Oracle sues Google over Android ?!?!?!

[samalex]

Yup, Oracle has started its bullying:
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15762198?nclick_check=1

Larry Ellison is such a schmuck. He's going to crap on every single open source app Sun built or maintained. Good knowing ya MySQL, Virtual Box, Solaris, Java...

Sam

[RussellGee]

Comparing the size of Oracle to Google, I dont think Oracle will be doing much of the bullying here, I think they have tried to bite more than what they can chew.

I want Sun back. :(

[phrostbyte]

It seems very much like a frivolous lawsuit, unless there is something not revealed.

[sheepo]

Interesting. I didn't know you had to have Oracle's permission to use Java. Odd

Did Sun ever pursue stuff like this?

[KiwiNZ]

Interesting. I didn't know you had to have Oracle's permission to use Java. Odd

Did Sun ever pursue stuff like this?

They acquired Java with Sun

[KiwiNZ]

Details and copy of papers here http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20013546-265.html?tag=cnetRiver

It will be interesting. Google have been pushing their luck of late.

[sheepo]

They acquired Java with Sun

Nonono, what I meant was, before Sun was acquired by Oracle, did they pursue stuff like this.

[KiwiNZ]

Nonono, what I meant was, before Sun was acquired by Oracle, did they pursue stuff like this.

Yes, they had a very long legal battle with Microsoft as one example.

Sun was concerned about Googles actions just prior to take over.

[Madspyman]

Doesn't make much sense to me, last time I checked Java and Android are both open source software.

Wouldn't that be like Debian suing Canonical?

[HappinessNow]

This article sheds some light on this subject:


When Google developed Android it included a Java compatible technology called Dalvik with the phone OS. Dalvik was developed as a "clean room" version of Java, meaning Google built it from the ground up without using any Sun technology or intellectual property, said Gartner analyst Ken Dulaney.

"You can't just take a Java application from a Sun environment, where it's licensed, and run it on Android. You have to recompile it to Dalvik," Dulaney said.

Oracle says Dalvik is a competitor to Java and infringes several of its patents, which it lists in the complaint, and its Java copyright.

It was unclear Thursday if Oracle approached Google to discuss its concerns before it filed the lawsuit.

Oracle's motivation was probably Android's recent success in the smartphone market, Dulaney said. "They own Sun now and they want to collect the royalties on the language," he said.

Oracle alleges that Google was aware of its patents and "willfully and deliberately" infringed them. It also says Google hired some of Sun's Java engineers. It wants the court to block the alleged infringement and award it damages.

Dulaney said Oracle's case could be "hard to prove" and that a legal battle could take a long time. "What they'll have to argue about is whether Google did a purely clean-room Java or if they have someone with inside knowledge of the code," he said.

Dalvik is one option for writing Android applications; developers can also use HTML 5 and the C language. But Dalvik is used for some of the core Android applications, such as email, Dulaney said.
http://goo.gl/aHPh

[SKLP]

"Google could settle current damages with Oracle, and switch to the better designed, more pleasant to use, and more open .NET platform."[0]

[0]: http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2010/Aug-13.html

[Sslaxx]

"Google could settle current damages with Oracle, and switch to the better designed, more pleasant to use, and more open .NET platform."[0]

[0]: http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2010/Aug-13.html
The irony of that statement just hurts.

Mono/.NET is about as "open" as Java is, probably less so.

[Noz3001]

So are Oracle going to start suing the creators of any language which uses a virtual machine or an interpreter?

[samalex]

So are Oracle going to start suing the creators of any language which uses a virtual machine or an interpreter?

That's what I was wondering. Java has been around for a long time, and it's the core of many systems/applications. Also what about the open source variants of Java?

I think Oracle is now in the same situation Microsoft is in with Mono, Samba, etc. The thing I give Microsoft some credit for is they've indemnified most users who create off-shoots of their applications from legal action which opens the door for LOTS of innovation. If Oracle starts pushing the Sun patents in everyone's face it doesn't help them, but Larry Ellison is known for saying Oracle must not only succeed, but everyone else must fail. Having read "Everyone Else Must Fail" about him, it's scary to think someone this powerful now controls so many open source projects.

As someone else commented, I miss Sun.

