Oracle Exec Mocks Google Arguments About Java's APIs (thehill.com) 145
"Whether it is consumers' data or competitors' code, Google's view seems to be the same: What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine," argues Oracle executive vice president Kenneth Glueck.
Google had urged America's Supreme Court to rule in their ongoing legal case about access to Java's APIs, a case which Google says hinges on "whether developers should be able to create new applications using standard ways of accessing common functions. Those functions are the building blocks of computer programming, letting developers easily assemble the range of applications and tools we all use every day. Making it harder to connect with those functions would lock developers into existing platforms, thus reducing competition and, ultimately, hurting consumers. Access to software interfaces like these is the key to interoperability, the foundation of great software development."
That editorial -- written by Google's senior vice president for global affairs, Kent Walker, notes that 175 startups, developers, academics and other tech companies (including Microsoft) are also asking the Supreme Court to hear this case. Google warns of a risk to innovation posed if companies like Oracle become "gatekeepers to interoperability," calling it "a defining battle of the digital era."
Oracle's executive responds that "There are many 'defining battles' of the digital era -- 5G, Artificial Intelligence, autonomous devices -- but Oracle v. Google is surely not among them." Only in Google's world does weaker intellectual property protection lead to more innovation. It is settled in law and in economics that the opposite is true. And at a time when the U.S. is circling the globe to enhance the protection of U.S. intellectual property -- including strong copyright protection -- Google takes the opposite view...
In a stunning what's-up-is-down and down-is-up statement, Walker attempts to wrap Google in the cloak of interoperability. Java defined the era of interoperability with its "write once, run everywhere" architecture. It was Google that copied Java, built Android around it, and altered it so it was only interoperable with itself (i.e., write once, run only on Google). Android killed Java interoperability, and now Google argues that killing interoperability is good for interoperability?
Those facts are not in dispute. The only issue in dispute is Google's assertion that its actions were all "fair." On this point, the federal circuit court clearly analyzed and methodically decided against Google's fair-use defense. This makes sense because, under no interpretation of fair use, may you copy a competitor's software code and turn around and compete against that competitor in the marketplace. Hard stop... There is no matter of law in question, nor is there a conflict among circuit courts. Google was caught killing interoperability and is now trying to concoct a new "we are too important" legal defense.
Reuters reports that this week the Supreme Court asked the White House "to offer its views on whether it should hear Google's bid to end Oracle's copyright infringement lawsuit."
Google had urged America's Supreme Court to rule in their ongoing legal case about access to Java's APIs, a case which Google says hinges on "whether developers should be able to create new applications using standard ways of accessing common functions. Those functions are the building blocks of computer programming, letting developers easily assemble the range of applications and tools we all use every day. Making it harder to connect with those functions would lock developers into existing platforms, thus reducing competition and, ultimately, hurting consumers. Access to software interfaces like these is the key to interoperability, the foundation of great software development."
That editorial -- written by Google's senior vice president for global affairs, Kent Walker, notes that 175 startups, developers, academics and other tech companies (including Microsoft) are also asking the Supreme Court to hear this case. Google warns of a risk to innovation posed if companies like Oracle become "gatekeepers to interoperability," calling it "a defining battle of the digital era."
Oracle's executive responds that "There are many 'defining battles' of the digital era -- 5G, Artificial Intelligence, autonomous devices -- but Oracle v. Google is surely not among them." Only in Google's world does weaker intellectual property protection lead to more innovation. It is settled in law and in economics that the opposite is true. And at a time when the U.S. is circling the globe to enhance the protection of U.S. intellectual property -- including strong copyright protection -- Google takes the opposite view...
In a stunning what's-up-is-down and down-is-up statement, Walker attempts to wrap Google in the cloak of interoperability. Java defined the era of interoperability with its "write once, run everywhere" architecture. It was Google that copied Java, built Android around it, and altered it so it was only interoperable with itself (i.e., write once, run only on Google). Android killed Java interoperability, and now Google argues that killing interoperability is good for interoperability?
