The Case For Oracle 341
An anonymous reader writes "In a lucid writeup, InfoWorld's Neil McAllister takes a different angle on the Oracle-Google lawsuit, giving an explanation why Oracle was right to sue Google. McAllister argues that Google is splintering the Java platform, just like Microsoft was doing back in the 90s, and should be held up to the same standards. He further cites Google's Josh Bloch calling for Oracle to take a lead role in steering Java, concluding that Bloch maybe 'should have been more careful what he wished for.'"
If they can do it to Google, they can do it to you (Score:5, Informative)
Problem is, if they can do it to Google, they can do it to any distributor of a free software JVM.
To be safe, you have to either follow the Java Language Specification exactly (no subsets or supersets), or build your software on the OpenJDK software that Oracle distributes under GPLv2. Here's what info swpat.org has gathered so far about this case and its implications:
Re:If they can do it to Google, they can do it to (Score:5, Interesting)
To be safe, you have to either follow the Java Language Specification exactly (no subsets or supersets),
Not quite. Supersets are allowed, but only if they do not add anything in the java namespace. For example, you can add a new google.Array class, but you can't add methods to the Array class in the java namespace. The point of this is so that people developing Java applications can assume that anything in the java.* classes on their platform will work on any other platform.
The problem with Android is that it does implement a load of the java.* namespace, but it is not a complete implementation. This means that code written using portable Java will not always work on Android. I don't think they add anything in the java.* namespace, so you can port apps from android unless they use the android.* stuff.
This is actually the opposite of what Microsoft did. They added stuff in the java.* namespace, so developers would write apps with J++ that they expected to be portable, but which weren't.
Re:If they can do it to Google, they can do it to (Score:5, Informative)
That isn't the problem at all. Android / Dalvik has never claimed to be an implementation of Java so its irrelevant how much or how little of the standard namespace it has implemented. It could have implemented all 100% and Oracle would still be pissed.
The reason why they're pissed is because Google chose to deliberately make a Java-like environment, one which benefited from the Java programming language but wasn't actually Java and never claimed to be. Therefore it was not subject to Oracle's licensing terms or directional interference. Since Google never claimed it was Java (as did Microsoft when they produced a bastardized version), Oracle cannot sue for licence or trademark infringement.
All they can do as they have done is rummage around for some patents that were violated in the process. The patents look pretty weak, and some of them don't even cover Android OS, just the SDK. I think what is likely to happen is that Google will vigourously defend the suit and issue a counter suit, but they won't settle for anything less than a sop to Oracle. Perhaps that sop will be to fold JavaFX into the SDK or something. I actually like JavaFX and it would be a good fit and would bring Oracle back in the game to some extent. What I absolutely don't see happening ever is Google using Java ME or dumping Dalvik.
IMO Oracle / Sun really have themselves to blame for this. Java devs love Java but they despise the glacial pace of development. Java 7 is years overdue and Java ME is stale technology, inadequate for most of the purposes it was touted for. The average STB, or smart phone has outgrown Java ME. I do not blame Google for not waiting around for Oracle's blessing and doing their own thing.
Re:If they can do it to Google, they can do it to (Score:5, Informative)
That isn't the problem at all. Android / Dalvik has never claimed to be an implementation of Java so its irrelevant how much or how little of the standard namespace it has implemented
Incorrect. Sun / Oracle licenses all of the patents in the lawsuit, for free, for use in complete implementations of the Java platform. The fact that Android / Dalvik is not a complete implementation of the Java platform is precisely the problem because it means that they are not covered by the patent grant. If it were, then the lawsuit would not exist.
Re:If they can do it to Google, they can do it to (Score:4, Insightful)
Since Google never claimed it was Java
Maybe Google never formally said that, but here is how Wikipedia describes Android:
The Android operating system software stack consists of Java applications running on a Java based object oriented application framework on top of Java core libraries running on a Dalvik virtual machine featuring JIT compilation.
Even clearer, Google says
The Android SDK provides the tools and APIs necessary to begin developing applications on the Android platform using the Java programming language.
in developer.android.com.
I suppose you can call it The-Language-Previously-Known-As-Java or such (worked for Prince, til his contract ran out), but it is Java in every way that counts, except it has some differences that make Java the platform as a whole less standard. This irked Sun, and for good reason, but they got over it. Oracle is not over it. Sadly they decided to enforce this using patents, which is an abhorrent thing to do. But that they are irked by Google's actions - very understandable.
Re:If they can do it to Google, they can do it to (Score:4, Insightful)
Talking points:
See any difference?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If Google wasn't willing to partner with Sun on Java (maybe because Google wanted a pure FOSS implementation, w
Re:History Repeating Itself (Score:4, Informative)
I think when Microsoft implemented J++, Java wasn't free software, and MS was in violation of a licensing agreement they had made with Sun to use Sun's code. Whether that makes a difference legally in this case, I can't say. But the situation seems different to me.