Sam

[zekopeko]

The irony of that statement just hurts.

Mono/.NET is about as "open" as Java is, probably less so.

Mono./NET is far more open then Java from the looks of things.
There are more patent protections and Microsoft doesn't mind people extending their platform.
Microsoft actually released a few months back the .NET Micro Framework for use in embedded ARM devices with the Apache licence.
So it looks like there is no irony in that statement only your bias.

[earthpigg]

One moment,

Oracle and Google are both licensees (http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/licensees.php) of the Open Invention Network (http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/pat_license_agreement.php), and Android clearly qualifies as a "Linux system".


1.2. Subject to Section 2.2 and in consideration for the license granted in Section 1.1, You, on behalf of yourself and your Affiliates, (a) grant to each Licensee and its Subsidiaries that are Subsidiaries as of the Eligibility Date a royalty-free, worldwide, nonexclusive, non-transferable license under Your Patents for making, having made, using, importing, and Distributing any Linux System; and (b) represent and warrant that (i) You have the full right and power to grant the foregoing licenses and the release in Section 1.4 and that Your Affiliates are and will be bound by the obligations of this Agreement; and (ii) neither You nor any of Your Affiliates has a Claim pending against any Person for making, having made, using, importing, and Distributing any Linux System.

[Ric_NYC]

Mono./NET is far more open then Java from the looks of things.
There are more patent protections and Microsoft doesn't mind people extending their platform.
Microsoft actually released a few months back the .NET Micro Framework for use in embedded ARM devices with the Apache licence.
So it looks like there is no irony in that statement only your bias.



lol

[RiceMonster]

lol

Right.

[zekopeko]

One moment,

Oracle and Google are both licensees of the Open Invention Network (http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/pat_license_agreement.php), and Android clearly qualifies as a "Linux system".

Java isn't a standard part of a Linux system. I think that Oracle would have to put Java under OIN for this to apply.

[zekopeko]

lol

I don't see MS suing people for using Mono or extending it unlike Oracle. Heck I have yet to see them FUD around Mono at all. Their action in that space are completely the opposite of what you usually claim.

[RiceMonster]

Is this when we start the conspiracy theories and flame fest?

[MCVenom]

One moment,

Oracle and Google are both licensees (http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/licensees.php) of the Open Invention Network (http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/pat_license_agreement.php), and Android clearly qualifies as a "Linux system".
I read somewhere that OIN's definition of a Linux system is extremely precise (down to the versions of software used) and subject to change at any time; there's almost no way, unfortunately, Android falls into that definition.

Oracle is simply a scary, monopolistic company IMO. I'd actually rather they die off than Microsoft, I think they present more of a threat to open-source (as this should be proof of) than Microsoft does. :|

[Ric_NYC]

We all know that MS is the best ally open source can have... (Wink... Wink...)


This is an interesting point of view:


Microsoft could be a winner in Oracle's patent attack over Java


I’d think there could be a whole lot of celebrating going on in Redmond today, the day after Oracle announced it is suing Google over alleged patent infringements involving Java in the Android mobile operating system.

...

Even though the Redmondians have no love for Oracle and consider the company one of Microsoft’s foremost competitors, any attack on Google is no doubt a plus in Microsoft execs’ eyes. Oracle’s move gives Windows Phone 7 more air cover. Microsoft likely will benefit from the fallout of the suit to some degree as developers and customers wonder and worry about the fate of Android-based phones. The Oracle vs. Google lawsuit also may boost the Microsoft .Net to a degree, as .Net’s No. 1 rival is Java. I’ve seen a couple of tweets from individuals saying Oracle’s move may drive them, in disgust, to .Net."
(Mary-Jo Foley - ZDNET)

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-could-be-a-winner-in-oracles-patent-attack-over-java/7088

[GreenDance]

I've not herd of Oracle before, and I seen someone mentioned "Sun", and thought "eh!?" so I went to www.sun.com and it redirected to www.oracle.com, what happened to sun? has oracle (whoever they are) bought sun?

[earthpigg]

has oracle (whoever they are) bought sun?

yes. with it, they also got OpenOffice and MySQL as i understand it.

