Google, Sun Headed for Showdown Over Android

narramissic writes "There may be trouble brewing between Google and Sun. Google has written its own virtual machine for Android, 'most likely as a way to get around licensing issues with Sun.' If Google used any of Sun's intellectual property to build Dalvik, Sun could sue Google for patent infringement. But here's where it gets interesting - Sun is a vocal advocate for open source and it would 'hardly appease the open source community to sue Google over an open source software stack.'"

To put it bluntly.

[LWATCDR (28044)]

So reporter thinks that Sun might sue Google for forking Java all the while over looking the fact that Sun has GPLed Java and that other groups have produced versions of Java with out getting sued. Google and Sun both are saying that they are working together.
In other words a none story.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not a non-story.

OK, mini-rant about Sun and Java's naming. Java is three distinct things that Sun has helpfully lumped into one name:

1. The virtual machine.
2. The collection of libraries.
3. The language itself.

Google is using #3, the Java language. They are not using #1, the virtual machine, and using only some subset of #2, the collection of libraries.

Now given the way that Sun sued Microsoft over changing parts of Java in the past, it's almost guaranteed that they'll do it again over Google not u

Change the name.

[SanityInAnarchy (655584)]

There used to be something like this with JavaScript, though I don't think Sun ever owned that -- wasn't it Netscape? Ah, well...

I remember Microsoft re-implemented it from scratch, but because someone owned the name "JavaScript", they simply called it "JScript".

So, Google is now selling the brand "Android", which is a shift from the pseudo-codename "gPhone". It seems like they're in an ideal position to say "Fine, we won't call it Java." And they will be careful to refer to it only as the "Android language

Re:Change the name.

[ClassMyAss (976281)]

Jonathan Schwartz's blog post seems to indicate that Sun would prefer to milk this for the publicity rather than cause a fuss over it. Whatever happened behind the scenes, I took that post as a white flag from Sun, basically saying, "Look, we're not on board for a bunch of reasons, but we've got no beef here, let's all try to get along and spin this to each of our needs."

Even if the VM is not officially Java, you're still ending up with a whole lot of development energy invested in Java, which is good for Sun. I really hope there's no way they are stupid enough to bring this to court just to make a few bucks...

Re:

[Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286)]

Yes, it is a non story. Sun sued Microsoft years before they open sourced java. Micorosft has also signed a license saying that they would not fork java, but they did anyways. In this case Sun says its cool, then its cool. I don't know how true your assertions about Java ME are, but they are not true of Java in general. GuI interfaces are usually done horribly in Java, because its easy to screw them up. The unresponsive Gui (see zend framework) often makes people think that Java is slow.

Re:

[Dr. Slacker (31348)]

I think you forgot that MS had to stop using their Java VM and use Sun's VM instead. If you look in an XP machine's Control Panel you'll see Sun's JAVA icon.

Re:

[Weedlekin (836313)]

MS didn't have to stop using their VM in the original Java court case, which only required two remedies:

1) That the MS VM defaulted to standard Java and used a switch to engage MS extensions instead of being the other way around, as was originally the case.
2) Microsoft would add all standard Java classes including JNI to their distribution instead of shipping a subset that made writing multi-platform code difficult.

It actually took MS about a month to comply with these orders by making an update available t

Re:To put it bluntly.

[Actually, I do RTFA (1058596)]

GuI interfaces are usually done horribly in Java, because its easy to screw them up. The unresponsive Gui (see zend framework) often makes people think that Java is slow.

Unresponsive is slow. From a user's (and my) POV, I don't care if code executes in 10ms or 299ms if the GUI refreshes every 300ms. Why, because I use a program to do things, not to marvel at the effiency of the algorithim (unless I'm examining the code).

Additionally, a lack of progress bars leads to killing processes and restarting them, making them slower in reality.

Re:

[drinkypoo (153816)]

Additionally, a lack of progress bars leads to killing processes and restarting them, making them slower in reality.

Yes, this is the biggest problem I have with most amateur-level software. So I am careful to avoid it on the rare occasion I write anything, and provide plenty of status messages. But too often you will click something and then wait for a long time with no updates. My current favorite offender is Vega Strike, a cross-platform spaceflight game. There are many times when it looks like it's frozen.

