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!

Oracle Thinks Google Owes $6.1 Billion In Damages

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the and-a-pony dept.

Oracle 243

An anonymous reader writes "When Oracle acquired Sun in 2009, the company got its hands on a lot of desirable technology. While OpenOffice may have fallen by the wayside, Oracle isn't about to let the Java programming language and its associated patents remain untouched if they can generate some additional revenue. In fact, the company is currently in the middle of a legal battle with Google over those patents that could potentially net Oracle billions and leave Android crippled. In August last year Oracle sued Google for infringing Java patents and copyright by developing Android. Oracle argues that Android uses technology derived from Java and therefore infringes multiple patents. It wants compensation, but with most court documents and details not publicly available, it's hard to know specifics. However, new documents made available late last week revealed just how much Oracle thinks is an acceptable damages payment for Google to make. According to an expert Oracle hired, Google could be looking at a bill between $1.4 billion and $6.1 billion for its alleged infringements."

cancel ×

243 comments

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

Yesterday? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503054)

Wasn't this posted yesterday?

Re:Yesterday? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503172)

All my troubles seemed so far away....

Re:Yesterday? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503598)

If Google had any brains they'd just invent their own stuff. They have the manpower. Why even fuck around with piece-of-shit JAVA / Linux anyway? Write some brand new low-overhead OS that is blazingly resourceful and not so full of legacy SHIT. Develop your own badass language that takes the best of C# / JAVA / RUBY and make it fucking SCREAM....... FUCK......we all want it.

Re:Yesterday? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503926)

http://golang.org/ [golang.org]

Linux is fine, Java is the problem. And they're working on a better language already.

Re:Yesterday? (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504128)

Developers developers developers.

Re:Yesterday? (1)

Hylandr (813770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504176)

Child...

- Dan.

Compensation for Java? (1, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503070)

Hey maybe Oracle should be paying some of us damages for inflicting Java on the world. ;)

Re:Compensation for Java? (4, Funny)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503540)

Offset by saving some of us from C++.

Re:Compensation for Java? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36504040)

Or, saving the world from you writing C++.

Re:Compensation for Java? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503688)

Why can't oracle pay damages for inflicting itself upon the world?

Meanwhile, they haven't even gotten to the point of reduced claims in court, so this could be cut by 80, 90, 100% by the time the claims reach the court. Hell, this hasn't even gone to trial, and google has signaled clear intentions to defend themselves in this case.

Re:Compensation for Java? (3, Insightful)

kimvette (919543) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504224)

Are you serious? Are you somehow implying that Oracle isn't in the right?

$6.1 billion in damages? Who the hell are they trying to fool? What did they lose out on: a sizable market share of free?

Oracle suffered no damages whatsoever; most of Java is licensed under the GPL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_%28programming_language%29) so even though Google has reimplemented a lot of the functions and basically created a Java clone, Oracle has suffered no damage because it is software they GIVE AWAY FOR FREE.

Now, before you jump on me and correct me by saying it's a patent issue, I understand the distinction. However they gave away the software under the GPL and the GPL stipulates that the software can only be distributed without being encumbered by patents, so either Oracle is right and thus is in violation of it's (Sun's) own terms for Java, and Java needs to stop being redistributed (not an entirely bad idea) or Oracle is in the wrong, and Google has done no wrong by reimplementing the Java language. In any event. Oracle is full of shit; they have suffered no damages whatsoever.

I know Oracle hates free and their RDBMS licensing fees are completely ridiculous (licensed per core x RAM - they don't care if it's a server or if you need a seat for a development or QA lab workstation they license it based on what a given CPU "could" theoretically handle) but they fucked up; if they hate free software they should not have purchased Sun in the first place. Sun's processors were "open source," their office suite was, they opened up most of Java, and the OSes they offered (Linux, and SunOS/Solaris was eventually opened as well), and so on.

First (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503076)

Don't develop with Java or you'll get fucking sued. Fuck oracle

Re:First (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503466)

More like don't develop a clone of Java targeted at the mobile platform, where Sun/Oracle made most of their Java licensing revenue, or you'll get fucking sued.

There is no issue developing in Java

Re:First (0)

nagnamer (1046654) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503542)

There is no issue developing in Java

Apart from Java itself, you mean?