Re:History Repeating Itself (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some say this is only because Oracle now has Java, but if the issue is the mobile platform, we also see that Google is playing hardball with the phone. Google is suing companies that use Google tech on Android without Google approval. Google is charging $
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What Google has opted to do damages Oracle's trademark by referring to non-compatible software as Java language.
Fine, then Google can change the name to "Javoid or "Andra" or something like that.
Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation (Score:5, Interesting)
or Dalvik?
Actually you never see Google say "Java" without it being immediately followed by either "Programming Language" or "Language Compiler". Anytime there's mention of "virtual machine" its always immediately preceded by "Dalvik".
I'm not an expert on trademark law, but I'm sure Google has checked with people who are, so it seems that saying "Android has Java" would be a violation, but saying "Android has Dalvik which uses the Java programming language" is not.
But I guess thats for the courts to decide.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure Google has checked with people who are
I'm sure Google Legal has numerous top-flight IP lawyers on staff.
Re: (Score:2)
While what you are saying may be true, we're talking about software patents here, and not about trademarks. Please try to keep up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Java (the language) is free and open. Java (the trademark) is not. Provided google is not doing business advertising "Android - with Java(tm)!", they're doing nothing wrong. Oracle owns ONLY the trademark.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And patents for Java that may or may not be enforcable.
Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation (Score:5, Insightful)
What Google has opted to do damages Oracle's trademark by referring to non-compatible software as Java language.
Oracle disagrees with you. They aren't suing Google because of some trademark issue, they are doing it because of patent infringement. And the patents are more about the dalvik VM than about Java itself - .NET probably infringes those patents too, but Oracle probably won't take Microsoft to court.
And there is nothing wrong with "forking" Java. What's the problem with the Dalvik VM and the Harmony classes? Maybe it can replace Oracle's Java in the embedded market? Well, I think that's better than letting C# kill Java, like Sun has been doing in the last years.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Additionally, if you can do it the other way around, then it's really not Java language programming.
Enter Dalvik, stage left.
.class or .jar files but runs .apk and .dex files which are a format compiled from code written in Java (or C, C++, etc). How big of a difference this makes legally is debatable, but there has been precedent and it's in Google's favor.
The VM in Android (Dalvik) is said to be a 'clean room' reverse engineering of a JVM and is not an actual JVM. In fact it does not run
See Case law under: Clean room design [wikipedia.org]
So are you bound by Java licensing if you used it to cross compile
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's a platform that you can write code for in Java language, then it damn well better compile under the standard Oracle Java, otherwise you're very blatantly infringing upon Oracle's trademark.
Language syntax does not define a trademark. The trademark is on the word "Java", nothing else.
This isn't C where platforms are allowed to be incompatible, the whole purpose of Java was theoretically to allow it to be written once and run on any platform with Java support.
The law doesn't give a damn what pipe dre
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an android developer, and whenever someone asks me about developing for Android devices, the first thing I tell them is that it may look like java and it might be syntax-compatible, but calling the Android Development Language 'Java' is a huge mistake that'll cost you a couple dozen hours in development time.
Re: (Score:2)
Be very clear about this: no applications shipped as .jar (or .class) files for J2ME, J2SE, or J2EE, will run under Android, and nobody thinks they will.
Isn't that the whole problem? If they call it a Java platform, it should run software written in Java.
Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why Google _don't_ call it a java platform. It's dalvik, it runs dalvik bytecode on a dalvik VM. You can write in any high level language you like as long as you have a compiler that results in dalvik bytecode.
As a convenience, Google provide a java->dalvik bytecode compiler, which is nice of them, but they don't ship a JVM nor a java system.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that the whole problem? If they call it a Java platform, it should run software written in Java.
They don't call it a Java platform.
Re:Not remotely similar to the Microsoft situation (Score:5, Insightful)
Firstly, on a strictly legal sense, they're suing over Patents and Copyrights. The copyright route seems rather fishy, and I wouldn't be surprised if this argument gets dropped later. The patent suit is like all others, and has little if anything to do with the spirit of java, etc..
On a philosophical sense, Oracle is correct. Android may never claim to be Java, but anyone who isn't a retard knows that Google is enticing Java developers into their pseudo-compatible platforms. From a personal perspective, it is annoying porting existing java apps into AppEngine / Android. The standard class libs limitations make interoperability between stock java and Google's platforms more difficult. This IS similar to the tack that Microsoft made proprietary core feature additions. Microsoft was never forced to use Java when coming up with their proprietary JVM. They chose java because it had buzz, and they assumed it would be next good language to assimilate and conquer. I don't think Google wants to kill Java, but I think they want to steal the large pool of existing Java developers and coerce them to use their platforms. Does this diversity hurt java (the language) in the end? Yes. Much of the advantage of java is in the rich set of additions built upon existing platforms. If those libraries now have to choose which platform to track against, it means two versions of common libraries, and smaller guys may just not bother to support J2SE,Android,AppEngine,GWT, etc...