Re:

[Pollardito (781263)]

Now given the way that Sun sued Microsoft over changing parts of Java in the past, it's almost guaranteed that they'll do it again over Google not using their virtual machine or library.

but did they just take away things from the library and not add new features to the core? it's one thing to release a new platform that doesn't support all of the java libraries, that just means that existing programs aren't completely portable to your new device and is really your own loss. it's another to do what MS did and that is to add language features (method pointers for callbacks), release a developer suite for your bastardized version of the language, and encourage people to develop programs us

Re:

[ReeceTarbert (893612)]

There's a reason Java ME has gone nowhere

Uh? You are kidding aren't you?

What about this list of Networks Operatos and Carriers [sun.com]

Or the Java ME Device Table [sun.com]?

Or, for that matter, what about these phones from Nokia [nokia.com], Motorola [motorola.com] and Sony Ericcson [sonyericsson.com] just to name a few?

Google is trying to succeed where Java has failed

I agree that there's a lot NOT to like about Java, but calling it a failure it's just trolling... and I just fell for it! ;-)

RT
--
Your Bookmarks. Anywhere. Anytime. [simplybookmarks.com]

Re:

[davester666 (731373)]

I think Android is good for the cell phone industry and for developers in that it sounds like it's a full reset of the API's that are available to developers. The current setup that Sun provides has boatloads of backwards compatibility cruft and old API's like AWT that just don't help with providing either great experiences for developers or end-users. If anything, Sun will jump on the Android bandwagon by adding the same API's to their VM [making it even more bloated].

Re:

[ClassMyAss (976281)]

Indeed - Sun made a lot of big mistakes early on that have severely hampered Java's acceptance since then:

1) The first VMs were truly awful and slow
2) Terrible browser integration with applets
3) AWT as a whole was just a mess, and Swing didn't do much to help things.
4) Brought the language out as a trimmed down C++, only to realize that some of the stuff in C++ was actually useful and put it back in later (it happened with generics and static imports, and if reason takes hold it will eventually happen

Re:To put it bluntly.

[fm6 (162816)]

Pretty much. But it's worth noting that many companies in Sun's position would sue Google. Not only did Google clone Sun's Java technology, they hired some of Sun's best Java people to do it. Of course, suing wouldn't accomplish much, but some ego-driven CEOs wouldn't let that stop them.

Re:

[cromar (1103585)]

It's not the CEOs. It's the PR and legal depts.

it's a real issue

[m2943 (1140797)]

while over looking the fact that Sun has GPLed Java

Releasing software under the GPL wouldn't give Google patent rights, since Google is not basing their software on Sun's.

and that other groups have produced versions of Java with out getting sued

Quite to the contrary: all conforming Java implementations that have ever been produced are produced under license from Sun, and Sun has used legal threats to ensure that.

There are a bunch of non-conforming implementations where Sun has chosen not to press the issue

Re:

[steve_l (109732)]

AFAIK, the sole patents are -as you point out- on mechanisms for bytecode verification. But there is no guarantee that google dont have a different solution to the problem.

To make life more complex, Sun are actually breaking their own Java Community Process rules by refusing to give apache access to the test kit for Java, so that the Harmony team can test their clean room implementation of the java 6 classes. Passing that TCK automatically grants patent rights, so by denying access to the test kit, sun are

A bigger story - BSD libc + Linux

[btarval (874919)]

Well, I wouldn't quite say that it's a non-story. But IMHO there's a bigger story which has been missed. Namely, that Google decided to take a BSD-derived libc and include it as a part of their Android effort. This is running on top of Linux.

This is a blow aimed squarely at the Free Software Foundation, and RMS's efforts to establish GPLv3. Good luck in trying to square that one away.

Now, why in the world Google would do this is beyond me. IHMO it smacks of too much money, and too many engineers with not enough relevant things to do. But hey, if Google's goal is to try to minimize both versions of the GPL, well, I can think of no better effort.