[RiceMonster]

I've not herd of Oracle before, and I seen someone mentioned "Sun", and thought "eh!?" so I went to www.sun.com and it redirected to www.oracle.com, what happened to sun? has oracle (whoever they are) bought sun?

Yes, Oracle bought Sun. Oracle is most known for their database, which is very popular for running massive enterprise databases.

[GreenDance]

yes. with it, they also got OpenOffice and MySQL as i understand it.

That may explain why when trying to install openoffice on my sister's xp machine, openoffice won't install anymore. the older version installs, but the new one doesn't.

[Ric_NYC]

yes. with it, they also got OpenOffice and MySQL as i understand it.


That's scary. Let's not forget VirtualBox.

[RiceMonster]

That may explain why when trying to install openoffice on my sister's xp machine, openoffice won't install anymore. the older version installs, but the new one doesn't.

I don't see the correlation.

[GreenDance]

I don't see the correlation.

The new installer (oracle) won't install, how ever hard I try, it's not having it, yet the (sun) installer works fine.

Edit: I've tried it on XP Home & XP Pro.

[zekopeko]

The new installer (oracle) won't install, how ever hard I try, it's not having it, yet the (sun) installer works fine.

What Ricemonster was saying is: how did you come to the conclusion that Oracle is obstructing you in installing OO.org from the simple fact that Oracle bought Sun?

[GreenDance]

What Ricemonster was saying is: how did you come to the conclusion that Oracle is obstructing you in installing OO.org from the simple fact that Oracle bought Sun?

Sorry, I think my post may of been worded wrong.

What I was trying to say is, with the updated version I can't install it, yet I can install the older version.

[chris200x9]

when google developed android it included a java compatible technology called dalvik with the phone os. Dalvik was developed as a "clean room" version of java, meaning google built it from the ground up without using any sun technology or intellectual property, said gartner analyst ken dulaney.

"you can't just take a java application from a sun environment, where it's licensed, and run it on android. You have to recompile it to dalvik," dulaney said.

Oracle says dalvik is a competitor to java and infringes several of its patents, which it lists in the complaint, and its java copyright.

It was unclear thursday if oracle approached google to discuss its concerns before it filed the lawsuit.

Oracle's motivation was probably android's recent success in the smartphone market, dulaney said. "they own sun now and they want to collect the royalties on the language," he said.

Oracle alleges that google was aware of its patents and "willfully and deliberately" infringed them. It also says google hired some of sun's java engineers. It wants the court to block the alleged infringement and award it damages.

Dulaney said oracle's case could be "hard to prove" and that a legal battle could take a long time. "what they'll have to argue about is whether google did a purely clean-room java or if they have someone with inside knowledge of the code," he said.

Dalvik is one option for writing android applications; developers can also use html 5 and the c language. But dalvik is used for some of the core android applications, such as email, dulaney said.this article sheds some light on this subject:

http://goo.gl/ahph

I call shenanigans! Also if this goes anywhere say good bye to wine, watch what I do here:


when the community developed wine included windows compatible technology called DLLs with the program. wine was developed as a "clean room" implamentation of windows, meaning the community built it from the ground up without using any microsoft technology or intellectual property, said gartner analyst ken dulaney.

"you can't just take a windows application from a microsoft environment, where it's licensed, and run it on linux. You have to recompile it to wine," dulaney said.


Not exactly 100% factual, it has errors but you get the point.

[zekopeko]

I call shenanigans! Also if this goes anywhere say good bye to wine, watch what I do here:

Not exactly 100% factual, it has errors but you get the point.

That would probably make sense if Oracle and Microsoft were the same company. But since they aren't it has little to do with this.

[JDShu]

Could somebody explain why Google chose Java in the first place? Was it just to leverage the Java community or is it technically superior in some way on smartphones?

[MCVenom]

Terrified of the Oracle patent trap, JAVA?

