Oracle Subpoenas Apache Foundation In Google Suit 98
angry tapir writes "Oracle has subpoenaed the Apache Software Foundation in connection with its ongoing intellectual property suit against Google. Oracle filed suit against Google in August, alleging that its Android mobile operating system infringes on seven of Oracle's Java patents. Google has denied any wrongdoing. The subpoena, which was received by ASF on Monday, seeks 'the production of documents related to the use of Apache Harmony code in the Android software platform, and the unsuccessful attempt by Apache to secure an acceptable license to the Java SE Technology Compatibility Kit.'"
as noted, this is pretty funny (Score:5, Insightful)
considering that apache is pretty openly documented, subpoena'ing them is probably mostly useless. I mean they could probably point Oracle to their own wiki.
Re:as noted, this is pretty funny (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah but you'd have to find someone at Oracle who knows how to use a web browser.
You'd send them a URL and they'd spend 12 months and 10 million dollars writing a "program" in PL/SQL to access the wiki.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:as noted, this is pretty funny (Score:5, Funny)
But the accessed wiki would be hosted in Oracle's cloud storage, so you would need an extra few eBusiness modules to interface with that, plus service and bandwidth of course (not to mention consulting and security).
Once it's all paid up (Oracle hosts your finance software, but it's just coincidence that they charge slightly less than you can possibly afford) you have the glory of an eBusiness form which ties the "WikiID" with all your "EmployeeID"s (it's called integration), and you can run all sorts of reports like "WikiIDs vs EmployeeIDs" or "Sum of WikiIDs vs EmployeeIDs", or even "Sum of WikiIDs vs EmployeeIDs two weeks ago".
Your CFO will love it, the board will think it's vital, and we'll leech the hard won efficiency gains out of your business and use the money to kill cheap open-source competitors and fight innovation with lawyers.
Welcome to eLogicStackEnterprise; an obsolete database powering a recently closed source stack supporting a thin layer of generic business logic supporting a veneer of customized business logic straining under a mountain of bullshit.
Re: (Score:1)
I can send them a .iso with Oracle PowerBrowser 1.0, if they have lost it... It has pre-javascript form evaluation *and* URL support.
I got the CD on a very nice release event in Stockholm/Sweden during the early .com years. Those were the days!
Re: (Score:2)
nah, they'd probably just buy another company to do it for them...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes... Internal... Like the much closed ASF mailing lists? http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html [apache.org]
You're not too bright, if you presume to think a Foundation doesn't conduct its business in private. The information concerns their business emails, not some dude or dudette writing to complain about a piece of java software or apache server that is broken, needs to be patched or please apply this patch.
Re: (Score:2)
Then they should subpoena the emails of the individuals involved, don't you think?
Re:as noted, this is pretty funny (Score:5, Insightful)
The court wants to see the documents as delivered by Apache, not copies that Oracle's lawyers claim to have found on some Web site. Oracle also wants to see private communications between Apache and IBM. This is all very routine and reasonable in the circumstance. Apache will be compensated for their expenses and they can ask the judge to seal anything that they don't want in the public record.
Re: (Score:2)
I see nothing about communications between apache and IBM, in fact IBM isn't even referenced in the subpoena [apache.org]. Where do you come up with that?
They want to see communications between apache and the OHA.
Re: (Score:3)
Not the OP, but I'd guess its a case of "Oops, wrong baseless lawsuit against open source".
Re: (Score:2)
Oracle doesn't understand open source. Why are you surprised they subpoenaed Apache for Apache code (open) related to Android (open) about Java (open)? Obviously, they can't use Google to search for it, conflict of interest. Anyone want to e-mail them the http://www.bing.com/ [bing.com] link?
Re: (Score:3)
They're not looking for code, they're looking for documents.
Re: (Score:2)
The comedy goggles, they do nothing!
Re:as noted, this is pretty funny (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Oracle is also one of the top Linux code contributors, popping in more code [linux.com] than even the Linux Foundation (see Table 9): Xen, YAST, NFS on IPv6, "data=guarded" for ext3, Asynchronous IO kernel subsystem, and more. Not surprisingly, most of what Oracle contributes is germane to Orafcle DB & apps, no different from every other contributor working on something he is specifically interested in or in need of.