Re: (Score:2)
N900 runs J2SE. In fact, it runs even J2EE...
Re:that's incorrect (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually there are a number of similarities. I'm not taking sides here - I don't write Java and don't care about it myself. However, I do care that licenses are upheld as I've personally been bitten by people ripping off my code for their profit.
When Google decided to use Java they had full access to the Java license, and they had full knowledge of the very public lawsuit between Sun and Microsoft. They still chose to do what Microsoft did and ship an incompatible version of Java. I suspect that (like M
I'm a bit out of my depth here, so I'm asking... (Score:2)
To what degre
Re:I'm a bit out of my depth here, so I'm asking.. (Score:2)
Those editions are supposed to be standardized by the Java Sham Community Process, but when it comes to Android Google didn't participate in the JCP.
What the hell is he talking about? (Score:5, Insightful)
McAllister argues that Google is splintering the Java platform, just like Microsoft was doing back in the 90s, and should be held up to the same standards.
What the hell does that mean? Microsoft got sued because it failed to live up to a contract (huge surprise there.) There are no contractual issues here, so far as I'm aware (if I'm wrong someone please correct me.)
Java isn't some religious manuscript that needs to be kept "pure" so the true believers won't rise up and slay those who would adulterate it. It's a goddamn PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE. If Oracle is suing Google, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Java being held to some standard (I could believe that of Sun, who held a certain vision for their progeny and a justifiable pride in their work) but is part of a some strategic plan. Matter of fact, that was Sun's strategy: keep Java consistent across all platforms so that "write once, run anywhere" would work. Do you really think that is a part of Oracle's planning? Is it even of the slightest concern?
Larry Ellison is a lot of things (I've heard appellations such as "real son of a bitch", "bastard", and "prick" applied to him on a regular basis) but he's not exactly a visionary. This is about money and access to specific markets, and trying to spin it as being about the welfare of the Java programming language is ridiculous. If I were a real conspiracy theorist I would have to wonder if one of Google's real competitors in the advertising space were behind this, but I'm not. I leave that to other posters.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Java isn't some religious manuscript that needs to be kept "pure" so the true believers won't rise up and slay those who would adulterate it.
It may as well be, because a computer is about as fanatical a purist as you can get. I mean, I drop one fucking semicolon and, by the pages of errors and warnings, gcc wants me hung drawn and quartered for apostasy.
I already said this (Score:2)
Now go read what I wrote and then the replies that refute my position.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1760290&cid=33311026 [slashdot.org]
The problem with the logical and technical reasons and why they don't apply to what I am guessing Oracle is thinking is that this stuff ends up in a court to be judged by people who have no idea what all of this means.
The danger of Google (Score:2, Insightful)
While I like to feel that Google is somehow better than Microsoft in all ways, I know this is clearly not true. The problem I do have with Google and their Java VM is that they aren't really contributing back to the core Java platform, and their choice of a different VM byte code makes me think of some of the things that hurt Smalltalk. In the case of Smalltalk none of the differing VM implementations were compatible, so it meant the you lost of the ability of 'compile once, run everywhere'. In many way wha
Re:The danger of Google (Score:5, Insightful)
"While I like to feel that Google is somehow better than Microsoft in all ways, I know this is clearly not true. The problem I do have with Google and their Java VM is that they aren't really contributing back to the core Java platform"
And how can they do it? JCP is dysfunctional, just look how long it takes to release JDK7. And there are other even more blatant examples:
What else? Google has written a lot of splendid Java libraries (like http://code.google.com/p/google-collections/ [google.com] ). Sun/Oracle are free to take and integrate them into the JDK - they did this with Xerces and other libraries.
But they won't do this. Why? Because Java is dead. For example, a request to add Multimaps was filed in 1998 and is still open: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4155149 [sun.com] Sun can't be bothered to take one of available Multimap implementations and add it to the core JDK.
"In many way what Oracle should be pushing for is:
- getting Google to use the standard Java byte code"
What for? To make devices run slower?
" - working with Oracle to contribute their work back to the core"
Contribute back what? Android implements core libraries very faithfully.
Re:The danger of Google (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that's the big reason that Java is so much used in the enterprise, because the core is rock solid and there are a whole ecosystem of free and open source enterprise ready libraries. I had used C# as well and I just cannot understand why you need so much bloat in the core of the language, which changes anyway with the major versions of it. Properties are just bloat, operator overloading is just bloat, structs are bloat and so on. If you need such things just take Scala, Groovy, JPython, etc. That's why I really like Java. The core language is rock stable and very easy to use with tools like Eclipse and Maven. But if you need the extras, just take Groovy, JPython, JRuby, Scala, Clojure, JavaScript, etc.