Well worry no more! Introducing 'javanono'! All the patent, trojan, and plague blocking power of mononono, working against JAVA! Available for free on all architectures! (http://www.mediafire.com/?fbv65k4iparmca9)

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

I'm sure you've all heard of mononono, but if not, it's a dummy package designed to create conflicts whenever you try to install Mono packages. I was bored and found it ironic that while some complained that Java was a safer and better alternate to 'MONO', the first legal threat against FOSS between the two came from Java. Hence, this package. :KS

Unlike mononono, no one will probably install this, but I did it in fun and so we can all sleep better at night at least knowing it exists. :P For those interested, it conflicts with the following packages:


java-common, sun-java6-jre, sun-java6-bin, sun-java6-pluginUhhh so yeah. Enjoy. :D

PS: Here you can find a stricter version that also blacklists openjdk packages. (http://www.mediafire.com/?sq9x1pp49wh3mue)


Conflicts: java-common, sun-java6-jre, sun-java6-bin, sun-java6-plugin, openjdk-6-jre, icedtea6-plugin, icedtea-6-jre-cacao, openjdk-6jre-headless, openjdk-6-jre-lib

[chris200x9]

That would probably make sense if Oracle and Microsoft were the same company. But since they aren't it has little to do with this.

I disagree with a precedent like this set you are on a very slippery slope, why wouldn't microsoft kill wine if it could? Are people flocking to buy microsoft software to run in wine? Of course not, most software run with wine is 3rd party. With this microsoft has no incentive to keep wine alive since they do not make money from 3rd party software.

[sydbat]

Yup, Oracle has started its bullying:
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15762198?nclick_check=1

Larry Ellison is such a schmuck. He's going to crap on every single open source app Sun built or maintained. Good knowing ya MySQL, Virtual Box, Solaris, Java...

SamChildish greed. Plain and simple.

[Ric_NYC]

"MeeGo vs Android: 5 Reasons why MeeGo can’t compare with ANDROID"


2- Google opted smartly by embracing the emerging start-ups by building the Dalvik VM on top of LINUX. Add to that the fact that Java has a very widespread programmer-base, and programming for DalvikVM on Android is almost as if for the JVM itself.

In the Race against Android, MeeGo (which has yet to gain popularity on the developer side) is bound to fall further behind without the code-base and Dev-Environment familiarity that Android has today.

http://2600hertz.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/5-reasons-why-meego-cant-compare-with-android/

:D

[zekopeko]

I disagree with a precedent like this set you are on a very slippery slope, why wouldn't microsoft kill wine if it could? Are people flocking to buy microsoft software to run in wine? Of course not, most software run with wine is 3rd party. With this microsoft has no incentive to keep wine alive since they do not make money from 3rd party software.

First of all, this isn't a precedent, legal or otherwise.
Second, Wine has existed for more then 17 years now. Microsoft barely acknowledged it exists. They have never threatened them in anyway. Your theory doesn't hold since, again, Oracle and Microsoft are two different companies that behave differently when patents and FOSS are in question. You can read more about that here: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/08/microsofts-use-of-patents.html

[gnomeuser]

"Google could settle current damages with Oracle, and switch to the better designed, more pleasant to use, and more open .NET platform."[0]

[0]: http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2010/Aug-13.html

there would even be logic in such a move (http://www.koushikdutta.com/2009/01/dalvik-vs-mono.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+MyBrainHurts+(My+Brain+Hurts))

[Ric_NYC]

"Oracle sues Android hours after posing as open source advocate at LinuxCon this week


Oracle’s backstabbing, cutthroat legacy resurfaced last night in grand fashion, no doubt after all its execs flying back from LinuxCon cleared the runway.

Oracle had a huge presence at the Linux conference this week. Wim Coekarts, senior vice president of Linux Engineering at Oracle, delivered one of the first major keynotes at the show. Did he know?

Then, just hours after the three-day conference ended, after Eben Moglen’s somber keynote about more patent litigation, the proprietary software giant violated the biggest no-nos in the open source world and filed a major patent infringement case against Google’s Linux-based Android.
...

Business is business. But really, Larry, sending your guys to LinuxCon?
"


http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/oracle-sues-android-hours-after-posing-as-open-source-advocate-at-linuxcon-this-week/7146?tag=content;selector-blogs

[KiwiNZ]

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/oracle-sues-android-hours-after-posing-as-open-source-advocate-at-linuxcon-this-week/7146?tag=content;selector-blogs

Business is business and if the Open source Sector is going to "play" with big boys they need to get it right and make sure they do not infringe on patents. They will bite you.

Its not hard to avoid, during the development cycle you check that you are not taking other peoples property , its that simple.