Oracle contributed Xen to Linux? The boys in Cambridge [wikipedia.org] are going to be scratching their heads at that one. Also, Novell is probably going to be alarmed that Oracle put their setup tool, YaST [wikipedia.org], into the kernel.
Re: (Score:2)
they can't use Google to search for it, conflict of interest. Anyone want to e-mail them the http://www.bing.com/ [bing.com] link?
Don't think that will help either [zdnet.com].
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Google didn't extend Java, and they didn't embrace it either. No Java program will run on Android. No Android program will run on a Java VM. Not even if you recompile them. You can do some code and library reuse, but that's about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Embracing and extending isn't usually a bad thing when the fork is open source.
In fact that's the whole point of open source.
(FYI basically the entire Android platform has been open source so far)
Re: (Score:2)
Embrace and extend isn't usually a bad thing, as long as it isn't embrace, extend and don't disallow anyone else from implementing a compatible extension.
The best documentation may be source code, and documenting the extension is a Really Good Thing if you depend on ISVs at all, but even the lack of documentation doesn't make embrace-and-extend a bad thing.
What makes embrace-and-extend a bad thing is disallowance of alternate implementation through general legal mechanisms like anti-reverse-engineering prov
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the precise question. The precise question is, "why does the involvement of corporate lawyers from every major tech company in the world lead things to a standstill with everyone afraid of potential lawsuits for any new development or implementation utilizing FOSS as the starting point?"
Nothing you describe makes developing off of Linux, Android or other open-source or free-software products any more of a risk than it was a year ago, perhaps even two years ago.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It was in no way clear to the court in the beginning that SCO's case was weak. It was clear to us, but we were technical experts with no small degree of bias. It may have been clear to people in IT departments, but it wasn't have been clear to the people who control company's purse strings.
Cross-licensing agreements have been in place between big names for decades. AMD and Intel have them. Intel was in the habit of making them before AMD existed.
You don't need to worry about the likes of them. If they're la
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Code written for Android can't be run on another platform without rewriting large portions of the code. In essence, it's basically just the same sort of additions that Microsoft did and got tons of bad press about.
Re:cross-platform? no, lock-in! (Score:5, Informative)
bzzt wrong!
You can go download the source to dalvik and use it on what ever platform you want. Blackberry is going to be doing just that.
So where is this source to the Microsoft JVM?
Re:cross-platform? no, lock-in! (Score:5, Insightful)
Code written for Android can't be run on another platform without rewriting large portions of the code. In essence, it's basically just the same sort of additions that Microsoft did and got tons of bad press about.
Android application code really doesn't care where it's running. It's running on a VM after all. If someone ported Dalvik to another platform, Android apps would run there too. In fact RIM have done that already, porting Dalvik over QNX. If they can do it then it's clearly not proprietary or lock-in. I'd actually like to see Dalvik ported in this way since it would speed up development no end and might prove useful for other purposes
As for Microsoft's issues with Java, it's not the same at all. First Dalvik / Android are not Java. Never have been, never claimed to be. It's always been made explicitly clear that devs write with the Java language but the target is not a JVM.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the worst analysis I've read in a while.
Anyone can implement anyone else's API/protocol, possibly by reusing code they supply under a permissive licence. The problem is that you have to actually do that with every platform you want to run your software on - and in every case it'll be a lot more work than just recompiling (to begin, which cross-platform lower level API are they using? oh...).
And because, in practice, that costs a lot of effort, proprietary extensions create lock-in.
And that's why we h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Code written for Android can't be run on another platform without rewriting large portions of the code. In essence, it's basically just the same sort of additions that Microsoft did and got tons of bad press about.
How is that different from developing a Blackberry application?
Re: (Score:2)
It is different in that Blackberry will run Dalvik (Android Apps) code fairly shortly, where Android is not going to be running Blackberry Apps any time soon.
