a lot of other companies would.

Highly misleading headline (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34202416)

Here's what the article actually says:

"Any use in the Android Platform of any protected elements of the works that are the subject of the Asserted Copyrights was made by third parties without the knowledge of Google, and Google is not liable for such use," Google attorneys wrote in one of 20 defenses to Oracle's amended complaint."

That is, "we are not responsible for any violations added by the third parties". Well, duh.

Re:Highly misleading headline (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202574)

Not so duh I would think.

Google distributes it (makes copies).

They would not be willful or knowingly infringing, but they would still be infringing.

Re:Highly misleading headline (2, Insightful)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202726)

It is a reference to the Dalvik VM code pre-dating Android. Since the code had an Apache (?) license, Google complied with that license. If the original party had no authorization to license the code under those terms (copied it from the JVM), then that is not Google's fault (or liability). Seems like a solid defense to this engineer...

Re:Highly misleading headline (2, Funny)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202844)

Google is still distributing illegal copies.

"The 1976 Copyright Act, as amended in 1999, authorizes statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work infringed in cases of willful infringement and from $750 up to $30,000 in cases of non-willful infringement."

Google is making copies, they are possibly illegal. Doesn't matter the license they thought they had, they can still be held responsible up $30,000 a copy.

(source for quote https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=6-93+Intellectual+Property+Counseling+%26+Litigation+93.syn&srctype=smi&srcid=2A4E&key=5aad85e0a403aa12c7b112ffd6180668 [lexisnexis.com])

Re:Highly misleading headline (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34203170)

Patents != Copyright

Re:Highly misleading headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34202854)

Except that it is. The software license doesn't cover any of the patent violations, nor does it excuse any "accidental" copyright infringement. At best they could avoid willful copyright infringement which still comes with penalties, but the patent hammer is entirely unaffected.

We need a flow chart of sorts (2, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202580)

Having a flow chart would clear up so many issues surrounding patents. Here is the question:

What line of reasoning must hold water before a patent is deemed valid?

If you read this story [groklaw.net], you realize that each party is asserting their position as the valid one. To me, the confusion surrounding this topic is hitting me hard. A flow chart would help out a lot.

PolicyNodeImpl.java is from the Android TEST tree (5, Interesting)

rossjudson (97786) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202740)

It's been widely reported that there's a duplicated file, and indeed it there is something close to that. BUT! One thing you'll find missing in Oracle's Exhibit "J" [groklaw.net] are the package headers at the top of the file. There's a good reason for that. On the Android side the file is in package org.apache.harmony.security.tests.support.cert, in directory support/src/test/java. You can see this in the git repository [kernel.org] for android. It's sitting in a directory of test support [kernel.org] classes.

So the matching file that we have here is part of the test suite to ensure compliance with the interfaces. It is NOT part of the implementation itself. So the real question is, is it OK to have this kind of file sitting in the test branch, to ensure that the real implementation of it complies?

The fact that the package headers have been removed and that this file is from the test suite can't be anything other than a deliberate attempt to deceive, well, someone. ;)

It's rather unbelievable that with thousands of stories out there on this file nobody is talking about WHERE it fits into the android tree.

Re:PolicyNodeImpl.java is from the Android TEST tr (0)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202800)

OK, but the Java license specifically demands that Java be implemented in full with no additions or subtractions (I para phrase). What Google have done is to implement subsets of "Java", and call it something else.

Everyone can see that though they do not call their implementation Java, the implementation is indeed Java to a great extent. That is where Google might lose in my opinion.

Re:PolicyNodeImpl.java is from the Android TEST tr (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34203074)

If this is true then Wine is in the same boat.

They implement a compatible Win32 layer.
Which is it?

Re:PolicyNodeImpl.java is from the Android TEST tr (5, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202838)

The headers haven't only be removed - which is a GPL violation by itself - there's a *new* header:

/*
  * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
  * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with
  * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
  * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
  * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
  * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
  *
  * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 [apache.org]
  *
  * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
  * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
  * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
  * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
  * limitations under the License.
  */

This is a blatant copyright violation, because you can't re-licence GPL code as Apache.

PJ's post... (1)

magus_melchior (262681) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202628)

Is it "third parties" as in "anyone remotely connected to Android, including users and developers", or "third parties" as in the Open Handset Alliance [groklaw.net] which comprises 78 companies?

Methinks Google isn't saying, "Look, don't sue us, you should go after the users", but rather "Oh, you want to sue us? You'd better be prepared to include 77 other defendants with big pockets."