[MCVenom]

Business is business and if the Open source Sector is going to "play" with big boys they need to get it right and make sure they do not infringe on patents. They will bite you.

Its not hard to avoid, during the development cycle you check that you are not taking other peoples property , its that simple.
Innocent until proven guilty huh? :P

Google's a big company. They have legal teams and whatnot. I don't think they willfully or ignorantly violated anyone's intellectual property.

[mickie.kext]

What Google did here is same as Microsoft did before. They tried to embrace extend and extinguish Java by making incompatible implementation.

Microsoft did that by ripping off and perverting the code, making it only run on Windows. Google did by writing apache-licensed implementation called Dalvik. At least Google wrote their own stuff. But I never liked Dalvik or Android, so I would be nice if this suit makes Google use standard OpenJDK. That, along with non-standard Linux kernel, is what put me off developing for Android (and developing for mobile phones altogether).

Important to mention, OpenJDK is not affected by this, OpenJDK remains GPL and Oracle can't possibly sue anyone over OpenJDK because GPL gives implicit patent license which is more than enough for free use, redistribution, modification, selling... everything that GPL permits. They could try to sue, but they would fail miserably because precedents are set during GPL enforcement which support following claim: You can't sue users of GPL'd code if you are the one who open sourced it or distributed it yourself. GPL'd OpenJDK is irrevocable.

Only non-GPL implementations are affected, that includes Apache Harmony, Google's Dalvik, and Eclipse's implementation (forgot the name). But I doubt they will go after Eclipse since they are compatible. Apache Harmony and Dalvik will probably be killed since they have gift-like licenses and Oracle don't like those.

As for Mono boosters: Oracle is suing incompatible copy (ripoff) of Java. Mono is also incompatible ripoff of Java by being ripoff of .NET which is ripoff of Java. So I wouldn't paint this as success for Mono if I were you. It puts Mono in even worse position. It could be next.

OpenJDK is safe, though.

[MCVenom]

What Google did here is same as Microsoft did before. They tried to embrace extend and extinguish Java by making incompatible implementation.

Microsoft did that by ripping off and perverting the code, making it only run on Windows. Google did by writing apache-licensed implementation called Dalvik. At least Google wrote their own stuff. But I never liked Dalvik or Android, so I would be nice if this suit makes Google use standard OpenJDK. That, along with non-standard Linux kernel, is what put me off developing for Android (and developing for mobile phones altogether).

Important to mention, OpenJDK is not affected by this, OpenJDK remains GPL and Oracle can't possibly sue anyone over OpenJDK because GPL gives implicit patent license which is more than enough for free use, redistribution, modification, selling... everything that GPL permits. They could try to sue, but they would fail miserably because precedents are set during GPL enforcement which support following claim: You can't sue users of GPL'd code if you are the one who open sourced it or distributed it yourself. GPL'd OpenJDK is irrevocable.

Only non-GPL implementations are affected, that includes Apache Harmony, Google's Dalvik, and Eclipse's implementation (forgot the name). But I doubt they will go after Eclipse since they are compatible. Apache Harmony and Dalvik will probably be killed since they have gift-like licenses and Oracle don't like those.

As for Mono boosters: Oracle is suing incompatible copy (ripoff) of Java. Mono is also incompatible ripoff of Java by being ripoff of .NET which is ripoff of Java. So I wouldn't paint this as success for Mono if I were you. It puts Mono in even worse position. It could be next.

OpenJDK is safe, though.
The only reason Google uses a non-standard kernel, IIRC, is because the Linux folks forked Android's stuff out. They didn't have a choice, thank you very much. :|

[RiceMonster]

The only reason Google uses a non-standard kernel, IIRC, is because the Linux folks forked Android's stuff out. They didn't have a choice, thank you very much. :|

Actually, the Android code in the official kernel tree was removed because Google had stoped developing it, and was doing all their Android specific code independantly.

[KiwiNZ]

Innocent until proven guilty huh? :P

Google's a big company. They have legal teams and whatnot. I don't think they willfully or ignorantly violated anyone's intellectual property.