New Google Strategy (4, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503084)

1. Buy Oracle

2. Sack those who are responsible for the suit.

3. Open Java to the Public Domain

4. Sell Oracle.

Re:New Google Strategy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503146)

Except oracle is the second largest software company in the world!. Pretty much impossible for Google to ingest oracle.

Re:New Google Strategy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503176)

Google: Challenge Accepted!

Re:New Google Strategy (1)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503400)

Don't worry my selective reading lead me to read this line initially.

"In August last year Oracle sued Google for infringing Java patents and copyright by developing Android. Google argues that Android uses technology derived from Java and therefore infringes multiple patents."

I guess I was expecting Google's counter to the sue rather than more info from Oracle's perspective.

Also. Help me Slashdot. Which side am I supposed to hate? Google or Oracle?

Re:New Google Strategy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503474)

Also. Help me Slashdot. Which side am I supposed to hate? Google or Oracle?

Oracle. I would have had to hesitate briefly if you'd said "SCO or Oracle".

Re:New Google Strategy (1)

i.r.id10t (595143) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503482)

Which one didn't offer you a job or allow you to buy stock in the IPO?

Re:New Google Strategy (3, Insightful)

carlosap (1068042) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503276)

Oracle bought sun in 7.38B. Win 6.1 B for damages, priceless!, that was in oracle eyes before the adquisition. Quite a bargain to bought Sun!.

Re:New Google Strategy (3, Informative)

Amouth (879122) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503318)

they only need to own 51%

Oracle's Market Cap = 161.13B

Price to control = 80.565B

Google's Cash on Hand = 36.67B

so yea they are short a bit..

Re:New Google Strategy (2, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503450)

they only need to own 51%

I think you meant to say "controlling interest"? If say, a company is owned equally by five groups, each with 20% of the stock, you could control the company by acquiring 25% of the stock.

Of course owning 51% guarantees you controlling interest, but strictly speaking, it's not necessary

Re:New Google Strategy (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503910)

Depends on whether the other shareholders agree with you ?

Re:New Google Strategy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36504042)

If say, a company is owned equally by five groups, each with 20% of the stock, you could control the company by acquiring 25% of the stock.

No you couldn't. Where do you get this crap from? 25% can be enough to control a company that has a diverse ownership who aren't likely to all get together and set a strategy, i.e. millions of small shareholders, but if there are only five groups holding it with 20% each then just two of those groups need to take enough interest to outvote your 25%. That's nothing like control.

Re:New Google Strategy (2)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503208)

Even if your strategy wasn't impractical, what would make you think that Google would want to make Java public domain?

Re:New Google Strategy (3, Informative)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503302)

Even if your strategy wasn't impractical, what would make you think that Google would want to make Java public domain?

Google, for all their recent goofs, still believes in making things available - grow through acceptance and use of technology, rather than standing over customers and developers with a fee schedule and a large club.

Re:New Google Strategy (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503648)

Good guys in the business world are like the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. They don't fucking exist. Java already has wide acceptance, so why make it public domain?

Re:New Google Strategy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503234)

Unfortunately GOOG ($156.17B) is worth less than ORCL ($160.98B) at the moment.
What you said can't happen now, but it could have been plausible at the end of 2007.

Re:New Google Strategy (2)

RockGrumbler (1795608) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503290)

http://royal.pingdom.com/2010/03/17/how-much-big-tech-companies-have-in-the-bank/

oracle is worth more then google on paper.

Re:New Google Strategy (2)

BuckaBooBob (635108) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503530)

It would be funnier if they Open-Sourced Oracle DB Kept Oracles Patent Portfolio and put all the different parts of Oracle up on EBay or Craislist.

Re:New Google Strategy (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503622)

One small problem. Market cap of ORCL [google.com] is 167 billion dollars. GOOG [google.com] is 156 billion. Very curiously the difference seems to be twice the amount ORCL is dunning GOOG for. I leave it to the day traders to argue this is what the market is valuing the value of the law suite.

Re:New Google Strategy (1)

MicroRoller (1923300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503646)

Doesn't make much sense to spend 10's or maybe over 100 billion dollars to acquire a company in lieu of being sued over 8 billion or trying to fight it or settle.

Better solution is if both Ellison and one of the Google founders agree to the take battle to the skies in their respective fighter jets to settle this. Winner also gets any adsense revenue from the YoutTube videos of the aerial combat.