Now I really wish that Oracle would make this things better: Desktop Java, and "Internet Java". Because to write a desktop application in Java is like a developers dream and it runs with the same speed as a native application. As a bonus you get platform independence. I take a Java application anytime over a native application, for one reason: you just download the JAR file and it runs. In the "Internet Java" there is so much potential and it's criminal from Sun to not became the market leader for internet applications written in Java. That was a catastrophic management failure. Java Web Start applications are a dream. You just click on a link and in few seconds you get a fully functional application. Now of course everything is Flash, but if Sun would have had a better management they could have been the market leader.
What I really hope is that the open source community around Java finally takes the lead and cut any ties off to Oracle. What the open source community can do you can see with Groovy, Scala and Clojure and the other languages around Java. But they need to have a leader, like Linus with the Linux kernel, to not fragmentize the Java platform. I really with that this lawsuit is a wake up call to the community. The Java platform is under the GPL, now take it and make it the number one in desktops and in the internet. The potential is there. There is an open source enterprise ready virtuel machine with a rich core library and a more richer open source ecosystem around it. The patents are only valid in the USA so screw Oracle and any other American patent troll company.
Please, someone in Europe, India or in China (anywhere where there are no patents threads), take the Java technology and make it the next Linux kernel. The potential is there. It's open source and it works.
Re:The danger of Google (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, I have countless examples too. I do also know that there is a very large Java eco-system still very much alive. The reason why Java 7 is taking so long is because it is not only fully GPL'ed (replacing some libs) but also because of the long discussions on what should be in there.
I do fully agree that the JSR method of doing things can be overly frustrating. But all in all, it still does not mean in any way that Java is dead. Just take a look at the Eclipse & Glassfish communities, for instance. There is a lot of stuff happening there.
Generics are IMHO far from perfect, but they did have to be bolted on an existing language - and they are still very very usable. Personally, I do think it is time for a new language too, but I haven't seen one that has been written to replace Java as such. A strong focus on maintainability & security is what makes Java so suitable for EE and even things like Android (class loaders and such). That's something I am missing in many (all?) new languages. Most new languages still focus on sparseness and so called "strong language features" which just make them easier to write and harder to understand.
Dalvik is not a Java VM (Score:5, Interesting)
I stopped reading right where it said Dalvik is Java based. It doesn't even run Java byte codes...
Is it a requirement for a tech reporter to be completely clueless? Is not doing basic research part of the job requirement?
Following this logic Google Web Toolkit is "Java-based" too. Nevermind that the whole thing compiles to HTML and JavaScript.
Just because Google provides language bindings in Java (and is able to cross-compile the Java class libraries to another runtime), does not make Dalvik runtime "Java-based". It does mean Google is able to leverage existing developer base on their new platform though. Smart move.
What's next, Oracle going to sue GCJ for compiling Java to native?
Re:Dalvik is not a Java VM (Score:5, Funny)
Is it a requirement for a tech reporter to be completely clueless?
No; but it helps.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it a requirement for a tech reporter to be completely clueless? Is not doing basic research part of the job requirement?
Following this logic Google Web Toolkit is "Java-based" too. Nevermind that the whole thing compiles to HTML and JavaScript.
This is unfair to reporters. They're not completely clueless. All reporters have to be computer literate enough to copy and paste the text from the press release.
Re:Dalvik is not a Java VM (Score:5, Informative)
Specifically the patent infringement claim references 7 patents including US Patent No. 5966702 [uspto.gov] "Method And Apparatus For Preprocessing And Packaging Class Files", and US Patent No. 6910205 [uspto.gov] "Interpreting Functions Utilizing A Hybrid Of Virtual And Native Machine Instructions".[15] It also references US Patent No. RE38104 [uspto.gov] "Method And Apparatus For Resolving Data References In Generated Code" authored by James Gosling [...]
As I understand it (disclaimer: I'm a philosopher in Belgium), not using Java on Android would not solve the problem, since Oracle is attacking the Dalvik VM. So, even if it were running JavaScript, Python, Go or C#, Dalvik would according to Oracle violate the Java VM Patents.
Solutions would thus be:
- Prove those patents are not applicable to Dalvik
- Find prior art to invalidate the patents (any lawyer-hacker who is familiar with, say, the inner workings of UCSD Pascal?)
- Reform the US patent system, the most drastic reform would be the abolishment of all "intellectual property"
- Move out of the US
- Pay Oracle or make another deal with them like swapping some patents and/or technologies
Re:Dalvik is not a Java VM (Score:4, Interesting)
Might get even more unpleasant if Oracle will be able to demonstrate (hey, don't dismiss anything in regards to legal system) that the purpose of Dalvik was to appear different enough while doing essentially identical thing, too. You know, law & its intent, letter, etc....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The above "solutions" I suggest are solutions which keep Dalvik - I don't know why Google has chosen Dalvik over Java VM, I assume/hope it was on technical grounds. Dropping Dalvik, perhaps in favour of Java VM, might also be an option.
