Six-Hour Meeting Friday Fails to End Oracle/Google Lawsuit (businessinsider.com) 88
An anonymous reader writes: Google and Oracle executives met for six hours Friday in an unsuccessful attempt to resolve an ongoing copyright lawsuit. "Because an agreement couldn't be made, the next phase of the case will head to court in May, where a jury will decide if Google had the right to use certain parts of Oracle's programming language, Java, for free or if it owes Oracle damages..." reports Business Insider. "Last month, Google said that its damages expert strongly disagreed that it should owe Oracle upward of $8 billion for using certain parts of Oracle's software in its smartphone operating system, Android."
Friday's court-ordered talk included both Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Oracle CEO Safra Catz, and it marks the second time the two companies have failed to reach an out-of-court settlement, a fact alluded to by the case's judge in newly-released documents. "After an earlier run at settling this case failed, the court observed that some cases just need to be tried," reports the court docket. "This case apparently needs to be tried twice."
Friday's court-ordered talk included both Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Oracle CEO Safra Catz, and it marks the second time the two companies have failed to reach an out-of-court settlement, a fact alluded to by the case's judge in newly-released documents. "After an earlier run at settling this case failed, the court observed that some cases just need to be tried," reports the court docket. "This case apparently needs to be tried twice."
Any way they can both lose? (Score:1, Informative)
Actually, I'm rooting for Oracle.
Oracle just wants my money.
Google wants to sell details of my private life.
Re: (Score:1)
It's kind of like deciding between Mussolini and Hitler.
You want to see them fight each other to death, with no survivor.
No Google will Win. (Score:2)
No. From a legal standpoint Java was released at one point on a free license. So Google has every right to the language. They rewrote the libraries as such (there are notable differences and improvements in Android's). Java was released under an open license at one point. So they totally can use the language as it appeared at that point. Also Java is just gets converted over to Dalvik bytecode and then compiled on ART in modern Android or runs on the Dalvik VM in the earlier versions.
They are *only* using t
Re: (Score:1)
No. From a legal standpoint Java was released at one point on a free license. So Google has every right to the language.
No, it was released under a specific license (GPL) that Google specifically and deliberately did not take on or comply with. Had they done so, they might not be in this mess. The district court will now be considering the "fair use" defence that Google's lawyers have submitted to the court, which has nothing to do with the GPL.
https://www.eff.org/cases/oracle-v-google
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, they included 7000 lines of declarations that look like Oracles because there's no real room for creativity.
Let's say I implement a function to play music and I declare it as boolean Play(void);
Now, you write an entirely different function to play video. You might well declare it as boolean Play(void);
Have you violated my copyright? Did I somehow gain the rights to any function called Play that takes no parameters and returns a boolean value?
Re: (Score:2)
Caveat : I'm of mixed feeling myself.
Anyways, here's where you might have missed the mark a little bit. Sure, "bool Play(void);" isn't much. And, by itself, I'd agree with you.
But when you write an interface to a program - something I'm in the process of doing now - the interface itself reveals part of your software architecture. And as the architecture changes, as you eliminate countless bad early decisions, so does the interface. If someone just gets to grab your interface for free (if you didn't put
Re: (Score:2)
The part you're missing is that architecture is not protectable by copyright. You can copyright a particular detective novel, but you cannot copyright the concept and structure of a detective novel. You can copyright a particular implementation of Java, but not the language itself (which is described in part by those headers).
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, maybe not. Obviously, I'm going to have to say that you and I aren't the arbiter of what copyright law covers or doesn't cover, the courts are. They sided with Oracle in the first round, and clearly there is some reason to think they might side with Oracle this time, or Oracle's attorneys would have settled.
I was addressing whether or not said architecture should even be copyrightable at all. I think it should be, to a point. Sort of how you can't copyright a structural arch but you can copyright
Re: (Score:2)
Then this is a slam dunk for google. It shouldn't even go to trial...oh. It is still going to trial?
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing is a slam dunk when the players have millions to spend on lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
No they did not include 7000 lines of Oracles code.