Re:New Google Strategy (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504274)

Most of Java is licensed under the GPL to begin with - that's actually better than public domain in some ways, because this could be used to turn around and bite Oracle in the ass, since they are distributing GPL-licenses software, and the terms require it to not be hindered by patents else it can't be redistributed. So they could not only get hit by estoppel since they are in fact inviting people to infringe their patents, but those sued could conceivably turn around and countersue Oracle for immense damages that go beyond actual fiscal losses.

Ummm... (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503126)

Isn't this a standard tactic, ask for some obscenely high figure and then settle for much much less?

Re:Ummm... (2)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503244)

Isn't this a standard tactic, ask for some obscenely high figure and then settle for much much less?

Know anything about Larry Ellison? He thinks he's a Samurai. You have underestimated his determination to bring Google to their knees.

Re:Ummm... (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503924)

Know anything about Larry Ellison? He thinks he's a Samurai. You have underestimated his determination to bring Google to their knees.

Eating sushi does not make you a Samurai.

Re:Ummm... (1)

Lorien_the_first_one (1178397) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503326)

Based on the arguments in the Daughbert motion [groklaw.net] posted on Groklaw, I think Oracle will have no choice. Google is taking a pretty good shot at Oracle's expert witness, and based on what I'm reading there, I think Google is likely to prevail in their challenge to the witness.

Re:Ummm... (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503350)

Right by Oracle is a blood money machine.. Google is a threat to them - if they have a chance at burning them i really down Larry is going to pass it down..

Also for how fast this happened after they bought Sun i wouldn't be surprised if this was planned long before they approached Sun with a buyout.

Re:Ummm... (5, Insightful)

yog (19073) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503536)

From the Groklaw article [groklaw.net] : "Cockburn Offers No Meaningful Analysis Regarding Copyright Damages"

That just about sums it up. Oracle shouldn't be picking a fight with Google; they should be thanking Google for helping to spread general Java know-how and promoting it on their phones, even if they've found a way to evade the licensing fees by using a 3rd party JVM.

Nokia has just started a partnership with Microsoft, so Windows Mobile and Bing Search will probably be their standard platform, with Visual C# as the primary language. Blackberry still uses Java, but they're going down the tubes as fast as Nokia. Meanwhile, Apple continues to prefer Objective C. That leaves only Android as the major handheld platform for any flavor of Java.

If Oracle wishes to spread Java on the handheld, they could maybe start by not suing the maker of Android. They should instead be negotiating with Google, trying to integrate Oracle services into Android, maybe offer Google a good deal on a fully licensed JVM that performs better than Dalvik. Wasting millions of dollars on lawyers and risking a huge schism with Google hardly seems worth it.

Microsoft is Google's rival; Microsoft is Oracle's rival. Increasingly, Apple is Google's rival. Maybe the two should get together and unite against Microsoft (and Apple, which has little invested in Oracle's product line). Stupid lawsuits, wasting everyone's time and money. How many programmers could they have hired for the amounts they're spending and will spend on this ridiculous effort?

Re:Ummm... (1)

JamesP (688957) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503880)

Well

J2ME was a mess and a failure

Android 'fixed' Java on mobile, at what cost?!

Now it risks going down the drain again!

And Oracle doesn't care about mobile. Oracle wants the multi-million JVM corporate supports

Re:Ummm... (1)

Johnny Mnemonic (176043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503894)


They should instead be negotiating with Google
This is probably simply the first stages of exactly that. I fully expect a negotiated agreement in the end, that will mutually benefit both. And probably only wind up costing Google lawyer's fees, if anything. This is just Oracle reminding Google who was ultimate authority of Java, and to increase the negotiating position.

Re:Ummm... (1)

bWareiWare.co.uk (660144) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503986)

Dalvik doesn't have to fully implement the Java standard, so it can take shortcuts to be faster then any licensed JVM.

Obligatory (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503136)

Groklaw commentary [groklaw.net]

Re:Obligatory (1)

CarsonChittom (2025388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503274)

Wasn't Groklaw supposed to shutdown or something? What happened?

Re:Obligatory (4, Informative)

micheas (231635) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503348)

The former head of RedHat's legal team took over groklaw.

Re:Obligatory (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503360)

I'm thinking somebody else took up writing stuff for them after Pamela Jones quit.