Those facts are not in dispute. The only issue in dispute is Google's assertion that its actions were all "fair." On this point, the federal circuit court clearly analyzed and methodically decided against Google's fair-use defense. This makes sense because, under no interpretation of fair use, may you copy a competitor's software code and turn around and compete against that competitor in the marketplace. Hard stop... There is no matter of law in question, nor is there a conflict among circuit courts. Google was caught killing interoperability and is now trying to concoct a new "we are too important" legal defense.
Reuters reports that this week the Supreme Court asked the White House "to offer its views on whether it should hear Google's bid to end Oracle's copyright infringement lawsuit."
Re:Let me summarize the situation for ya'all... (Score:4, Insightful)
Google did the best they could at making Java a first class language for Android development
But why?
Why did Google choose Java, which was owned and controlled by another corporation, as the primary programming language for Android?
They could have used C++, which is owned by no one, or they could have created another flavor of Java, like Microsoft did with C#, or they could have invented something new, like Apple did with Swift.
Instead, they picked a mediocre language that belong to someone else. Why?
In hindsight, it was obviously a mistake, and I am sure they regret it. But even at the time, it seemed like a dumb decision.
Re:Let me summarize the situation for ya'all... (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead, they picked a mediocre language that belong to someone else. Why?
First of all the language is not mediocre, and was neither at the time it got picked.
If you don't like Java, don't use it.
Actually they picked C++, too. No one prevents you writing your Android Apps in C++ or god forbid: pure C.
But to answer your question(s): Java was open sourced by Sun 2006. Android was published 2007 by Google. Hence there is nothing Oracle can do about it ...
Finally: Java was picked because it is the language with the most developers and the core of Java as in "java.lang.*" classes and most of the infrastructure as "java.(n)io.*" and "java.net.*" are excellent.
While swift is a powerful and easy language, it was just released "recently" ... releasing a new device with a new OS and on top of it a new language, never really worked, look at Newton.
Re: (Score:1)
Some good points. Indeed, at the time, we were at the zenith of Java hype and indoctrination. You were either a Microsoft shop doing .NET or you had Java all over your resume, if you wanted to get a job (supposedly). C/C++ was being shat upon for presumably being too easy to create memory leaks, stack smashing, and other corruption. C/C++ just wasn't what all the cool kids wanted to use anymore.
Of course, the reality was and is that Java is a mediocre language with an even more mediocre runtime environment.
Re: Let me summarize the situation for ya'all... (Score:1)
Errr... (Score:2)
SCO sued lots of people because *Linux* was (supposedly) stolen from UNIX. I do not recall them suing Sun for Java, nor do I even see how that could be "a thing."
Re: (Score:2)
But to answer your question(s): Java was open sourced by Sun 2006. Android was published 2007 by Google. Hence there is nothing Oracle can do about it ...
Google didn't follow the terms of the open source license, which is why this is a problem at all.
Google has since changed, and is now following the terms of the license, so Oracle can do nothing.
Re: (Score:1)
look at Newton
n=1
Re: (Score:2)
if you want to write an Android app you have to use Google classes, fuck portability.
Basically only for the UI, and as I pointed out, if you really want to, you can use Swing or JavaFX.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all Android software runs on Arm. My Android tablet runs on Intel.
Re: (Score:2)
But why?
Do you really need to ask that? Java is a popular language, a lot of people have learnt it, a lot of people are familiar with the APIs and libraries and existing code code be taken and recompiled for Google's implementation. There is absolutely nothing new about this whatsoever.
Google's real mistake (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is a newly untested court. Do you love beer? Do you lie under oath about drinking games and sex? Anything can become a precedent. It just takes the specific legal motivation of 5 people. Not a damn thing more, as we've seen.
WE live in a fantasy world, legally. Google uses litigation like poker players use chips. If they stop matching crazy, you win.