What they did was write 7000 lines with the same semantic as the Oracle code.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people picked Stalin over Hitler.
Re: (Score:3)
Oracle is also dying to be relevant again, apparently being taken by surprise by the cloud and not quite being sure how to adopt. Somehow I don't see running an Oracle DB on AWS or Azure is the way to go.
Re: (Score:2)
> apparently being taken by surprise by the cloud and not quite being sure how to adopt.
As much as I loathe Oracle, I'd hardly say they were "taken by surprise" by the introduction of cloud infrastructure. In fact, once Amazon was able to get a leg up on Google, Oracle totally saw the light. Cloud technology is an integral component to Oracle's strategy at this point; the question isn't how to adopt it; its more like how to monetize it.
Licensing Shakedown (Score:2)
I'm sure that Larry Ellison has a burning desire to be relevant again, but I suspect another reason might be the way that Microsoft have been turning tricks on all the companies using Android on their phone hardware, sticking them with patent license suits. Oracle figure that if they can stake a claim on some Intellectual Property in Android, they will be able to just hold out their hand too...
Bad Idea - Legal Precedent (Score:4, Insightful)
Respectfully, I think that is a hugely dangerous outlook for any "tekkie" to hold. The essence of Oracle's argument is that they want to hold declarative structures as "copyrightable", which is not too far removed from trying to copyright the first couple of notes of a piece of music [something the law deliberately excludes and for good reason].
If Oracle were to win this case, it would hand ***far too much power*** to any first-to-file player in the copyright space. An Oracle win would run the risk of destroying the software world as we know it. What Oracle are trying to claim in court is that if they publish an API, they get to decide whether or not your use of that API is in breach of their copyright. Even if that "API" extends to nothing more than declaratives.
Sometimes [and particularly in this specific case] the implications and subtlety of the arguments do a very good job of hiding the real-world ramifications of a particular ruling. Make no mistake, an Oracle win could be a DISASTER for the software community, most especially the FOSS community.
Re: (Score:2)
Far more than the software world. Imagine if the ability to copyright a database extended to the schema? There can be only one database that has phone number, last name, first name, address!
Re: (Score:2)
The essence of Oracle's argument is that they want to hold declarative structures as "copyrightable",
No, they already won that argument. APIs have been ruled copyrightable. The End. (A supreme court ruling could change that in the future, though).
If Oracle were to win this case, it would hand ***far too much power*** to any first-to-file player in the copyright space.
You don't file copyrights, man. For example, the comment you just wrote is copyrighted, even though you didn't file anywhere.
Make no mistake, an Oracle win could be a DISASTER for the software community, most especially the FOSS community.
No, if Oracle wins, then the world will say, "Oh, Google should have done a better job making sure their copying was 'fair use.' Fortunately, copying for interoperability purposes has already been ruled fair use in many cases, so only Google
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you absolutely *can* file a copyright claim. That's why there is "copyright.gov", the United States Copyright Office. For example, there have been times when two different US movie studios both release a movie with pretty much exactly the same plot at pretty much exactly the same time... A good example would be "Drop Zone", starring Wesley Snipes and "Terminal Velocity", starring Charlie Sheen - both released in 1994 (purely by coincidence).
It didn't happen in the case of those two films, but it w
Re: (Score:2)
It's time for Google to switch to Rust. (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it's time for Google to seriously consider switching to Rust for Android development. Rust is just the kind of language that's needed for mobile development: it's safe, it's fast, and it's the future. In fact the best thing about Rust is that it's an all-level programming language. You can use it for writing low level OS kernels and device drivers. You can use it for writing mid level servers. You can use it for writing high level apps. You can use it for writing ultra high level distributed software. Rust is the first programming language that provides a bottom-to-top solution. C++ got close but Rust has got it completely covered. The sooner Google switches to Rust the better for everyone, I think.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Naw, Rust is not really on the table for them, they are looking at Swift(cause this is apparently popular according to people OTHER then Apple apparently) and/or Kotlin.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike nearly all of the other comments, which are just mindless Oracle bashing, the parent comment at least tries to come up with a viable technical solution for avoiding these kinds of legal issues.