Re: (Score:2)
I stopped reading right where it said Dalvik is Java based. It doesn't even run Java byte codes...
No, it runs "different" bytecodes that just happen to have exactly the same semantics as Java bytecodes. Dalvik can correctly execute Java programs, therefore it is a Java VM; everything else is syntactic hair-splitting.
What's next, Oracle going to sue GCJ for compiling Java to native?
Don't give them any ideas. Oracle's new policy appears to be "use OpenJDK or pay up"; since GCJ falls in neither category, it could be in trouble.
Read the second page of the article, fool (Score:3, Informative)
You would have done better to keep reading. The WHOLE POINT of the case is that the open source lice grants access to the patents on the Java IF and ONLY IF you fully implement java and USE THE JVM. since Dalvik does not use the Java byte code it clearly violates the open source lic terms and thus is open to a patent suit.
Ok so they might have a case against google (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, from what I've heard, this is pretty standard in patent infringement cases. They may not be shooting for it, but they'll use it as a bargaining position.
Face the truth (Score:3, Insightful)
Face the truth why didn't Google use a full implementation of java as they are required by the patent grants. Because they wanted people to write for there platform and not simply port software. Just like Apple not wanting Flash for the same reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Except Google really doesn't care what SDK you wrote the app in... be it Flash or that drag and drop tool they have.
wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Face the truth why didn't Google use a full implementation of java as they are required by the patent grants. Because they wanted people to write for there platform and not simply port software.
Google didn't use a "full implementation of Java" because J2SE is extremely bloated and unsuitable for mobile phone use. And they couldn't use Sun's implementation because that wasn't even open sourced when they started. J2ME doesn't have a patent grant, so making a cleanroom implementation of that wouldn't have helped them either.
Of course, Google didn't use "an implementation of Java" at all, they implemented something completely different that happens to use Java syntax. Oracle's lawsuit is not based on the parts that Android happens to share with Java, because those are not covered by any patents.
Huge difference between then and now (Score:2)
When Microsoft was sued, Java was not yet open source. Microsoft had to buy the right to distribute Java. They were sued for breach of contract. Now that Java is open source, a whole new set of issues come into play. There are significant aspects of open source licensing that have yet to be decided in the courts. Those precedents may finally be set.
bullshit (Score:2)
McAllister argues that Google is splintering the Java platform, just like Microsoft was doing back in the 90s
So what? Companies don't have a right not to have their platforms "splintered".
Besides, Google isn't "splintering the Java platform", they created a new platform that happens to use the Java language.
Furthermore, Sun/Oracle's mobile efforts are largely dead, so Google isn't "splintering" anything, it is replacing them with something actually viable.
new language (Score:2)
Maybe this would be a good time for Google to cut ties with the Java language altogether, by coming up with a new, better language that compiles to Dalvik. The Java language has too many problems anyway.
I'm waiting for a iOs-Android compatibility layer (Score:2)
What Oracle are objecting to, regardless of the legal mechanisms they're using, is the *their* developers are being diverted onto a platform they don't control. Google don't use any Java source code, trademarks and so on, but once they have a community of programmers using the Java language (without the current Java leadership in control of the platform) Oracle may find "their" developers wanting future "Androidisms" porting back to the JDK. Imagine a Java with unsigned integers, a quicker/dirtier native
Re:I think Google should solve this the easy way (Score:5, Insightful)
MOD PARENT UP PLEASE (Score:5, Insightful)
However, Google does not have to help Oracle either. And if I were Google, I would start exploring, along with the other phone companies, another VM. And let it slip that they are now exploring a different route for ALL OF THE SMART PHONES AND PHONES. At that point, Oracle will become VERY concerned about the idea of losing that market. Sun had the same issue. Wanted to make LOTS of money, and they were not content to simply control it as well as be the top money maker. They wanted the largest profits possible in the shortest time. That approach is what Oracle is doing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And if I were Google, I would start exploring, along with the other phone companies, another VM.
After blocking Oracle in it's search, I would say this is the second worst thing Google could possibly do. The Android platform had a late start against iOS, and while it's done a great job gaining market share, it's just now starting to catch up in terms of getting developers to develop for the platform. If they had to start over from scratch, they'd never catch Apple. Not to mention how angry they'd make all the end users who find their brand new, very expensive phone running a suddenly abandoned platf
Re: (Score:2)
I really want to expand upon this, because it really is a very good point.
Take the assumption that even if G was able to come out with a way port the new OS to the old phone users (which as we can already see is a slow process, and questions may exist of any hardware dependencies) users would still have to rely on application developers to recode any apps they have already bought. Next assuming the apps are developed, I suspect it will be a bit of a shock to see how much apps cost when re-buying a whole lo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
First, Android runs dalvik, not java. The dalvik runtime will eventually support transcoded javascript, php, python, etc.,
Second, Oracle is pissed off because google doesn't have to buy a java license - and neither does any other cell phone manufacturer who runs the dalvik vm.