The GP is just ignorant about software, systems and progranmming
Re: (Score:2)
Google and Java platform lock-in? (Score:2)
> MS were bad to embrace and extend Java to create platform lock-in. Google are good to do so, right?, Hazel Bergeron
When Google claims to own JAVA and demands royalties for JAVA running on Windows, then they'll be just as evil as Microsoft :)
Re: (Score:2)
You look like a douche when you spell Java in all caps.
just sayin...
You mean, like on java.com [java.com]? Hmm,,,, Yeah, you've got a point. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
MS were bad to embrace and extend Java to create platform lock-in.
Google are good to do so, right?
Demonstrate where Google was presenting an extended Java. Then explain how they were creating platform lock-in.
Re: (Score:2)
From the SDK: All applications are written using the Java programming language. [android.com]
A search +java +site:android.com will make it abundantly clear what Google is "presenting".
Second request addressed above.
You and several posters are being deliberately obtuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Java programming language is not the same as Java(the whole stack). Microsoft extended the same Java with own "features" that you could accidentally use. Android, however, extends Java in the same way as SpringFramework "extends" Java. You use it just another library in the language. Runtime however is something different.
And yes, Google is very much blunt that Android apps should be written in Java. Yet the part t
Re: (Score:3)
You cannot run Android programs in a JVM, because while it is Java, it is not JVM. The difference is that the JVM and Dalvik are more like "compilers" than anything else, much like you can write a program in C and compile it for PPC or i86 using GCC or Intel or IBM compilers. However I doubt that your C code compiled by Intel Compiler will run on PPC architecture.
Java is a language.Oracle wants to assert control over the language because it has a "compiler" in the form of JVM. Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
From the SDK: All applications are written using the Java programming language. [android.com]
A search +java +site:android.com will make it abundantly clear what Google is "presenting".
Excellent. You can use the Java language to program for Android. Now show me the Java VM that Google produced like Microsoft did. So far, the only VM I've seen mentioned is Dalvik.
Second request addressed above.
Not really, no. Google is not creating a Java VM that only works on Google devices. They are not claiming to implement Java and breaking compatibility with other Java environments. And even if you take offense to coding in Java for a Dalvik environment, anyone can take the Apache License Dalvik VM and port it to other platfo
Re: (Score:2)
Now show me the Java VM that Google produced like Microsoft did.
This is a red herring. Developers don't write in bytecode so it doesn't matter whether the resulting binaries are slightly different or very different from standard.
If I build something Java-y but with MS extensions, it will work on the MSJVM but not on a standard Java VM.
If I build something Java-y but with Google extensions, it will work on Google's virtual machine but not on a standard Java VM.
Not really, no. Google is not creating a Java VM that only works on Google devices.
A VM is obviously written for a particular native platform, so I don't know what you mean here.
They are not claiming to implement Java
If you're implyin
Re: (Score:2)
Now show me the Java VM that Google produced like Microsoft did.
This is a red herring. Developers don't write in bytecode so it doesn't matter whether the resulting binaries are slightly different or very different from standard.
If I build something Java-y but with MS extensions, it will work on the MSJVM but not on a standard Java VM.
If I build something Java-y but with Google extensions, it will work on Google's virtual machine but not on a standard Java VM.
I don't think this is a red herring at all. In fact, I think this is the exact point. What's being coded is something "Java-y" in both cases. But in Microsoft's case, they were presenting it as writing for a Java VM. That implies everything that comes with a Java VM. Google presents it as writing for Dalvik. And while there are certainly similarities between a JVM and Dalik, there is little implication that the Java-y code you write for Dalik is going to work on any given JVM and visa versa.
Again, the choice of compiled executable format is irrelevant. Every developer can run a compilation script to produce an executable for various different platforms. What takes time and matters is whether the source must be changed
I think th
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument now rests on the assumption that Microsoft was misleading developers that its extensions were part of standard Java.
Microsoft was never doing such a thing.
Moreover, it's fairly obnoxious to suggest that people developing using Microsoft solutions are all so dumb that they wouldn't be able to figure out that (e.g.) a call to the native Windows API is not cross-platform, even if MS had somehow tried to convince people of that. Which, again, they weren't doing.