Google have been pushing their luck of late in several areas , EG street view, Books to name a couple off my head

[KiwiNZ]

The only reason Google uses a non-standard kernel, IIRC, is because the Linux folks forked Android's stuff out. They didn't have a choice, thank you very much. :|

Bah!!! Give me iOS 4.0.1 any day :D :P




Sorry could not resist


Damm that dark side

[MCVenom]

Actually, the Android code in the official kernel tree was removed because Google had stoped developing it, and was doing all their Android specific code independantly.
Ahh, thanks. I stand corrected.

[MCVenom]

Bah!!! Give me iOS 4.0.1 any day :D :P




Sorry could not resist


Damm that dark side
:eek:

[KiwiNZ]

Android phones are as about as common as Rocking Horse droppings here in New Zealand.

I would love to give one a whirl but can't get them. The local carriers are all out.

[murderslastcrow]

Yeah, only recently did Android merge back into the main tree. Or maybe it's still in transition?

But yeah, I really do wish Sun's values and business sense didn't have to go into this direction. Good thing it's open source, so we can still control it, but it just goes to show that there is certain ownership and unspoken rights over code. Just like in Cathedral and the Bazaar, it may be open, but there are 'maintainers'. And Oracle is the new maintainer for this stuff, behind the scenes.

I think just the fact that they're red, instead of blue, is a huge deterrent. XD But seriously, it's better than Sun getting bought out by Microsoft. :D

[mickie.kext]

The only reason Google uses a non-standard kernel, IIRC, is because the Linux folks forked Android's stuff out. They didn't have a choice, thank you very much. :|

No. Google didn't approach community before it was to late. They just forked kernel and made aggressive changes which caused breakage. Then Android got removed from the kernel because it couldn't possibly work without breaking whole heck of x86 functionality.

If they started the thread on lkml first to say what they are trying to achieve, somebody would come out with an idea how to achieve that without breakage. Whole that mess could be avoided and android development would even cost them less. But no, they just forked the kernel secretly.

Now, I heard Di Bona saying that they will look for ways to merge back, but it will take couple of years.

[gnomeuser]

Yeah, only recently did Android merge back into the main tree. Or maybe it's still in transition?


It was merged into Staging but was removed due to lack of development. There have been several attempts at merging Androids wakelocks (which became suspend blockers) but this has also not managed to get pass review.

There is though now some effort in documenting the exact issues and coming up with a solution that satisfies everyone.

[mickie.kext]

Yeah, only recently did Android merge back into the main tree. Or maybe it's still in transition?

No, I think they just slipped new implementation of wake locks, but curent android still uses old one. And it is unclear if they will even use this new one they are pushing in the mainline now.

[Ric_NYC]

BTW:


DEVIANT GOOGLE ANDROID PROBES LINUX KERNEL RE-ENTRY

Google's Android has won partial re-admission to the Linux kernel, but much work lies ahead for a full re-entry.

Code written by Linux kernel maintainer Rafael Wysocki has been adopted in the kernel tree that re-implements Android's wake locks feature — to stop a device from completely shutting down — in what has been called a "socially acceptable way".

Wysocki's was one of three options that kernel maintainers had given Google to get Android's code re-admitted to the kernel tree. It sounds like Google has picked Wysocki's re-implementation of its APIs instead of going with the other two.
(The Register - August 10th, 2010)

[mickie.kext]

Business is business and if the Open source Sector is going to "play" with big boys they need to get it right and make sure they do not infringe on patents. They will bite you.

Its not hard to avoid, during the development cycle you check that you are not taking other peoples property , its that simple.

Wow...

Have you ever developed software? Did you even remotely know how patents work? What you said doesn't make ANY sense. Unless if I failed to detect sarcasm...

[KiwiNZ]

Wow...

Have you ever developed software? Did you even remotely know how patents work? What you said doesn't make ANY sense. Unless if I failed to detect sarcasm...

Yes

I was going to put Sarcasm in 52pt but that would have been obvious

Maybe I should have . I forgot the lowest possible denominator.

Now CAN IT

[murderslastcrow]

I went through Oracle's splash screens in the file system just to change the colors to something more monochrome in GIMP. Is that odd?