Re:

[BrainInAJar (584756)]

And this is precisely why, when Sun GPL'ed Java my response wasn't "yay, open source java", it was "Why on earth didn't they go CDDL?"

CDDL allowed people like FreeBSD and Apple to use the cool technology in OpenSolaris like ZFS & DTrace. It's a happy-fun-sharing license. GPL won't let you play nice with the other children.

I was wondering how long it'd take for someone to decide the risks of GPL just weren't worth it, and create their own JVM

Re:

[BrainInAJar (584756)]

Incorrect.

CDDL has a viral clause wit a very limited scope. That is, it is limited to the file, rather than GPL's "product".

There is nothing in the CDDL that prohibits the use of GPL code ( or the use of CDDL code in a GPL project ), other than you cannot change the license. Since the GPL wants you to change the license ( to the GPL ), this is where the fundamental difference is.

So yes, it's the GPL that doesn't let you play with other children... it wants everyone to be GPL or BSD

Re:A bigger story - BSD libc + Linux

[DavidNWelton (142216)]

No, it was aimed squarely at having a smaller libc than glibc, according to the google guy who was hanging out on #android. It is an "embedded device" with space constraints, you know!

Re:

[drinkypoo (153816)]

This is a blow aimed squarely at the Free Software Foundation, and RMS's efforts to establish GPLv3. Good luck in trying to square that one away.

Not really. The GPL doesn't disallow that kind of behavior for a reason - because part of the idea of the GPL is to permit interoperability. If that were against the spirit of the GPL, it would be explicitly disallowed. But that would also mean that the GPL was unnecessarily restrictive of choice, and it would not be as popular as it is today.

The point of the GPL is NOT to force all software to be GPL. It's coercion, maybe, but not force. You have a choice - you can write that software all yourself, or y

Re:

[Bearhouse (1034238)]

"In other words a none story"

Yup, but watch while everybody jumps onto the empty hook anyway...this is /.

Does Sun make any money from Java on phones?

[NickCatal (865805)]

Anyone know how much a cell phone manuf has to pay Sun to include the J2ME VM in their product?

Re:

[keithjr (1091829)]

I'm going to go with 0, since Java is open-source and free. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on this point. How Sun makes money on Java is a very complicated question, but up front, none. Similar questions like how they make money on the open-source Solaris OS are equally difficult to answer. But it all fits into the same business model.

Re:Does Sun make any money from Java on phones?

[ricegf (1059658)]

I don't know for sure, but since it's Slashdot, I'll happily speculate. ;-)

Java is GPLed. A manufacturer is free to tweak Java for his machine and ship it... with the source code. Or, he can pay Sun a nominal fee for a non-GPL license and tweak to his heart's content, and keep his tweaks to himself.

This is precisely the dual-license model used for QT, and it works pretty well. Free software gets to use the technology for free. Proprietary software pays for a proprietary license, but they're charging their customers anyway. Everybody's happy. Well, except for BSD advocates... ;-) ;-)

Re:

[kripkenstein (913150)]

This is precisely the dual-license model used for QT, and it works pretty well. Free software gets to use the technology for free. Proprietary software pays for a proprietary license, but they're charging their customers anyway. Everybody's happy.

Well, I'm not sure Qt is such a good example. In fact many (including me) believe that the reason GTK+ has been popular in recent years (used on all major desktop distros - Ubuntu, Fedora, SUSE; Nokia devices; etc.) is precisely the licensing issue. Imagine if Linux itself (the kernel) used that licensing model - GPL for free, pay up otherwise. Would Linux be as popular today? I doubt it.

The general model of GPL for apps, LGPL for frameworks that apps run on top of, makes sense. You want to extend the k

Re:Does Sun make any money from Java on phones?

[mhall119 (1035984)]

Sun has or is in the process of open-sourcing their implementations of JavaSE [java.net], JavaME [java.net] and JavaEE [java.net], as well as their JVM [java.net] and Java compiler [java.net].