Third, java is a piece of bloated shit. Just switching to dalvik enabled them to save both memory and cpu cycles.
Java is dying. This is just another nail in an already-bloated smelly corpse. Get over it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Java is dying just like C. It has been replaced by the technologically superior C++. Just like Perl, which has been replaced by the syntaxically superior python. Like Assembler which has been replaced by the easy to use .net framework.
The above should be read in a sarcastic drone. And I'm not sure whether "syntaxically" is a real word, but it should be.
Re: (Score:2)
And according to TFA, parallels are drawn between the Sun->MS Java suit and the Oracle/Sun->Google suit.
My take: Sun and Oracle didn't enforce Java patents, let other numerous other forks occur, licenses all of it under protected terms that don't necessarily require full Java implementations, and otherwise permit competing products to blossom wherever they happen.
Oh, and Steve complained to Larry about Eric, and Larry said, 'no worries, I'll take care of it'.
Re:MOD PARENT UP PLEASE (Score:4, Insightful)
If I were Google I'd start exploring a drop in replacement for everything Oracle made, and making it open source.
Google actually made something out of Java. Nobody else put it in the hands of so many consumers; they may as well change the spec for Java to what Google produces.
What goog did splinters Java in the same way Apache splintered the NCSA web server or Linux splintered Unix sys III; this is just leechy Larry's money grab in a world where small databases are diminishing the need for big database iron and the reason they bought Sun - just so they could do this.
This is just SCO all over again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, google bought a virtual machine that didn't need java, and created a transcoder so that java classes could be translated to dalvik classes. No need for java on the phone, which is what pisses off Oracle - Java ME for the cell phone is not free, and they're losing all the cell-phone market that used to license it to Android.
The next step is to make a transcoder for php, python, and javascript - then devs can say goodbye forever to Java, and good riddance.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> another VM
It *IS* another VM. They just used Java the *language*, it's associated tools (Eclipse) in order to capitalize on the the developer marketshare. The resulting compiled code is targeted to this other VM (the dalvic VM). To steer clear of Java, they would have to stop using Java - the language.
(I would be all for it. I *Hate* Java. The tools make it bearable.)
However, using another language will present all kinds of issues - which language do they use?
Python might be a close candidate as they a
Re:MOD PARENT UP PLEASE (Score:5, Interesting)
However, using another language will present all kinds of issues - which language do they use?
Why not JavaScript? It's extremely well-known, Google already has an excellent implementation (V8), and it is free of licensing worries.
WebOS went that route, I'm surprised Google didn't, especially given that Google's livelihood is the Web.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because it is way slower.
Because it would use more memory.
Because it does not have a set of libraries required for this kind of device.
Because it does not suit itself well to the security architecture implemented in the device.
Because V8 was not present when they implemented Android.
Need more?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Block all searches for Oracle and Java on its search engine, until this issue is resolved
problem solved
Not really. Google is hardly the only search engine giant out there, and the ensuing public-relations disaster would be far worse than if Google ends up dropping Android entirely. Android is just an experiment for Google, a way to give more eyeballs access to its services (and hence advertising, which is where Google earns its revenue.) Granted, Google needs Android (or something like it) in order to continue its growth because the mobile market is enormous and growing exponentially, and it has heavy-duty c
That would be an antitrust violation (Score:2)
As the dominant search engine, Google has an obligation to treat everyone on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) basis. Anything else would be an antitrust violation. That's why it won't happen. (If it theoretically did, it would just lead to the next lawsuit, plus potentially hefty fines levied by regulators around the globe, particularly the US Dept. of Justice and the European Commission.)
I assume we all want the rule of law, not the law of the strong.
Complaints against Google for unfair an
Re:That would be an antitrust violation (Score:4, Informative)
FlorianMueller wrote:
> I oppose software patents and particularly the use of patents against free and open source software.
> In Google's case, we are however talking about a company that is very much pro-patent as far its own
> patents (especially the search engine patents) are concerned and just despises everyone else's when used
> against it. Now Google effectively calls on the community, but Google doesn't support the community in
> the fight against software patents.
I know I'm a Google employee and therefore should be suspect in this (i.e. check my claims about Google, don't take them on trust), but the statement above is untrue. Google submitted an anti-software patent brief in the Bilski case. See here:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos_amicus_briefs [swpat.org]
for details.
Jeremy.
Google's Bilski brief is not anti-software-patent (Score:3, Informative)
I can assure you that I want to find out the truth about this, and I believe it's very honorable of you to have made a disclosure.
I have read Google's Bilski brief, and it only argues against business method patents and "abstract patents" on software, not against software patents in general. It also argues against patent inflation in this area, but that still isn't the same as opposing software patents.
I saw more than one passage recognizing the idea that future innovation should always be patentable.