Fuck em (Score:4, Interesting)
Rules motherfuckers. You cannot copyright a language, a language is the way we speak and it's just as much cultural as it is technological. To patent and lock down Java will do one thing...spur the creation of a new language. Oracle is literally killing itself fighting this moronic fight.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Rules motherfuckers. You cannot copyright a language, a language is the way we speak and it's just as much cultural as it is technological. To patent and lock down Java will do one thing...spur the creation of a new language. Oracle is literally killing itself fighting this moronic fight.
Finally someone who gets at the issue! Java based Oracle interfaces that are sold or leased to their customers are not what is in question here. Using the java api to create a unique interface whether or not is capable of compiling into bit code is what we are forgetting.
Google created a competing java language compiler and Oracle started running scared. Just because you can run code created with the java language in a different jit than the ones distributed from Oracle does not mean that Google ripped off
Re: (Score:1)
innovation (Score:1)
Google warns of a risk to innovation
Yeah, at this point those words mean fuck all. Please tell the lawyers and lobbyists to find a scare phrase that isn't so stale.
Re:innovation (Score:4, Insightful)
Google warns of a risk to innovation
Yeah, at this point those words mean fuck all. Please tell the lawyers and lobbyists to find a scare phrase that isn't so stale.
Not being able to reimplement a publicly available API is pretty much the equivalent of being able to hold hostage everyone that uses the API forever. Either shift everything to a new API or pay up, and keep paying up. Since its now a clearly conservative court, thanks to among other things, people who say their vote doesn't matter, it is quite possible they will rule for Oracle. Personally, I have nothing against java. It's a fine programming language, but C# is probably better these days and is becoming more cross platform all the time. I'd seriously consider porting something before I gave Oracle money. Microsoft is less evil than oracle these days, by a fair amount.
Maybe Android 10 could be Mono .NET based? (Score:2)
I'd have no problem developing apps in c# instead of Java. I'd imagine that a company like Google could successfully pull off something like a transition from Java to .NET, but I suppose they'd be more likely to choose Go or Dart or something.
Oracle, the has-been of innovation (Score:2, Interesting)
The fundamental questions Google is asking of the Supreme Court is a constitutional matter that has ramifications worldwide and directly impacts the rights to a
Re: (Score:3)
Oracle couldn't give a fuck about the health of the industry. Their only goal is to act as the ultimate rent seekers in the IT industry. And they realised a huge amount of enterprise horse shit is written in Java, and they want rent payments for that. Thats the goal. If they can whack google for royalties, they can then take down the open source Java implementations, and if they succeed in that there will be *millions* of companies who are now beholden to Oracles rent seeking.
Its a parasitic revenue scheme,
Re: (Score:2)
That might be Oracle's short to mid-term goal, but in the long term, nobody will touch Java for new developments, and the rent they can collect from a technology synonymous with the plague will be very small indeed. They'll then be left trying to gouge customers with database license audits (for those companies still dumb enough to choose Oracle to store their data, that is).
Fallacies, but ... (Score:3)
Don't know if it's ad hominem or tu quoque (or both) but it's a bit rich coming from someone at Orible.
Re: (Score:1)
IP stifles innovation (Score:3)
It is settled in law and in economics that the opposite is true.
Hey, Oracle mouthpiece - there are transcripts here in 30 languages:
https://www.ted.com/talks/joha... [ted.com]
"settled in law and in economics" (Score:3, Informative)
That's just a pure lie. Left or right wing, there isn't a single economic model suggesting IP is good for the economy. The so called "incentive argument" was repeatedly shown false under game theory as well as statistics analysis.
Law wise, bull. Legal scholars don't support IP as a core right. They explicitly argue it's a regulative measure that should be weighed for its pros and cons on behalf of society rather than the individual
IP is just a way to incentivize progress and cultures. If it fails to do so it doesn't deserve the protection of society.
Re: (Score:2)
For "intellectual property protection", read "government-enforced monopoly". Economists are in fair agreement that such those should be only be used if there is no other option.
Software is different. It's so different that the old IP rules are a very poor fit. No other thing that I'm aware of is "protected" by copyright, patent, and trade secret at the same time.
