Oracle sues Google over Java Tech patent and copyright
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
Cause Oracle won't be satisfied until they've skullfucked the corpse of Sun to powder.
Seriously, if destroying all of Sun's goodwill in the shortest possible time were to be their official mission statement, they still couldn't be doing a more efficient job of it than they already are.
The bad news started only days after the takeover, when they started making it impossible to download drivers for any Sun hardware other than by buying a support contract, turning the free Solaris into a 60 day trial and nuking OpenSolaris, and now this. Next asset to be exploited to death will probably be MySQL.
Seriously, if destroying all of Sun's goodwill in the shortest possible time were to be their official mission statement, they still couldn't be doing a more efficient job of it than they already are.
The bad news started only days after the takeover, when they started making it impossible to download drivers for any Sun hardware other than by buying a support contract, turning the free Solaris into a 60 day trial and nuking OpenSolaris, and now this. Next asset to be exploited to death will probably be MySQL.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
It's pretty much the same situation that Microsoft was in a few years back when Sun took them to court over the MS Java variant.
The case appears to be over Google making changes to the standard Java language such that Google's version of Java won't run on other systems. Again simular to the Microsoft case that result in Microsoft terminating their Java efforts due to court mandate. This despite MS at the time having a faster and more stable Java variant.
Except in Microsoft's case, they were evil and in Google's case they aren't.
In other words, this has nothing to do with the takeover, but more in being consistent with past efforts to defend their patents with regards to Java.
Regards,
SB
The case appears to be over Google making changes to the standard Java language such that Google's version of Java won't run on other systems. Again simular to the Microsoft case that result in Microsoft terminating their Java efforts due to court mandate. This despite MS at the time having a faster and more stable Java variant.
Except in Microsoft's case, they were evil and in Google's case they aren't.
In other words, this has nothing to do with the takeover, but more in being consistent with past efforts to defend their patents with regards to Java.
Regards,
SB
Though Google is only using the Java language specifications, not the rest of the Java system. That is how they substantially differ from the Microsoft situation. Google converts the intermediate class files into their own format (.dex) by using a 'dx' tool.
For accurate insight into the situation, I suggest you read and follow Groklaw's coverage of the situation. It's likely to be the most insightful coverage you'll be able to find anywhere. Here's the start of Groklaw's coverage: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100813112425821
For accurate insight into the situation, I suggest you read and follow Groklaw's coverage of the situation. It's likely to be the most insightful coverage you'll be able to find anywhere. Here's the start of Groklaw's coverage: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100813112425821
SB, is not the same situation. Microsoft extended Java in a way that certain programs would only run on Microsoft's JVM and continued calling it Java, which is why Sun sued them.
Google, Android Inc really which is the company that created the product, never called their implementation Java. I think the Dalvik VM is an abomination and should have never been created but I despise Oracle even more, tough choice.
Google, Android Inc really which is the company that created the product, never called their implementation Java. I think the Dalvik VM is an abomination and should have never been created but I despise Oracle even more, tough choice.
SB, is not the same situation. Microsoft extended Java in a way that certain programs would only run on Microsoft's JVM and continued calling it Java, which is why Sun sued them.
Google, Android Inc really which is the company that created the product, never called their implementation Java. I think the Dalvik VM is an abomination and should have never been created but I despise Oracle even more, tough choice.
I dunno much about VMs, but I think a register base VM is better than a stack based VM anyday.
That was not really the issue. The problem with Dalvik is that, until very recently, it didn't support JIT, so performance was a joke. That and the NIH syndrome it's creators seem to suffer, which also applies to certain kernel hacks Android uses.
When there's money being made, people will show up with their hands out.
Look at all the patent holders of the most commonly used codecs.
Look at how every successful tech company is sued by people claiming patent infringement on vague software methods.
Google is sharing mobile ad revenues with carriers like Verizon to get them to distribute and subsidize Android phones. Can you really blame Oracle for wanting their cut? When Google crafted this business model -- giving away Android for free to spur mass adoption by phone manufacturers and make money from mobile search ad revenues -- maybe they should have vet that the code they were distributing would be completely free of legal claimants.
There is speculation that Oracle will also demand royalties from the manufacturers themselves. If successful, they can squeeze their margins or force them to raise prices. Maybe the manufacturers sue Google for indemnity.
Look at all the patent holders of the most commonly used codecs.
Look at how every successful tech company is sued by people claiming patent infringement on vague software methods.
Google is sharing mobile ad revenues with carriers like Verizon to get them to distribute and subsidize Android phones. Can you really blame Oracle for wanting their cut? When Google crafted this business model -- giving away Android for free to spur mass adoption by phone manufacturers and make money from mobile search ad revenues -- maybe they should have vet that the code they were distributing would be completely free of legal claimants.
There is speculation that Oracle will also demand royalties from the manufacturers themselves. If successful, they can squeeze their margins or force them to raise prices. Maybe the manufacturers sue Google for indemnity.
Oracle gambit is dashed by failure: Jury Finds Google Innocent of Java Patent Infringement
Funny thing though, Google did violate copyright: a 15 million line code review of Android revealed a nine-line function was illegally lifted out of Java and (mistakenly, says the guilty programmer) pasted into Google's source code.
For this gross violation, Oracle naturally demanded hundreds of millions of dollars in damages...
I think Oracle's execs need a rangeCheck() of their sanity, but that's just me.
For this gross violation, Oracle naturally demanded hundreds of millions of dollars in damages...