Re:Obligatory (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503392)

The creator handed it off to someone else so they could persue other interests. So it is basically under new management.

This is what Google gets for using Java (1, Insightful)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503168)

C++ is looking pretty good right about now.

Re:This is what Google gets for using Java (1)

kvvbassboy (2010962) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503284)

C++ is and was always good. It's just that people can't program non-buggy in it, and to be honest it is relatively difficult to do so (which is what makes it fun if you have time ;) ). Try vala, although technically it compiles to C.

Re:This is what Google gets for using Java (1)

softWare3ngineer (2007302) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503818)

It's just that people can't program non-buggy in it.

Its hard to write non-buggy code in any language. ill admit it is easier to mess up alot of stuff in c++, but bug free code is not often seen anywhere. A team must make bug free code a priority and devote alot of time to achieving that goal. Even then it might not be possible to write truly bug free code.

Re:This is what Google gets for using Java (1)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504152)

... and the fact the standard C++ libraries don't do much (compared to Java), and libraries that do stuff are generally no portable, and there is no in-language support for multi-threading, and ..... That is why C++ use declined and Java took over as King of the Hill in global development (according to the Tiobe Index at least).

C++ always looked good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503322)

I have little sympathy for developers who just aren't talented enough to write maintainable code in C++ and then cry "C++ is at fault, not me, and interpreted languages are superior and the only correct way to do development because I can actually manage to write code that works in THOSE. Who cares about low-level performance optimization anyway? Having to free up memory yourself is too much to ask anyone."

Re:C++ always looked good. (1)

kvvbassboy (2010962) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503448)

You are probably a talented programmer, and I completely agree that C or C++ is the holy grail for low level optimization (if you are too noob for Assembly or Hex). I am personally fond of C++ and do not really "get" Java, although I do use it.

This may be obvious, but for many software it's a trade-off between development time, bugginess, manageability and speed, C++ is not always optimal.

Re:C++ always looked good. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503642)

Oh, please. C++ has always looked like a train wreck.
May God have mercy on the soul of those who think that the painful process of learning to deal with it's numerous retarded idiosyncrasies in any way relates to skill or talent in programming.

Re:C++ always looked good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503834)

it's

As someone will inevitably niggle about this, I might as well get it over with: The possessive adjective is "its", without the apostrophe.

Re:C++ always looked good. (1)

zeroshade (1801584) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503958)

Every language has retarded idiosyncrasies, the skill and talent in programming is to learn a language and know how to properly use that tool to solve a particular problem. Well written C++ can be very elegant and not look at all like a train wreck. Poorly written code in any language is still poorly written code and will look like a train wreck.

Re:This is what Google gets for using Java (2)

macintard (1270416) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503372)

Unless you want to develop on a platform that utilizes automatic garbage collection. You know, for security reasons?

Re:This is what Google gets for using Java (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503658)

I hate C++ and Java both, but both of those platforms have garbage collectors available. It just so happens that only one has it by default with every practical implementation.

Re:This is what Google gets for using Java (1)

codepunk (167897) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503718)

Yea because you know we have not seen any application security problems with any android app. Oh Wait.

Re:This is what Google gets for using Java (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503956)

Wrong choice of words, garbage collection has no relevance to security, but basically helps keeps memory usage in check.

Re:This is what Google gets for using Java (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503510)

No it is what they get for NOT using Java(tm). If they had of been using Java(tm) they would have gotten the patent grant that is associated with using Java(tm). Instead they used Harmony, which is not Java(tm).

Re:This is what Google gets for using Java (1, Troll)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504234)

They would have been safer going with C# rather than Java. And it's better.

So basically... (2)

itchythebear (2198688) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503218)

So basically Oracle thinks that Google is expecting to spend about 6.2 Billion dollars to pay it's lawyers and is hoping they see it would just be cheaper for them to license the technology from Oracle.

Please oh please let Google fight this and win. Not because I love Google, but because I hate Oracle.

muahahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503220)

oracle==evil

Good. (0, Flamebait)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503248)

Oracle has had decades of experience at being a productive prick. Unlike Ballmer, Ellison [wikia.com] is not an accountant upgraded beyond his station. If there's someone who will put up a determined fight to cut Google down to size and hinder Brin and Page's journeys into everyone's lives, it's him. If the option was available, they'd all be against the wall - but a second best is to have them squabbling with each other. Their egos are, I think, too great for them to engage in the usual cooperation-under-a-thin-veil-of-competition of large corporations.

