Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Oracle Google Java The Courts

Oracle Criticized For Questioning Google's Supporters In Java API Copyright Case (twitter.com) 47

Posted by EditorDavid from the O-Oracle dept.
America's Supreme Court will soon decide whether Google infringed on a copyright that Oracle says it holds on the APIs of Java. But this week Oracle's executive vice president also wrote a blog post arguing that Google "sought the support of outside groups to bolster its position" by using friend-of-the-court briefs to "create the impression that this case is of great import and controversy, and a ruling in Oracle's favor will impede innovation."

"Upon closer inspection, what these briefs reveal is a significantly different picture, one where Google is the outlier, with very little meaningful support outside the purview of its financial fingerprints." As we discussed in a previous post, this case is not about innovation, it is about theft. Google copied verbatim more than 11,000 lines of software code, and now attempts post hoc to change the rules in order to excuse its conduct... As those of us that have watched Google over the past few decades know, Google's view boils down to the self-absorbed position that the work it is doing is of such consequence that the rules shouldn't apply to them. The problem for Google is that very few outside of its self-generated atmosphere agree.

Let's be clear, it is not commonplace or foundational in the software industry to steal other developer's software code. Rather, what is commonplace is a confluence of interests where code is licensed to facilitate its widespread deployment, with the owner choosing the terms... Java embraced choice, with three different licensing alternatives, including a freely deployed open source license, and a commercial license designed to maintain interoperability. And it turns out that nobody except Google found it necessary to steal despite Java's enormous popularity. It is not in dispute in this matter that Google destroyed Java interoperability so it is unbelievable that many of its amici take the position that Google needs to prevail in order to protect interoperability...

Out of 26 briefs, we found:

- 7 briefs representing 13 entities that received "substantial contributions" from Google;

- 8 briefs filed by entities or individuals that have financial ties to Google through grants, dues, cy pres settlement proceeds or employment of individual amici;

- 2 briefs filed by companies with a clear commercial interest in Google prevailing;

- 1 brief filed by several former U.S. government employees all of whom worked for a small government agency run by a former Google executive, despite the U.S. government itself filing a brief in favor of Oracle;

- 4 separate briefs representing a total of 7 individuals;

- A few other briefs where Google financial ties are likely;

- 1 brief submitted by a serial copyright infringer repeatedly sanctioned by the Courts;

What masqueraded as a mass show of support for Google, may not be much more than an exercise in transactional interests.
The groups Oracle is criticizing include the American Library Association, EFF, and the Python Software Foundation, as well as a brief by 83 computer scientists which included Doug Lea, a former memeber of the executive committee of the Java Community Process. Oracle's blog post also makes the argument that besides Microsoft and IBM, "not a single brief from the other 98 of the Top 100 tech companies was filed."

There was a response on Twitter from Joshua Bloch, who worked on the Java platform at Sun before leaving in 2004 to become Google's chief Java architect for the next 8 years. He called Oracle's blog post "nonsense." For example, Doug Lea -- who is in no small measure responsible for Java's success -- accepted one small grant from Google fourteen years ago, and promptly doled it out to deserving undergrads who were testing java.util.concurrent. Have you no shame, Oracle?

We are not Google shills. We are scientists and engineers. Some of us laid the theoretical groundwork for the profession, some designed the computers you grew up on, and some wrote the software you use every day.

We depend on the right to reimplement each others' APIs, and we are truly afraid that your irresponsible lawsuit may deprive us of that right, which we've enjoyed throughout our long careers.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oracle Criticized For Questioning Google's Supporters In Java API Copyright Case More

Oracle Criticized For Questioning Google's Supporters In Java API Copyright Case

Comments Filter:

  • Oracle/Larry lost in the lower courts and has spen (Score:5, Informative)

    by ozzee ( 612196 ) on Sunday March 15, 2020 @02:46AM (#59831754)
    Larry has benefitted from the very rule he is trying to deprive all of us. In this fight against API freedom, he has destroyed all trust in Java as an open platform. It would be silly for anyone to trust Oracle ever again.

  • Oracle are harming Java (Score:5, Insightful)

    by peppepz ( 1311345 ) on Sunday March 15, 2020 @03:02AM (#59831772)
    If there is a company who is harming the adoption of Java, it's Oracle. People will be thinking twice before choosing Java after this ridiculous lawsuit. Copyrighting APIs is a new low in the history of imaginary property.

  • I find it rather striking that so much importance is put on why people say things and less on what they say.

    • But without that we wouldn't have influencers! :O

    • In science, address the argument, not the arguerer. In politics, the arguments are often cover story memes for useful idiot true believers, and the real reasons are hidden. Or maybe always.

  • It stands to reason that the groups filing the briefs would get support from Google. Google after all used to run on the basis of do no evil, and advertising pushes and screwing up Chrome aside they mostly still run and donate altruistically.

    Oracle on the other hand is run by one rich arsehole how is more concerned about donating to governments so he gets to have his own island. The companies listed have financial ties and receive donations from every non-arsehole company.

    • Ellison "I want my own island"

      Brin and Page: "why stop there, we want to own the entire world".

  • Making their argument for them. (Score:5, Informative)

    by MachineShedFred ( 621896 ) on Sunday March 15, 2020 @05:50AM (#59831968) Journal

    It sure is nice when an opponent makes your argument for you.

    1. Google did seek the opinions of outside organizations to bolster it's argument. Just like every other supreme court case ever.
    2. They received many friend-of-the-court briefings supporting their case, because copyrighting an API is ridiculous.
    3. It's not really shocking that companies and individuals that use open software might want to have a say in your attempt to cause a ridiculous precedent that will forever change the way software interacts, and since Google contributes to many open software projects, there will be a coincidence between these companies and people.
    4. This case is of great importance, and indeed will stifle innovation should Oracle win. The primary evidence of that is that you've spent untold resources suing Google over their implementation of the Java API in order to make a product that has unquestionably innovated (Android), and any company besides Google would have folded under the financial burden of this aggressive and punitive litigation by now. And, that product would not exist without stifling license fees paid to Oracle should the Java API become copyrighted, if you even make it available for license. QED.

    • What Oracle seems to forget or not know that it is not a requirement of amicus curae briefs that the submitter must be impartial. In fact one factor about whether a brief is accepted is that submitter must present a reasonable reason why they are affected by the outcome. Some briefs are purely academic, but many tell the court how they would be affected by a decision.

  • Oracle has their own set of supporters with their own amicus brief, lets see who's on there;

    RIAA, Songwriters guild of America, former US senators.

    hmm, yeah, that is a rather weak list regarding the subject matter, compared to the people backup Google.

    https://adtmag.com/articles/20... [adtmag.com]

  • Oh. You want a brief. I'll get you a brief.

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close