Re:PJ's post... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34203188)

If that's what oracle is saying, then isn't google saying "google provides no indemnity with Android, you're on your own."

Google throwing everybody under the bus... (-1, Troll)

RocketRabbit (830691) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202782)

This is extremely revealing. Not only is google content to throw its customers (!?! depending on how they used Android) under the bus, but it is almost a tacit admission that they knew their Dalvik name swap trick won't work.

Re:Google throwing everybody under the bus... (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202868)

What does the Dalvik name has anything to do with this? If you're talking about calling itself Java, this is an unrelated _patents_ matter, while the customers under a bus thing is about copyright - more specifically, the code Oracle says was copied from the OpenJDK and relicensed as Apache, which is a copyright violation.

"Third parties, not Google, would be liable for any Java copyright violations in the Android mobile OS"

Re:Google throwing everybody under the bus... (1, Flamebait)

RocketRabbit (830691) | more than 3 years ago | (#34203000)

My point was, ripping off Java and bypassing the licensing requirements for a mobile Java might have been a good way to save some cash, but it was slightly shady at best, and is going to kill Android as this struggle battles on.

They *call* it Dalvik and the bytecode differs, but the fact remains that it sucks in Oracle(TM) Java classfiles and spits out a proprietary, incompatible binary format. One of the general complaints in the broader struggle between Oracle and Google is precisely this.

The idea that Google copied some code isn't hard to believe, as the whole of Dalvik is just a ripped off Java, with just enough changes here and there to make it appear that it isn't a ripped off Java.

This should teach everybody a good lesson about trusting Google, and also about coding for proprietary VMs be they from Oracle or Google or Microsoft even.

Re:Google throwing everybody under the bus... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34203120)

So then you think Wine should be shutdown as well?

They implement Win32 and now Win64.

The real lesson here is Google should have either bought SUN or stayed the hell away from anything Oracle touched. Dalvik is not proprietary, it is Apache licensed. Do you think Apache is proprietary?

Re:Google throwing everybody under the bus... (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34203156)

Since when is a VM licensed under the GPL (OpenJDK) or one licensed under Apache 2,0 (Dalvik) "proprietary"?

They _are_ free. The problem is patents, which apply to any code, free or not, and the copyright violations, which are simply a result of incompatible licenses.

Re:Google throwing everybody under the bus... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202906)

Dalvik is not a java vm, it makes quite different byte code. Google is suggesting the open handset alliance members are responsible not their customers.

Re:Google throwing everybody under the bus... (1)

RocketRabbit (830691) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202976)

Yeah, yeah, but it is *Java* in the sense that a jury will understand it. That's all that really matters here.

Re:Google throwing everybody under the bus... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34203006)

Then the jury is poorly educated. Google should have from the beginning implemented several language to Dalvik VM compilers. I know that would have cost more, but they could have then removed support for java the minute Oracle bought SUN. We all know this is what Oracle does and would do.

Re:Google throwing everybody under the bus... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34203132)

That might be, but considering that Google has advertised the language as "the Java language" it's an honest enough mistake.

Re:Google throwing everybody under the bus... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34203190)

Oracle is not pursuing Trademark violations, which is all that sounds like.

If this stuff holds up how long will it be before MS kills Wine?

Re:Google throwing everybody under the bus... (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202984)

That conclusion is really unfounded. You would have to know and understand Android and its developmental origins to understand what is going on here. Google participated in the development of Android and went to great extremes to protect itself from precisely what is going on here now. But as we all know, you don't have to do anything wrong to be sued. In this case, if you read the claims against Google and Google's responses, you would begin that Oracle's claims are rather similar in nature to SCO's against IBM. Many of the claims are completely non-specific while others are simply wrong.

But with all that said, Google made every attempt to protect itself from things like this but is helpless to prevent other parties from making themselves vulnerable to successful legal attacks. What does that mean? Let's put it this way:

Let's say you develop something using Microsoft technologies. Great. Microsoft will protect you legally if any of Microsoft's technologies violate another party's patents. On the other hand, Microsoft will NOT protect you if you add your own stuff that violates another party's patents or other IP. In this case, Google had a hand in creating the base Android platform. It does NOT violate any of the claims made by Oracle. What makers of Android based products may do to the Android base that does violate Oracle's claims is not the fault or failure of Google. If I make a Redhat variant distro and put commercial software in there that infringes on the copyright of another party, Redhat isn't liable for that either.

This is not Google throwing anyone under the bus. This is Google making clear its limits of liability.