Sun does make money licensing their Java code to third parties, but that isn't a requirement for providing Java support. The Java language specification is freely available, anybody can create their own implementation, but for most companies it is cheaper to reuse Sun's implementation than make their own. Sun even provides financial assistance for small businesses or open-source projects to take the Java compatibility test. Heck, they've even open-sources the test harness for the compatibility test.

Re:

[Eponymous Coward (6097)]

I'm not sure what you have to pay, but it is something.

Here's a better article [betaversion.org] about the same thing. I was wondering if this story was going to get picked up anywhere.

I don't think JavaME [java.net] will be given away any time soon. It's going to be really interesting to see what Sun does here.

-ec

nothing to see here

[doktorjayd (469473)]

FTA:

While Sun declined to comment directly for this story, it pointed to some public statements from company executives. Jonathan Schwartz, president and CEO of Sun, wrote a blog post congratulating Google on the day of Android's launch. Notably, he refers to Android as a "Java/Linux" platform

where is the trouble? the article is pure beat-up.

the reason for dalvik is entirely technical. check out the youtube presentations, it makes it pretty clear that you develop in pretty much pure java, but the runtime needed a little more than the standard jme could provide.

move on..

FUD

[mritunjai (518932)]

Sun and Google are good partners, and I don't see them getting into legal minefield over this issue. Heck, Sun has never been a litigious, two main cases being MIcrosoft (bastardizing Java) and NetApp (counter-suing them... in California vis-a-vis NetApp filing in lower Texas court).

However, there *definitely* would be issues raised by Sun over this issue. You can fork and modify their Java implementation all nilly-willy you want but you CANNOT call it Java unless it passes *all* the certification tests.

So

Re:

[TheLinuxSRC (683475)]

The article does appear to be FUD, however your assertion "So unless Google certifies their implementation, it cannot be called Java, and if Google doesn't - there *would* definitely be issues. Sun doesn't take bastardization of Java lightly!" is not only difficult to parse, but unnecessary. The article states: "By contrast, Google carefully appears to avoid calling Android a Java platform. Google describes the Android software development kit as a set of tools that lets developers create applications using

How about an Android for this Web ?

[kyashan (919683)]

A bit offtopic...

How about Google bringing decent Java performance on the Web ? Possibly with OpenGL ES like for Android.
Java on web browsers has possibly gotten worse with years. Sun loaded it so much with useless crap and didn't even try to get a proper way to vsync an applet (very important if you are trying to make a media application/game that requires the basic concept of frame-rate).

Current multi-media web dev is relegated to Flash, but I'm sure that there are many skilled programmers out there th

Re:

[mhall119 (1035984)]

Java on web browsers has possibly gotten worse with years.

Java 6 update 3 contains improvements to both install and startup of the JVM within web browsers.

Current multi-media web dev is relegated to Flash, but I'm sure that there are many skilled programmers out there that would be glad to have a lean Java VM & API working in web browsers. Sun gave up long time ago, Google could take over and make it ubiquitous.

A new spec for easily embedded media components is in the works, hopefully it will make it into Java 7, and will be a good compliment to Java FX script on the web. There is talk about plugging it into existing media frameworks like GStreamer or VLC, to bring in all of their supported formats. Sun may have deglected multi-media, but it's not quite forgotten yet.

Re:

[samkass (174571)]

A new spec for easily embedded media components is in the works, hopefully it will make it into Java 7, and will be a good compliment to Java FX script on the web.

I'm looking forward to Sun's renewed interest in the desktop (as someone who develops desktop Java applications). However, creating yet another media component stack on Java is a pretty boneheaded move. Clean up JMF or help FMJ succeed, then link it to the scripting engine. That would be 100x more useful than yet another media framework they'll

Re:

[mhall119 (1035984)]

As someone who has worked with JMF, I can tell you that no amount of "cleaning up" would make it feasible for someone developing an applet or application that just needs to play a media file. You also wouldn't want to load the entire JMF just to play a file. I think it's better to make light-weight media widgets, and only employ the JMF if you are going to need more control over editing and playback. After all, there are image widgets, not image manipulation frameworks that you have to extend just to put

Slashdot is being sensational

[bogaboga (793279)]

The article that Slashdot links to is headed: "Google and Sun may butt heads over Android." Key word: "May".