(Soviet information-gathering was evil because that time round your family wasn't the one which got to protect its own privacy while taking everyone else's, right Sergei?)

Re:Good. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503422)

Fuck Ellison. I hope he gets run over by a fucking bus.

Re:Good. (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503524)

Ellison and B/P/S form two sides of the same coin, being corporations which have grown quickly and absurdly massive on the business of data gathering and mining. In the former case the link with government work was well-known; in the latter case it's met with cries of HURR CONSPIRACY THEORIST because we trust the government these days not to abuse any large repository of data and try really hard to ignore evidence.

But the individual people concerned are egomaniacal dicks, and that acts against their favour, which in turn acts in our favour.

Bad publicity (2)

danbuter (2019760) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503476)

If I was in charge of a software company, I'd think very, very hard about using something other than Java for any future projects. This lawsuit will quite possibly bite Oracle in the ass over the long term.

Re:Bad publicity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503652)

Having almost completed a 4 year project using Java, I'm determined to never, ever make that mistake again. It's just plain awful, rediculously tedious and verbose beyond comprehension. I hope it dies sooner than Cobol before it did.

Re:Bad publicity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503990)

They seem to be trying to alienate any sort of partners they have. That will sink them faster...

Somebody needs a bigger boat (1)

Bloodwine77 (913355) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503486)

I guess Larry Ellison is needing some extra money to start building his next yacht.

Where's PJ when we need her? (1)

jenningsthecat (1525947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503492)

It may be time for a Groklaw comeback...

Re:Where's PJ when we need her? (2)

Liquor (189040) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503660)

PJ is still backing the site, and keeping an eye on things, but Mark Webbink (from Red Hat's general counsel) is doing the the articles.. and seems to be as impartial as PJ, though not with the same humour (so far, at least).

The articles there go into details about Oracles claims and Googles counters.

Re:Where's PJ when we need her? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503686)

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110619135516162

I doubt... (2)

mr_lizard13 (882373) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503532)

I doubt Google would infringe on someone else's patents. That would be evil, and that's not how Google rolls.

Re:I doubt... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503670)

ROTFL.... guys, dis is business not wonder land.

Google started abusing Java before the Sun acquisition, when Sun was in no position to fight them. Years before than, MS did in fact license some java related stuff to be able to release .Net.

IMHO Google is the evil one here and they should pay.

Of course it's possible that these numbers are high because settling the case, properly licensing Java ME for Android and bring Android back under the Java umbrella might be the preferred outcome.

In any case, don't forget that Oracle is the company who sued and got $1 billion from SAP for a much lesser infringement!

Fuck Google(.) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503582)

Go Oracle!

Python for Android ... FTW! (3, Insightful)

Skapare (16644) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503604)

And I hear that Google has a lot of Python running in-house already. But if fewer CPU cycle per function performed is the goal for low power mobile devices, why not just plain old C?

Re:Python for Android ... FTW! (2)

Liquor (189040) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503734)

Simple - Google needed app developers to write for the platform, and phone app developers mostly speak Java. So Google came up with the Dalvik VM that can run recompiled Java code in a compatible environment.

Re:Python for Android ... FTW! (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503788)

Because if you require developpers to write in plain old C, there'll be a magnitude less apps available for Android.

Re:Python for Android ... FTW! (1)

mattdm (1931) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503948)

How about requiring them to write in Objective C?

Re:Python for Android ... FTW! (1)

codepunk (167897) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504050)

Oh, you mean like the lack of apps for iOS. Oh wait.

The C language (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503934)

Yeah seriously, I don't know why people even bother to learn languages that are 11 times as slow on fairly routine tasks. Yes object oriented stuff is nice, and functional languages do really interesting AI stuff, but you pretty much have to implement everything in C if you want to get it up to competition speed or if you want to make it highly scalable.

Ok I'm exaggerating a fair bit, but seriously C gets far too little love.

Re:Python for Android ... FTW! (1)

Nimatek (1836530) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504094)

Or why not assembly? The answer is, because developers need to get things done.

I hope... (1, Troll)

noTimeAtAll (1212430) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503650)

I hope LulzSec makes some funny stuff to Oracle's servers soon.