Re:Google throwing everybody under the bus... (1, Flamebait)

RocketRabbit (830691) | more than 3 years ago | (#34203026)

So Google rips off most of Java, makes an incompatible bytecode format, calls it something else, and it's magically *NOT* Java?

Google could have protected itself from this fiasco by starting fresh and not using any of the Sun (Oracle) Java implementation, and calling it something else. What they did instead is take a buttload of Java stuff and call it something else so they didn't have to pay up on the licensing fees.

They were betting on massive amounts of applications being written for Android deviced by Java coders because ***___--- IT'S JAVA ---___*** for all practical intents and purposes!

Re:Google throwing everybody under the bus... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34203064)

Rips off or makes an inter-operable language?

There is a difference.

Class names are not artistic and do not deserve protection.

Re:Google throwing everybody under the bus... (1)

RocketRabbit (830691) | more than 3 years ago | (#34203084)

How about the functions in the classfiles?

Are you saying Google reimplemented every Java class from scratch, in a clean-room fashion, without having seen it first?

Re:Google throwing everybody under the bus... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34203136)

I am saying seeing GPLed code does not prevent me from writing Apache licensed versions that do the same thing. No where in the GPL does it say that by reading this code your brain is now property of someone else.
I am not saying it is impossible that they clean roomed it, it is in fact quite possible, since docs could be easily written by one team from that code to be given to another team. Again the GPL never says thou shalt not write docs from this code.

Re:Google throwing everybody under the bus... (1)

RocketRabbit (830691) | more than 3 years ago | (#34203172)

Actually, if you simply copy the GPL'd code and relicense it as you wish, you are committing a violation of the GPL at the very least.

If you clean-roomed the code, you may not have a problem. However, if tiny details in your Apache code are identical with the GPL'd code, you are clearly messing around with the GPL.

This all ignores the fact that Dalvik was created as a way to bypass Sun's mobile Java licensing, without actually giving up compatibility with Sun's language files, passing their compliance tests, etc, and all the while fragmenting the Java platform.

Re:Google throwing everybody under the bus... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34203238)

I never said I could simply copy it. Tiny details of creative work seem not to match. Else Oracle would be not pulling an SCO. If tiny details really did match we would see reams of matching code.

Dalvik was created to be an open VM that can have java type language compiled for it.

This nonsense that you must pay rent to read a file needs to end. I should not pay to decode h264, nor should google pay to translate some java. If the originator of some filetype thinks it is so special he should not show it to anyone.

Re:Google throwing everybody under the bus... (2, Informative)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 3 years ago | (#34203404)

sun / oracle fragmented the "java platform" by trying to keep desktop and mobile java isolated from each other

frist Stop (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34202820)

They want you to KEEP UNNECESSARY I have a life to PLAYING SO IT'S dying. See? It's perform keeping a5s of them *all, of user base for

Miss Sun yet? (4, Insightful)

h8sg8s (559966) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202870)

I read and re-read tfa and just coudn't see Sun *ever* doing this level of crap. Larry may be a "great capitalist" but he's a failure as a human being. Bad Larry! Baaad! (smacks Larry on head with rolled up newspaper)

Re:Miss Sun yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34203228)

That's one of the defenses. "Sun told us this was OK. You can't suddenly decide to enforce patents that you told us you weren't going to enforce two years ago." And yes, Larry is one of the worst human beings around.

Oracle's corporate personality is (1)

presidenteloco (659168) | more than 3 years ago | (#34202878)

the arrogant @$$hole in the polyester suit.

It's a good thing we have choice in the market.

Prediction: They're going to lose all their open source franchises
as developers and customers walk out.

Oh Google you cowards! (1)

Snaller (147050) | more than 3 years ago | (#34203008)

That's low! It should be on you!

Besides, Java is just the input language - change it for Android 4.0 - change the input language to Basic, make a new compiler and change the virtual machine accordingly. Problem solved.

Oh Google you accurate and correct bastards! (3, Insightful)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 3 years ago | (#34203448)

If Oracle sued Red Hat claiming Linux violates their patents, would you say that Red Hat was acting in a "low" fashion for pointing out the fact that Linux is not Red Hat's OS? Of course not. So why would you expect Google to take the hit when Android is not their OS? (Hint: It is FOSS, and is an Open Handset Alliance [openhandsetalliance.com] OS)

The new SCO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34203222)

Is Oracle officially the new SCO?

Ouch (1)

nilbog (732352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34203258)

So they're just throwing their partners under the bus? I bet that is going to make everyone want to build more Android phones.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...