And switching to NT or Unix was a viable technical solution for MS DOS users, but it didn't instantly and seamlessly replace all their existing applications.
Re: It's time for Google to switch to Rust. (Score:1)
They're switching to Swift so people will release their iOS apps on Android as well.
Switching to Rust doesn't solve anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Google vs Oracle, it has been decided that Google was infringing. Now the trial has continued onward, and they are trying to determine if Google has a fair use defense.
Re: (Score:2)
Spin much (Score:5, Insightful)
"a jury will decide if Google had the right to use certain parts of Oracle's programming language, Java, for free or if it owes Oracle damages"
That's the way Oracle wants to spin it.
Java is GPL'd, and Google didn't use Oracles/Sun Java machine anyway. So YES Google can use Oracles code because it's GPLd and Oracle agreed to that in the GPL. Do you mean "can Oracle back out of the GPL contract?" because no they can't. In any case Google did not use Oracles VM anyway. It used Davlik VM.
The question is, can Google use a piece of software that implements the same API as Oracle's/Sun Java. As if the API can be separated from the software somehow you can GPL the software without GPL'ing the API it implements. Fat fooking chance.
Oracle bought Java when it bought Sun. Sun made a product called 'WABI' a Windows clone that implemented the Windows API on Unix. So Oracle are hoping to fool the jury here. It implemented someone elses API, the API in question is under GPL, i.e. they explicitly gave permission in contract form to copy it.
So what is the question really.... can Oracle fool a jury into making a bad decision letting Oracle break a contract and putting all open software at risk?
Re: (Score:1)
can Oracle fool a jury into making a bad decision letting Oracle break a contract and putting all open software at risk?
Maybe, but even if they did it probably wouldn't stand up on appeal and both Google and Oracle have very deep pockets. This could go on for decades as it winds it's way through the courts. Once again, the only people that win are the lawyers.
Re: Spin much (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
It's risky doing that, for all you now they are calling to say you haven't paid enough for your current license, and that they will let you resolve this issue now cheaply, or later for even more money.
Re: Spin much (Score:1)
Usually after doing something by hand for the third time, I just write a script to automate it.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, Oracle's business model *is* to get customers using their software, then once they're locked in to and reliant upon that infrastructure, squeeze them for every penny they have with the threat to withdraw their license or ramp up the price horrendously. So if he's in the latter group then, yeah, bad idea.
'Course, a really bad
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure Microsoft is enjoying the whole affair.
Re: (Score:1)
Java is GPL'd
Java is released under several licenses. GPL is one of them, but Google very purposefully did not take the GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is that Google took Java and created something from it that isn't quite Java. Oracle believes Java code should be used for "Java".
Re: (Score:1)
The issue is that Google took Java and created something from it that isn't quite Java. Oracle believes Java code should be used for "Java".
No, that's what Microsoft tried to do, and Sun sued them for it, successfully. AFAICT, Google has been very careful not to change Java. Extend it, sure, but that's what everyone does when they write libraries.
Re: (Score:1)
They didn't use the full JVM, because it was considered too big for smartphones. The freely available GPL version only applies to full implementations. This is their problem.
Re: (Score:3)
But they didn't use the mobile version either. That's where Oracle (or Sun) miscalculated. They figured they'd GPL big-iron Java to keep the language in widespread use - and make their money selling a non-GPL'd mobile version. But they didn't count on Google building their own. Perfectly legal, if not in keeping with Oracle's plans.
So now Oracle is trying to make an unprecedented argument that the API definitions for a language's core libraries is somehow separately copyright-able from the language itse
What does a GPL cover? (Score:2)
Now, the question is whether Google's use of the API violates the GPL contract or not?
"The freely available GPL version only applies to full implementations"
Does it? Does GPL prohibit somebody from taking part of a piece of software, and then using it in a GPL-compliant manner?
Next, did Google use the API's (let's say to be concrete the interface definitions), in a GPL-compliant manner?