What Microsoft was doing was enticin
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument now rests on the assumption that Microsoft was misleading developers that its extensions were part of standard Java.
Microsoft was never doing such a thing.
Moreover, it's fairly obnoxious to suggest that people developing using Microsoft solutions are all so dumb that they wouldn't be able to figure out that (e.g.) a call to the native Windows API is not cross-platform, even if MS had somehow tried to convince people of that. Which, again, they weren't doing.
I agree that it's an obnoxious view. I don't believe all developers are "so dumb." But I do believe enough are. If it weren't so, we wouldn't have the problem with so many IE6-only web sites / apps. That is the world we were in back then and there's echoes of it still today.
What Microsoft was doing was enticing developers to use the non-standard extensions so they'd be able to choose Java as a language but end up with software that wasn't actually portable. Clearly Java was the fashionable new language, but Windows was the traditional desktop OS. So this method would rope in people whose skills and existing codebase was Java, as well as persuade those whose real knowledgebase was in the Windows API to never really leave Windows.
Let's not forget that Microsoft was also specifically trying to "pollute" Java. From the court case:
Love the comment (Score:2)
"Google has denied any wrongdoing. "
What else are they going to do?
saying, "Yeah we did it but suck balls Oracle! NYAHH NYAHH!" typically will upset a judge.
And so it begins - Or rather, ends. (Score:4)
Offset the cost of Sun? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually been reported that Sun suggested it, to convince Oracle to buy Sun.
Re: (Score:2)
Oracle has no problems with the ASF using the TCK and becoming "certified" as a conforming Java implementation. (and gaining a license for the Java patents in the process)
The disagreement is that Oracle wanted to place restrictions on how the "certified" code can be used, something that the ASF has balked at because it would be incompatible with the license on the ASF Java code.
Specifically Oracle wanted to add a clause preventing the "certified" code from being used in any kind of mobile or embedded setup,
Re: (Score:2)
We also must remember that Oracle before they purchased Sun were an outside party that depended on Java for large portions of their middleware stack. Therefore, anything good for wider licensing and interoperability was good for Oracle. Now Oracle is the inside party. All those other groups that want wider and more open licensing are trying to open up something Oracle owns that others can pay them for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure that Ellison has sleepless nights over that concern.
-5 Rep (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if anyone at Oracle realizes how they're continually mangling their image? I didn't ask if they care, simply if they realize it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The name of the company stands for One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison. Does that explain it to you?
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if anyone at Oracle realizes how they're continually mangling their image?
Most of the people upset at Oracle are not its customers and thus they probably couldn't give 2 shits.
Re: (Score:1)
As one of their customers, I'm getting a kick from this.
Due to their shoddy "support", we're currently divesting ourselves of as much Sun/Oracle equipment as we can.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, if you are divesting yourselves of some Sparc equipment really cheap, I'd be happy to take some off your hands.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And guess what? I'm already advising clients in removing as much Oracle as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, Oracle's power play to try to force HP-UX customers using Oracle software on to Solaris/SPARC resulted in us taking a long hard look at Linux on x86-64; and deciding that was the best path forward.
Re: (Score:2)
In many ways Oracle cares more about potential customers than existing customers. Switching away from Oracle is difficult, so existing customers often have little choice but to remain Oracle customers. The worst that existing customers can do is start trying to limit their use of Oracle software. Over time this will almost certainly translate to reduced revenues from the account, but Oracle execs (and salespeople) know that a lot can happen between deciding to move away from Oracle on principle and actua
Debunking Oracle's [patent] claims (Score:3)
My request is for an informed and knowledgeable slashdotter to point readers to a site that potentially debunks each one of Oracle's patent infringement claims.
I'm thinking of a new name (Score:2)
Why was Oracle wearing a Google suit? (Score:2)
And what did it look like?
Re: (Score:2)
And what did it look like?
And how many times did it have to get the hose before it put the lotion on its skin?
Oracle (Score:2)
The 5 letter swear word.