Write once, run anywhere? (Score:3)
Java defined the era of interoperability with its "write once, run everywhere" architecture. It was Google that copied Java, built Android around it, and altered it so it was only interoperable with itself (i.e., write once, run only on Google). Android killed Java interoperability, and now Google argues that killing interoperability is good for interoperability?
Ironic, since the Android API covers more of the Java SE API than the Java ME API that Sun/Oracle wanted Google to use.
They refused to license Java SE to Google, which is the primary reason they wrote their own (including a portion of the Java API, copied from the Harmony version under the terms of the Apache license).
The only part of Oracle's code they were found to have infringed is the declarations, including the names of classes and method signatures.
Re: (Score:2)
The only part of Oracle's code they were found to have infringed is the declarations, including the names of classes and method signatures.
Erm, nope.
As this is not an "infringement".
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they did copy rangeCheck, inadvertently, which was so inconsequential that the damages were $0.
They also disassembled some "security files", but that wasn't anything that ended up in the Android API.
What other code do you claim they were found to have copied other than the declarations?
Corporate Liars Lying Again (Score:4, Insightful)
Intel quits 5G modem business hours after Apple settles with Qualcomm [arstechnica.com]
So Oracle's defense of IP is just a fig leaf over their real motivation: monopolistic greed. Patents no longer serve innovation, they are a tool for dominant players to own markets and generate guaranteed profit. Given the current ridiculous length of patent protection, that means market control last so long that competition is not economically viable.
Patent portfolios by Big Tech are like having a private army. They are deployed to thwart the opposition and short circuit competition. It's not about having a better product or a better business model, it's about using legal roadblocks to stop your enemy. Given how easy it is to get meaningless patents, they are relatively cheep.
That's why business boast about the size of their portfolios. It's a warning: I can screw you up unless you play ball with me.
Re: (Score:2)
So Oracle's defense of IP is just a fig leaf over their real motivation: monopolistic greed
Oracle never hides their greed. If you don't see it, it's because you aren't looking.
What about APIs of GPL code? (Score:2)
If APIs are subject to copyright then doesn't that mean if you use the same API as something that originally GPL (e.g. Linux kernel syscalls) that it would make your entire project GPL?
I suppose Microsoft is leaning in favor of interoperability in this case... unless they are looking to GPL their Linux subsystem.
Re: (Score:1)
For linux specific system calls you have a point, but most of Linux is a copy of Unix. Does that mean the opengroup controls all operating systems copying a posix like interface?
Does solaris reimplement any linux system calls? oracle might be opening up an attack against them. I know solaris has some bsd system calls. Can the original authors go after oracle? Solaris is toast.
Has oracle shipped a copy of samba in anything?
Their database products likely copied earlier products also. Can the current owne
This should be good (Score:3)
SCOTUS is asking the White House if they should take Google's case?
In that case, it looks like the animosity [imgs.fyi] they've been cultivating is about to turn around and bite them on the ass.
Absurd (Score:2, Informative)
I read the transcripts from the original trial that Oracle lost. Oracle is upset about some header files. Google didn't steal actual code. They were careful never to use any Java VM code when they designed Dalvik. All they did was arrange their own API to be compatible with Sun Microsystem's Java, which by the way at the time Sun was all for. Sun was excited to get anyone interested in their language and didn't mind. It wasn't until Oracle bought them out they decided to copyright troll Google because they
Dear Google (Score:2)
Dear Google,
Create your own language. Don't bastardize Java, violate the terms and the community, then bitch about it.
Re: (Score:3)
No idea what you are talking about.
Googles Java is the same as any other.
The only differences are:
* additional APIs for the UI
* additional APIs for the phone functions
* additional APIs for the interaction of Apps on your phone
You basically can run every Java App on an Android phone by simply packaging it in Dalvik format, unless it uses AWT or Swing etc. (but there are Swing ports for Android (https://github.com/javalovercn/j2se_for_android) and JavaFX (https://bitbucket.org/javafxports/android/downloads/)
Re: (Score:2)
A federal court disagreed with you and many Android developers also do. Google basically tried to rip off Java, not work with it. Nothing they did was collaborative and everything they did was along the lines of trying to hijack it.