Re: (Score:3)
Microsoft got sued on the trademark. They called their VM Java, and they were actually pretty crappy at it.
http://www.javaworld.com/artic... [javaworld.com]
They had a point, people were hating Java at that time because Microsoft was saying they had a proper implementation and it was buggy crap, making people think that Java was buggy crap. That's a pretty solid lawsuit. They are using our trademark and making us look bad.
Re: (Score:2)
And worse, MS threw in just enough bits of MS-only API that it was likely to fool people into writing Windows only software while relying on the promist that Java programs run everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually Sun sued MS for calling the bastardized result Java. If MS had marketed it as METOO or ITSATRAP a MS only incompatible language, there would have been no lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
Google looked at Java and implemented their own take on it that is compatible at the source level.
Re:Spin much (Score:4, Insightful)
Java is GPL'd, and Google didn't use Oracles/Sun Java machine anyway. So YES Google can use Oracles code because it's GPLd and Oracle agreed to that in the GPL. Do you mean "can Oracle back out of the GPL contract?" because no they can't.
This is a horrible misunderstanding of the case: it has nothing to do with the GPL because Google didn't follow the terms of the GPL (if they had, this case would have been done with long ago, as the FSF pointed out in their brief to the supreme court).
The question is, can Google use a piece of software that implements the same API as Oracle's/Sun Java. As if the API can be separated from the software somehow you can GPL the software without GPL'ing the API it implements. Fat fooking chance.
That's the question right now. The appeals court decided that yes, Oracle can own the copyright on the API. The question is whether Google has a fair use defense (and it will be an interesting case, worth following closely); but again, it has nothing to do with the GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
You are being rational. That's now how the court room works.
Re: (Score:2)
In any case Google did not use Oracles VM anyway. It used Davlik VM.
No, as of Licorice, it uses the ART VM.
Re: (Score:1)
Holds pinky to mouth (Score:4, Funny)
Mwhah hah hah.
Re: (Score:3)
So long as you wouldn't be bailing me out if I were millions of dollars in debt from my collapsing single-truck-empire, then yes that shouldn't be there. But, the damages could certainly be the value of the truck plus the money you might have made if you had the truck, plus interest, minus the value of the now returned truck.
Oracle wouldn't even exist today... (Score:1)
If IBM had sued them into oblivion for copying their entire database code and relabeling it Oracle.
Now, APIs, which everyone knows, cannot be copyrighted because they are used for inter program communications, calls, functions, etc...
Or to sum it all up in a few seconds, (Score:2)
six hours (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. You can have 90% of the money this idiotic suit will cost us, nothing more.
Fuck you I want 8 billion dollars.
Wow you suck at being a patent troll, fine, we'll go to trial. It'll take a decade and you'll be belly up in five years.
Google using parts of Oracle's Java? (Score:4, Informative)
Google designed a totally independent implementation of the Java API. Java was originally described as being free to use unencumbered by a license by Jonathan Schwartz before Sun sold it to Oracle. The Google version used in android is a totally independent and unique design. Does not use the Java Virtual Machine but one of Dalvik or the Android Runtime (ART).
"Schwartz explained that if the Apache Software Foundation wished to release a product, even if it implemented Java APIs through Apache Harmony, it could do so without a license -- so long as it does not call it Java." ref [zdnet.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Oracle has a toxic, money-grabbing culture (Score:2)
I won't discuss the technical and legal aspects that have already been well-addressed by insightful posts above. /. who have had the dubious pleasure of knowing Larry Ellison.
Unfortunately, whilst they are completely correct, logic and reason have nothing to do with this case.
There are perhaps a few of us ex-IBMers still around here on
The man's a shit; period.
A financially-successful shit, perhaps. He's not the first.
But still a shit.
This case is just another example of the toxic culture he created in Orac
Re: (Score:2)
Whoricle Still At It (Score:2)
They just bought a bunch of someone else's IP, so they can attack?
Perhaps they should do something constructive, instead.
I feel bad. I have friends who work at Oricle, and I yet, I have no respect for the company.