Then Slashdot modifies the headline to say: "Google, Sun Headed for Showdown Over Android."

Question is: Does anyone of these reporters work for either company in order to have this seemingly serious situation? I doubt it.

J2ME

[notknown86 (1190215)]

IMHO, Android fills a void in Java Mobile applications by providing API to build richer applications (lcdui, in particular, is limiting) - more useful for Smart Phones which contain the ability to provide these types of functionalities. If J2ME filled every void, Android as an API wouldn't be needed (though Android as an OS could still fill a void). According to the article, JME requires a licencing fee. Android does not - this precludes building on the existing platform (unless, of course, Sun actually did waive the fee). Regardless, isn't it possible that this is a fragmentation where the positives outweigh the negatives?

Ahhhh, Slashdot

[ZombieRoboNinja (905329)]

Title: "Google, Sun Headed for Showdown"
Summary: There MAY be trouble brewing between Google and Sun...
TFA: Google COULD get in trouble with Sun, according to some analyst (but both parties declined to comment)
Reality: Move along, nothing to see here...

Re:

[Kingrames (858416)]

This could be going places.

Upcoming blogs:
Google, Sun Fight to the death, thousands injured
Sun uses death star to kill google, but google holds up giant mirror. news at 11.
Google, Sun have massive war. everyone invited. Two japanese cities nuked.

Re:

[bladesjester (774793)]

Sun uses death star to kill google

Let's not get AT&T involved in this.

honest to god

[pugugly (152978)]

I read this for a second as "Google, Sun Headed for Showdown Over Asteroid", and thought Google *might* be overreaching - .

Pug

headline is kind of cool

[JeanBaptiste (537955)]

A number which is 10 followed by 100 zeros in a cage match against a hydrogen fusion reactor which accounts for 99.8% of the mass of our solar system. The whole thing happened over a misunderstanding regarding a robot designed to have human features.

Don't forget Sun's largest customer segment

[AtariDatacenter (31657)]

Sun's biggest customer segment is the telco market.

Don't be so sure that Sun is willing to potentially work against them. If I had a wireless company or division, don't think for a second that I wouldn't pull weight with Sun to get them to put some heat on Android.

We dont want no showdown !!!

[unity100 (970058)]

We want cooperation. at&t and the others are already trying to lay waste to telecommunication and internet. We have some alliance to stand against them.
Br. Cooperation instead of competition

Android? Dalvik?

[PhotoGuy (189467)]

I'm not terribly out of the loop when it comes to development technology, but have never heard of Android (in this context) nor Dalvik. Come on, editors, would ensuring a four or five word summary of what the heck these are, really be that hard to enhance the article, and avoid a few wikipedia lookups to simply read the news???

Thanks...

Summary of the story

[Ed Avis (5917)]

There could be trouble between Google and Sun, according to someone. Google's Dalvik has advantages, according to some people, but it also has disadvantages. According to a developer not working for Google or Sun, it is possible that Google didn't pick Dalvik for technical reasons, although we don't know. There could be trouble for Google, say some people, because of 'intellectual property' Google may or may not have used, although we don't know what that 'intellectual property' might be. Stefano Mazzoc

Why?

[Tony (765)]

How does Java lock out any developer? If you're a developer, you can learn Java if you don't already know it. If you're unwilling to learn a new language, then *you* are the one selecting yourself out, not the platform.

I had to learn C#. You can cowboy up and learn Java.

Re:

[m2943 (1140797)]

I know Java just fine, I just can't get my work done in it.

Fortunately, it looks like Android also supports C and C++; Java is only needed for the PIM-like apps, and for that it's sufficient.

Re:

[Breakfast Pants (323698)]

But you actually use Sun's javac to compile the initial phase. If I wrote a compiler that took executables produced by MS's Visual Studio and compiled them into some virtual machines bytecode, and it didn't worth with executables from GCC or any other compiler, I could say "you write your programs using Microsoft Visual Studio, and then run the result through this convertor" in full legality; I couldn't even describe my product if I weren't allowed to. This is in fact exactly what Google has done.