I am not a hard-core Android developer but know that many who are find it very distasteful. Fortunately there is now Kotlin. Kotlin is closer to where Google should have started.
If Oracle wins (Score:4, Interesting)
Oracle's short-sighted thinking in this Google case seems like it may be the setup for the most epic self-petard-hoisting in computing history.
Re: (Score:2)
Your question assumes that the case was decided on facts. That's not even in the right part of the universe. It was decided by lawyers and judges in a court of law: a completely fact free region of existence.
The other potential players you bring up would be laughed out of the courtroom because they could not afford the legal expenses. This level civil action is closer to Musk starting S
Re: (Score:2)
The other potential players you bring up would be laughed out of the courtroom because they could not afford the legal expenses.
Intel can't afford legal expenses? What about IBM, where SQL was invented? Can they?
Re: (Score:2)
Its ironic though that Oracle would herald the end of the computer age.
Oracle clearly paid lots of cash for bad arguments (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's go through this:
> It was Google that copied Java, built Android around it, and altered it so it was only interoperable with itself (i.e., write once, run only on Google).
This isn't really true to begin with. It's possible to write a portable Java program that will run on Android.
There are some additional APIs that were added for Android and if you use them then your program only runs on systems that implement those APIs. So then what allows interoperability? The ability for other systems to impleme
The hand that feeds him... (Score:1)
Reverse Engr vs Copyright (Score:1)
What happened (Score:2)
To "don't be evil"?
Write once run everywhere? (Score:1)
Looks like the Oracle execs have been drinking the old SUN Kool aid. More like write once debug and make new versions everywhere. Then if Java is updated - your app is *BROKEN*.
I've seen it so often. From backup software to HP's server automation (Now microfocus, they actually upgraded from Java to Python) to all kinds of other stuff.
Java is a miserable little language. When I went to learn it a couple of decades ago I knew it sucked when not even the examples in the beginners book would work. Perl code I w
Re: (Score:2)
LOLZ, you're confused, the breaking of java api is relatively recent thing.
if your code didn't work 20 years ago it was because you had problems or misconceptions, there was no problem with language. I speak as java developer from late 90s, employer inherited a former oracle exec.
Java is huge, massive enterprise used mature libraries. Pythion and its libraries are a joke and are what are "little" in comparison, for the realm of business use.
I hate it because it is warmed over C++, and yes recently minor v
Re: (Score:1)
I really think you're forgetting. I know they changed stuff from 1995. Like I said examples from the book didn't work. Some did, most didn't. The Server Automation and even Net Backup shows the API has been broken over and over again for the past 15 years. Not me, documented by Netbackup, which is also owned by Oracle when they bought out SUN and their massive incredible tape library robots. Those things still run Solaris.
I know java is huge. I know it has a lot of capabilities. I also know about the proble
Re: (Score:2)
yes java makes apps that can be resource pigs, I still have the misfortune of working with websphere.
the major version changes back in teh day did change API but that's an expected thing different problem. now oracle breaks it with tiny version bumps
I wouldn't dis COBOL, the core of our ERP system at work is written in COBOL and is a product decades old from the 70s that is still evolving and has modern features of web/mobile/email workflow... And a lot of those python numerical packages have FORTRAN co
Re: (Score:1)
Websphere. Could be worse. I've seen people get rid of Websphere for Siebel. Maybe it's better now that Oracle owns it. Siebel was a real pos.
I think someone has you snowed. Nobody is using cobol for new web stuff or anything else unless there is no alternative. I'm still getting gigs to upgrade people off of it to Linux. Pays well and it's part time. Even with my abilities I could write a handler for a web application in cobol. I can't think of a good reason to do that. In fact, it would seem to be the ma
Re: (Score:2)
So you're not in the realm of scientific computation. Many of the worlds best numerical libraries are written in FORTRAN, and so many python systems call them. Because they are far too huge to reimplement without years of fixing subtle bugs that would emerge. For example, Sagemath, numpy, scipy all are written in python... and call FORTRAN libraries for some functions. Sure you could choose to run numpy with it's own dog slow pure python for matrices but for serious large models the FORTRAN librarie
Things like this keep me inching away from IP (Score:1)
Things like this keep me inching away from the idea of "intellectual property" as a Good Thing. Especially for things like APIs.