The pr
Detailed analysis of Googkle's Bilski brief (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so you are pretty much the reason why things are the way they are -- everyone thinking in terms of fighting, fighting back, vengeance and the like -- failing to take into consideration the long term effects of one's actions or how it might compromise them, their product and their future to do so. In short, the people who think before they do things are "smarter" and the people who just do things without thinking them through end up in prison.
I know this is a harsh way of putting things, but if you pa
Re: (Score:2)
I can't help wondering if you really believe what you wrote, or if you're just mindlessly stroking your epeen in public.
" by KarmaMB84 (743001) writes: Alter Relationship on Sunday August 22, @11:18 (#33332266)
I don't know why anyone ever suggests this. It would be suicide for Google. The moment they revealed they would even consider blocking search terms in retaliation for anything they're no longer trustworthy as a search engine."
Like millions of other people, I trust Google to give me decent, reliable,
Flamebait? (Score:3, Insightful)
The mods seem to be on crack today^H^H^H^H^H. The parent's suggestion might be misguided and would be harmful to Google's credibility (as several people have pointed out) but there is no reason to believe he's trying to provoke a fight or troll.
Flamebait != "I disagree"
Re: (Score:2)
This sort of thing is completely legitimate, there's no point to a cross platform language of this nature if there's no assuran
Re:By this logic SCO was right (Score:5, Interesting)
They don't offer the embedded version of java for free. And there are a lot of requirements to to get the patent exemptions, ie. cannot implement a subset or a superset of the features in Sun's VM.
Google basically just wanted to implement a language that a lot of developers were familiar with. Pretty much all the developers of phone apps were familiar with Java, so they implemented a VM similar to Java.
Java has some similarities to the C++ syntax. They made the Java syntax similar to the C++ syntax because developers were familiar with it. Same goes for C#. If someone owned some patents on C++, should they be allowed to sue Oracle and MS?
This does not bode well for makers of software development tools. By saying Oracle is allowed to sue anyone for making anything similar to Java means that no one can make a language with similar syntax to Java, and they can't implement libraries similar to Java's. So everyone has to check with a lawyer before they make software tools now. And that may not be enough since I'm sure Google did check with there lawyers while developing Dalvik, and made their best effort to build it so as not to infringe on patents. And they're still getting sued. What hope does anyone else have?
I know I'm going to steer clear of Java from now on. .Net and Mono seem much safer than Java at this point. At least MS hasn't sued anyone for implementing libraries too similar to what they've implemented.
Re:Android is *not* a Java platform (Score:4, Interesting)
This is why this is a patent suit and not a license violation suit.
The situation is more like Oracle trying to sue Microsoft over dot.net.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Whether or not SCO had a case for copyright infringement or not was never tested in court because it turned out that they did not in fact own the copyrights in question. It may well be that IBM had been putting Unix code into Linux, but we'll never know because SCO had no grounds to sue over it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Heyt OraKILL - dalvik is not java (Score:4, Interesting)
What a bunch of morons.
Dalvik (what android runs) is not Java
From Ellison's personal journal:
[X] Screw over Google ...
[X] Screw over the Java brand (oops, didn't see that one. Oh well, it was Sun shit anyway).
[X] Screw over the MySQL brand (it's just a flesh wound, and hey, they can always use Oracle)
[X] Screw over sparc brand (hardware's a PITA anyway, the real loot is in software)
[X] Screw over openSolaris (that one felt GOOD!!! Eat your heart out, Balmer. Bet ye killing the KIN wasn't half the fun)
[_] Screw over OpenOffice.
[_] Find something else to buy and break. Hmmm, Novell's for sale
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Pick one ... heck, pick all of them ...
[1] Java is a bloated piece of crap.
[2] The runtime takes a lot more memory than dalvik
[3] Java performance sux
[4] Java is so 1995
Seriously, it's about time someone killed it off - who better than Oracle. Thank you Mr. Ellison!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A fork is the best thing that could happen to the platform.
I doubt this is Oracle's motive (Score:3, Interesting)
Oracle appears to want to just destroy Android. If their motive was to not fork/split Java, they would try to work with Google to resolve the situation, not try to force all use of Android to cease and completely annihilate the platform.
What Oracle is doing seems to be the doings of a madman, not someone who wants to make a genuine positive difference. There is nothing good that can come out of destroying Android.
I wonder if Apple is secretly behind this?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Where have you been the last week? Of course Apple has a hand in it - Ellison and Jobs are buddy-buddy.
However, that's not the point. Destroying Java is a good thing. Google would certainly benefit, since Android isn't Java, so Ellison may have inadvertently stepped into the biggest pile of dogsh*t in tech history.
Look through the threads - until last week, anyone trash-talking java was mod-bombed. Now? Even long-time java users are admitting that java is bloa
It's not just theirs, it's also ours (Score:5, Interesting)
I have to disagree.
The people who learn and write Java are humans. Writing Java is part of their life and they have a right to continue doing it.