I want some of those drugs (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503674)

I dunno what Oracle's people are smoking, popping, or injecting, but I want some!

Re:I want some of those drugs (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504118)

I dunno what Oracle's people are smoking, popping, or injecting, but I want some!

From the squirrel-crazy behavior they've been displaying, it appears to be methamphetamine. That's bad stuff and you want to stay away from it.

I mean, just look at Ellison? Does he seem OK to you?

uncle larry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36503714)

I have to say I was upset to see Uncle Larry as the worlds "second" highest paid CEO. Uncle Larry, we want to see you #1. You are the fucking man!

To (1)

ajzimm3rman (1695434) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503752)

make up for all our lost open sourcers of course!

They should not have used Java (2)

Un pobre guey (593801) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503804)

Basing Android development on Java was a mistake. It is GNU/Linux, after all, and people should have used what they pleased to develop under Xfce, Meego, Gnome, KDE, or some other relatively well established GUI. Writing apps with C++/Qt would have been easier than Java, with faster executables and smaller memory footprint.

Re:They should not have used Java (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504122)

For that matter, if they want to use a runtime library, why not go with WxPython, or even a DroidPython? You get the runtime protection of Java, the OO environment, the fast engines, small footprint, and avoid licensing issues.

I guess Google figured there was already a large body of commercial Java developers that would jump at the chance to develop for Android.

Re:They should not have used Java (1)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504172)

You jest right? Java has a huge number of libraries, tools, and developers available. This is why Google chose it. Java is also GPL, thanks to Sun. This is a battle over ridiculous US patent laws, not over copyright conditions.

Re:They should not have used Java (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36504200)

and people should have used what they pleased to develop under Xfce, Meego, Gnome, KDE, or some other relatively well established GUI.

Yes, and then Android on your phone could have been as successful as Linux on the desktop!

The phones all have different processors (1)

Marrow (195242) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504256)

Where is the glue language that makes a single distributable work on all platforms?
As far as Java goes, they should have come up with their own implementation/compiler whatever that does not draw from anything but the syntax of the language. The syntax is open right? And bytecode is not a new idea so they could have rolled their own clean-room bytecode without straining anything.

Re:They should not have used Java (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36504268)

Google's NIH is biting them in the ass now...

Oracle bought Sun for $7 billion (2)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#36503852)

Looks like they want to make all their money back with this lawsuit. 'tis how they roll, I guess.

I see people saying Google should buy Oracle. Not gonna happen, of course. However, Google could buy the Java IP off them if they wanted. Surely, the valuation of Java's IP would be much smaller than the entire valuation of Sun (hw divisions and all), so it may actually come cheaper than fighting this out to the end.

On the other hand, that is probably what Oracle wants to happen. Tbh, I want to see Google fight this and rip Oracle apart in court, because Oracle are fucking asshats no matter how I look at this.

Universal (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504032)

Wasn't Java(tm) being forced upon programmers as a universal cross-platform programming language? Sun wanted Java everywhere. However, whenever I tried it as a cross platform solution, all I could get were errors of the type "Sorry, this program was compiled with java runtime of 1.4.5.4.3.4.1.3.2.33.4.5.p, and you are using 1.4.5.4.3.4.1.3.2.33.4.5.q" .

So, Google drank the tea, and now is being punished for it.

Re:Universal (1)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 3 years ago | (#36504208)

Back in the day I used to build my Java programs on Windows 95 and run them on 64-bit 4-CPU SGI IRIX at my university. These days I never had a problem with 'write once, run anywhere' when I compile on Mac and test in Linux, and then give my stuff to people using Windows XP 32, Vista, and Win7 32/64 and none of them have had a problem with my Java program (bundled as n exe with JSmooth). You must have been doing something wrong?

Follow the money... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36504072)

Java made money for Sun (now Oracle) on mobile phones, it was licensed for use there, Google did something clever (or maybe not so much) and released a phone/framework that used a previously accepted implementation of Java (heavyweight versus the 'efficient' phone version) and skirted the licensing issue altogether.

Now Oracle feels that Google owes them licensing for 'phone' java.

So what is Android, a phone with java? or a tiny linux system with a phone card?

I believe this is one reason Apple wants to distance themselves from java, its going to become a headache.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?