The traditional arguments made some sense in the past. To me, when I was young. And in the 19th century. (Not the same time, quite.) For books and sheet music and piano rolls and physical inventions.
But now that we have computer software and digital media for transmission and storage of entertainment. And more to the point, we're living on Planet of the Lawyers. So I'm gro
How do Oracle and Google compete? (Score:2)
Where do they compete? Oracle doesn't make phones, search engines, sell ads or have a YouTube. What makes them competitors?
Re: (Score:2)
Where do they compete? Oracle doesn't make phones, search engines, sell ads or have a YouTube. What makes them competitors?
Oracle is living in their own little fantasy world where their Java for phones product actually got adopted by... anybody. The fact that you don't know such a thing even existed tells you how badly it failed in the marketplace.
Now Oracle thinks they can force the entire market to be handed over to them on a silver platter. If the appeals court ruling stands, they were correct. And software as an industry is ended. There are hundreds of millions of APIs, and tens of millions of reimplementations, and bas
Re: (Score:1)
Java continues to be the stack of choice for serious and indispensable software and Oracle continues to make great improvements. How about you write some automatic pilot software for a passenger jet in Python or android and be the first one in the plane? I didn't think so.
Ever heard of C++? I'm sure it supports OOP and APIs the same way Oracle despises third-parties leveraging Java APIs.
Re: (Score:2)
C++, isn't that the language that takes great pride in the amount of ways it allows you to shoot yourself in the foot and only tells you this at runtime by randomly crashing the entire application?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
C++, isn't that the language that takes great pride in the amount of ways it allows you to shoot yourself in the foot
Yes, C++ gives you the flexibility to make the computer do what you want it to do.
... and only tells you this at runtime by randomly crashing the entire application?
No. Proper coding standards and use of static analysis tools will catch almost all C-specific problems before you compile.
If you have memory leaks and dereferenced null pointers at runtime, you need to learn how to use C++ properly.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue at hand is whether or not the ability to call another existing function / program on the system should require explicit permission from the copyright holder of that function / program by law. Which if you have any idea of how modern computing actually works*, the answer to that is a huge "YES!
I think you just said the opposite of what you meant, right? Or no?
Re: (Score:2)
The issue at hand is whether or not the ability to call another existing function / program on the system should require explicit permission from the copyright holder of that function / program by law. Which if you have any idea of how modern computing actually works*, the answer to that is a huge "YES!
I think you just said the opposite of what you meant, right? Or no?
If you can figure out what that word salad meant, you're a better man than me.
I think maybe he was saying that he has a lovely bunch of coconuts.
Re: Who cares (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about you write some automatic pilot software for a passenger jet in Python or android and be the first one in the plane?
That is a silly argument. I would not get on a plane running untested critical software regardless of the language.
And nobody is suggesting Python for large mission critical systems. That is not what scripting languages are for.
The real comparison would be Java vs C++.
If you hire a team of good coders, C++ is better because it allows them the flexibility to do it right, and the tools, such as smart pointers, to do it safely.
If you hire a team of bad coders, Java is a better choice, because it gives them l
Alternate Reality (Score:2)
Java continues to be the stack of choice for serious...autopilot...
If I'd have been drinking coffee I'd have sprayed it all over my screen. Are you seriously suggesting that Java is used for autopilot software? Or is this one of those cleverly worded statements like they had in 1980's advertising. You know "Pick the medication that doctor's recommend most. Pick Myassenol." If you think any autopilot is written in Java you're almost as high as any programmers would have had to have been to actually do it.