Much like culture. I think copyright should be limited to 10 years because it's not only *their* music, it's also *my* music. It's my childhood, and it's my culture. I want to re-live it whenever I choose, and I want to pass it on to friends and family if and when I choose.
Java would have no value if people didn't use it. When people use it, they're investing themselves in it. Java's value thus comes from the users, not only from Sun/Oracle, so the users should have rights to use that thing they contributed to.
Re: (Score:2)
Being a good programmer means having the ability to code in more then just one language and having the understanding the it's not the language which is important. Sorry you started out with a poor language however it's not difficult to learn new ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Go is a little different, it is aimed at systems level programming and implements some modern language features. Java is a general purpose language with implementations for a lot of target platforms: originally web applets (Java 1.0/1.1) but then desktops (J2SE) then devices (J2ME) and now finally server side (J2EE).
Re:I think Oracle is right (Score:4, Informative)
It's not targeted at systems level programming it's the beginnings of a completely new type of language. The fact that it's used mostly for console based stuff is simply because there aren't enough libraries re-written in the language.
http://golang.org/doc/go_faq.html#What_is_the_purpose_of_the_project [golang.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Reposting as necessary:
Java (the language) is free and open. Java (the trademark) is not. Provided google is not doing business advertising "Android - with Java(tm)!", they're doing nothing wrong. Oracle owns ONLY the trademark.
Re:I think Oracle is right (Score:5, Insightful)
not quite. Java - mobile edition - is not free and open at all. They opened up the 'legacy' Java and kept the 'future' java for all the juicy licencing cash they expected to get. Quite a sensible move as it turns out, as there's lots of money to be made in mobile computing, far more than you get flogging licences to Enterprise app developers.
Still, its their language, VM, patents and copyright. You (and Google) never had to use it, but if you do, you have to play by their rules. So although I'm a fan of Google and what they've done, I think their manipulation of Oracle's rules on the use of Java isn't as decent and honest as I'd expect.
And yes, I'm sure it'll end up with Google dumping Java and making their own language (G# perhaps, or something truly open like Python and C)
Re:I think Oracle is right (Score:5, Insightful)
Trademark: irrelevant as long as Google doesn't call it Java
Copyright: irrelevant as long as Google doesn't use Java code (or infringe other material published under copyright)
Patents: well, that's what Oracle's suing about; the veracity of their claims is yet to be demonstrated
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And again, it appears that Oracle isn't claiming copyright over those - they're claiming patent infringement. I don't know what the legal issues over using the java.* namespace are, but apparently, even Oracle doesn't claim that they're infringement.
Note: If it were even remotely likely to be i
Re: (Score:2)
Java is their TRADEMARK. So why do you lie? Actually I don't think you are lying, you are just ignorant on what is happening and on what Java is (which is at this point a Free Source application). There are free implementations of Java platform and there are thousands if not tens of thousands of Free applications created in Java.
Oracle vs Google is a patent war and it is also a copyright war, you are not involved until you create your own platform that is supposedly for Java but does not work with actual
Re:I think Oracle is right (Score:4, Insightful)
Java is their language. Don't like it? Don't use Java.
Companies don't own languages unless they can claim a patent or copyright on the language. Oracle has neither. Their patents are on something completely different.
If they did, neither Sun, nor Oracle, nor Microsoft would exist. In fact, much of what any of those companies got started with was ripped off from others.
Re: (Score:2)
Can a language be owned? Of course an implementation of it can, as can a broader platform, but isn't google just using the language syntax? They aren't calling it Java, nor are they using any of Sun's tools, nor do they claim you can run Java byte code.
All that is left is true innovation in the Java platform that could be patented that Davlic infringes on as a platform...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Dalvik is arguably replacing mobile Java but in the same way as Apple creating their own VM and not including Java's VM. Google has always been pretty clear that you're not writing Java. You're using Java s
"Owning" a language is preposterous (Score:5, Interesting)
The purpose of a language is communication, and what Oracle is doing here is no different than censorship. The Java language by itself is completely worthless--its value is entirely derived from the people who express their ideas through it. Why should Oracle have free rein to control their work?
Targeting Dalvik (which is not a JVM) on an Anrdoid phone is no different than compiling Java with GCJ [wikipedia.org]. If people want to run their code on a different platform, why should Oracle have any right to stop them?
The reality is that they don't. In the end, this is about the abuse of software patents, and you can't support Oracle here without supporting software patents. However you feel about Google, it isn't right to be cheering for a patent troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Shocking revelation: There are some people who use computers for actual work! Hard to believe, I know, but I hear they're out there. They do things like view documents, run simulations, and perform calculations. Even more amazingly, they'll do so in whatever language suits them best for whatever job they're doing. Weird, isn't it?
After all, it just makes sense that smart phones should be able to run the latest shooter game in full 1080p at 60 frames per second, right? I mean, demoscene folks have been doing