I think Oracle's execs need a rangeCheck() of their sanity, but that's just me.
On "Slapdash" (here I think) I seem to recall that someone made the comment that the function in question had already been released into another package or something, so even that argument may be flawed. <shrug>
Funny thing though, Google did violate copyright: a 15 million line code review of Android revealed a nine-line function was illegally lifted out of Java and (mistakenly, says the guilty programmer) pasted into Google's source code.
For this gross violation, Oracle naturally demanded hundreds of millions of dollars in damages...
I think Oracle's execs need a rangeCheck() of their sanity, but that's just me.
That rangecheck function and even the two patents in the second part of the trial aren't nearly as important as what the jury have said Google infringed on, that is the structure sequence and organization thingy (37 java APIs in question).
The most important question still remains though. Are APIs copyrightable and relatedly what does fair use allow if they are copyrightable?
french toast
Veteran
Although im looking to buy a galaxy s3...i think Google should be fined a substantial amount for the Android debacle, yes for consumers we get a very good mobile operating system, fair enough but they blatently nicked ideas from oracle, apple, microsoft , and likely many others with out paying for them, other small companys have had to pay for the rights of software, so why should a mega company like Google come along and get to take what they want, then come out with the 'software patents should be void' nonsense
Everything takes R&D, everything, if a company like Apple for instance spends millions researching multitouch, why should Google or anyone else be able to just take it without contributing to its development?
Whilst there is some merit to everyone being able to use software, there has to be a way of making it worthwhile for companys to actually develop these things to get a competitive advantage, maybe allow the patent holder to have a 2 year exclusivity to their software patent (if they want) but then force that company to lease that patent out to any competitor for a reasonable price, if they can't agree on one then have a court rule on a fair price. Allow the lease to be set for a set amount of time, ie 5 years before the patent becomes open source.
That way companys get a worthwhile competitive advantage from their R&D expenditure, and get a reasonable monetary short term gain, BUT other competitors don't get left too much behind that we get one dominant player controlling the industry based of 1 patent from 10 years ago, keeps things competitive, forces everyone to innovate as its worthwhile, but stops patent hogs and patent trolling as long term patents are in effect worthless as after 2 years they are forced to open them up, and after 7 they go open source.
Everything takes R&D, everything, if a company like Apple for instance spends millions researching multitouch, why should Google or anyone else be able to just take it without contributing to its development?
Whilst there is some merit to everyone being able to use software, there has to be a way of making it worthwhile for companys to actually develop these things to get a competitive advantage, maybe allow the patent holder to have a 2 year exclusivity to their software patent (if they want) but then force that company to lease that patent out to any competitor for a reasonable price, if they can't agree on one then have a court rule on a fair price. Allow the lease to be set for a set amount of time, ie 5 years before the patent becomes open source.
That way companys get a worthwhile competitive advantage from their R&D expenditure, and get a reasonable monetary short term gain, BUT other competitors don't get left too much behind that we get one dominant player controlling the industry based of 1 patent from 10 years ago, keeps things competitive, forces everyone to innovate as its worthwhile, but stops patent hogs and patent trolling as long term patents are in effect worthless as after 2 years they are forced to open them up, and after 7 they go open source.
SCotUS agrees to review appeal of patent Federal Circuit Court fuckup that made APIs being copyrightable.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ll-review-high-stakes-google-v-oracle-ruling/
Supreme Court agrees to review disastrous ruling on API copyrights
A 2018 ruling on API copyrights could cause problems for the software industry.
Why the case matters
The Supreme Court agrees to review only a small fraction of lower court decisions. As it often does for cases involving important policy questions, the high court asked the Trump administration to weigh in on whether the case merited Supreme Court attention. The government said no, arguing that the Federal Circuit Appeals Court had reached the right result when it held that software could be copyrighted.
But others disagreed. A number of legal scholars, public interest groups, and software companies weighed in on the case, with many arguing that the Federal Circuit's ruling would be detrimental to the software industry. Microsoft, for example, argued that the ruling "threatens the viability of the interconnected software ecosystem."
A group of legal scholars pointed out that different appeals courts have reached conflicting opinions about the legal status of APIs. This situation, known as a "circuit split," creates uncertainty about how the law will be applied in the future. The legal scholars urged the high court to take the case so it could establish a uniform legal standard nationwide.
The Supreme Court seems to have found these arguments persuasive.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ll-review-high-stakes-google-v-oracle-ruling/
Supreme Court agrees to review disastrous ruling on API copyrights
A 2018 ruling on API copyrights could cause problems for the software industry.
Why the case matters
The Supreme Court agrees to review only a small fraction of lower court decisions. As it often does for cases involving important policy questions, the high court asked the Trump administration to weigh in on whether the case merited Supreme Court attention. The government said no, arguing that the Federal Circuit Appeals Court had reached the right result when it held that software could be copyrighted.
But others disagreed. A number of legal scholars, public interest groups, and software companies weighed in on the case, with many arguing that the Federal Circuit's ruling would be detrimental to the software industry. Microsoft, for example, argued that the ruling "threatens the viability of the interconnected software ecosystem."
A group of legal scholars pointed out that different appeals courts have reached conflicting opinions about the legal status of APIs. This situation, known as a "circuit split," creates uncertainty about how the law will be applied in the future. The legal scholars urged the high court to take the case so it could establish a uniform legal standard nationwide.
The Supreme Court seems to have found these arguments persuasive.