Can you imagine a JIT cache miss, or a garbage collection at just
EVERYBODY SHOULD CARE! (Score:4, Insightful)
An API is akin to a network protocol. Both are interfaces which can not be allowed to be owned by anybody. It will open the industry up to more damage than software patents have caused as well as helping other nations with the sense to ignore this insanity.
What about 3rd party alternatives which interface with proprietary hooks?
Should it be a crime to sell pentalope screw drivers because Apple owns that interface?
Re: EVERYBODY SHOULD CARE! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Harm"?!?!?!?
It would utterly and completely destroy competition if Oracle wins this.
If Oracle wins, then just asking another program / function to do something suddenly requires a copyright license. It would destroy the industry as we know it. Effectively making the well off and established players the only players able to compete in the marketplace. Everyone else would literally be dragged into court and sued into oblivion, and after the dust had settled no-one would even dream of creating another program
COULD SOMEBODY PLEASE SUE ORACLE ALREADY! (Score:1)
Oracle has to have used somebody's API. Graphics, windows, even just the standard C library and printf(), SOMEWHERE in their code!
How much of Java's interfaces are based on things like the underlying Unix time interface?
Re: COULD SOMEBODY PLEASE SUE ORACLE ALREADY! (Score:2)
Yes IBM are quietly sitting in the side lines. If Oracle win then IBM can sue for squillions for those SQL copyrights that Oracle used for a certain product line.............
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is that there *is* and explicit license to use Java, the language. And I'd argue that, since C at least, a set of standard libraries is generally considered part of the language. Without those API's, it's not Java as commonly understood. And Google didn't take any non-free code to implement the API's - just the definitions of the API's, which after all, is all an API is. So, Oracle is counting on some property worshiping judge with no knowledge of programming or programming languages to rule i
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is that there *is* and explicit license to use Java, the language.
Google specifically didn't follow the terms of the license. If they had (and they are now), they wouldn't be in any trouble at all.
Re: Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
The exact same reasoning used by the CAFC to find the declarations of the Java API to be copyrightable would also find the details of any interface or protocol to be copyrightable, and the fair use arguments would make almost any unlicensed use of such protocols infringing, with no fair use defense.
This case isn't about copying software, it's about copying the interface requirements required to make your software able to interact with someone else's software.
It doesn't matter if you like Google or not, the principle being tested is extremely important.
Exactly. An API spec is really some math (Score:3)
It wouldn't really matter if every word (function name and parameter name) were changed to a mathematician's single-letter symbol. The semantics of the interface would be the same. Therefore the particular function and parameter name strings that make up the actual API method signatures are arbitrary and not essential. Only the mathematical/logical juxtaposition of sy
Re: (Score:2)
it's about copying the interface requirements required to make your software able to interact with someone else's software.
Believe it or not, Google tried that defense but it was dismissed because the court decided Google wasn't trying to make their software interoperable. In other cases, the courts have ruled that interoperability is a fair-use defense.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't recall that they specifically stated what would be considered interoperability, I should go back and read the case again. In the past, I think courts have said that you should copy no more than is necessary for interoperability, if you want to use that defense.
If they had been interoperable, then Sun would have given them the lic
Re: (Score:2)
Dalvik wasn't found to be infringing.
The Java SDK wan't GPL at the time, that happened after Google came out with the Android API.
They followed the license of the code base they did copy from, Harmony with the Apache license.
The interoperability was at the source code level. They copied the interface for most of 37 packages. None of the implementation code (other than a trivial rangeCheck routine) was found to infringe on Oracle's code.
Binary compatibility isn't the only kind, plus Android actually starts
Re: Bullshit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sun wouldn't license the TCK under terms acceptable to the Harmony project, which is why it doesn't use the Java trademark. Sun wouldn't license Java SE to run on a mobile device, so Google used Harmony instead (and did not use the Java trademark). They were under no obligation to make it binary compatible. It wasn't compile once, run anywhere.
Also, just because your VM requires one extra step to run a binary doesn't mean it's not compatible.
The Java ME API that Sun wanted them to license would have been
Re: Bullshit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)