[MasterNetra]

First of all, this isn't a precedent, legal or otherwise.
Second, Wine has existed for more then 17 years now. Microsoft barely acknowledged it exists. They have never threatened them in anyway. Your theory doesn't hold since, again, Oracle and Microsoft are two different companies that behave differently when patents and FOSS are in question. You can read more about that here: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/08/microsofts-use-of-patents.html

Of course they haven't threaten wine, because wine isn't currently a threat to them. When wine's compatibility is such that you can run pretty much any app or game through it with little to no problems and its just as easy as installing it in a Windows OS, then it becomes a threat to MS and you'll most likely see them making moves against wine and/or threatening them. After all if you can run all your apps through it on a free and more secure OS why would people want to purchase a Windows OS? As it stands though, wine is far inferior to windows when it comes to running window's based software. So MS isn't concerned atm.

[zekopeko]

What Google did here is same as Microsoft did before. They tried to embrace extend and extinguish Java by making incompatible implementation.

Microsoft did that by ripping off and perverting the code, making it only run on Windows. Google did by writing apache-licensed implementation called Dalvik. At least Google wrote their own stuff. But I never liked Dalvik or Android, so I would be nice if this suit makes Google use standard OpenJDK. That, along with non-standard Linux kernel, is what put me off developing for Android (and developing for mobile phones altogether).

Important to mention, OpenJDK is not affected by this, OpenJDK remains GPL and Oracle can't possibly sue anyone over OpenJDK because GPL gives implicit patent license which is more than enough for free use, redistribution, modification, selling... everything that GPL permits. They could try to sue, but they would fail miserably because precedents are set during GPL enforcement which support following claim: You can't sue users of GPL'd code if you are the one who open sourced it or distributed it yourself. GPL'd OpenJDK is irrevocable.

Only non-GPL implementations are affected, that includes Apache Harmony, Google's Dalvik, and Eclipse's implementation (forgot the name). But I doubt they will go after Eclipse since they are compatible. Apache Harmony and Dalvik will probably be killed since they have gift-like licenses and Oracle don't like those.

So you are basically saying, as a great supporter of Free Software that you are, that it's OK to attack Free Software projects with patents.

BTW The patent grant apparently doesn't apply to the mobile space, only to desktop and server so it looks like OpenJDK can't be used in phones unless you get a patent licence from Oracle.

From: http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Oracle-sues-Google-over-Android-1058333.html

The patents relate to the implementation of virtual machines, tools and compilers. Although Sun open sourced Java in the form of OpenJDK, under a GPL2 licence, it only assured companies that produced fully compatible Java that it would not use its patent portfolio against them and even then limited that promise to desktop and server implementations, retaining licensing rights for mobile devices.


As for Mono boosters: Oracle is suing incompatible copy (ripoff) of Java. Mono is also incompatible ripoff of Java by being ripoff of .NET which is ripoff of Java. So I wouldn't paint this as success for Mono if I were you. It puts Mono in even worse position. It could be next.

OpenJDK is safe, though.

Don't worry. Oracle only wants money. That's why they are suing Google. To force them into licencing Java from them. Mono is completely uninteresting for them. Microsoft is safe because of the Sun-MS deal from 2004.
What is nice about this lawsuit is that Oracle showed the patents so Mono can know look at them. de Icaza has already said two don't apply. Your scenario is highly unlikely.

Cheers.

[zekopeko]

Of course they haven't threaten wine, because wine isn't currently a threat to them. When wine's compatibility is such that you can run pretty much any app or game through it with little to no problems and its just as easy as installing it in a Windows OS, then it becomes a threat to MS and you'll most likely see them making moves against wine and/or threatening them. After all if you can run all your apps through it on a free and more secure OS why would people want to purchase a Windows OS? As it stands though, wine is far inferior to windows when it comes to running window's based software. So MS isn't concerned atm.

With the speed Wine is improving and Windows changing Wine will never reach that point.

[juancarlospaco]

Is not java Open Source?, what license it uses?

[Johnsie]

I don't see why someone would patent an open source product. It just doesn't make sense to open source something and then say you cant copy it.

[murderslastcrow]

Java's too integrated in every space of computing to be screwed with now. Seriously, why else would something like jython exist? I really hope people start realizing more fully the absurdity of these patents, so we can keep it from coming to this.

Seriously, we share the source. We shouldn't be fighting over something that we have joint ownership over. However, it seems patents have retarded the processes we've created to protect ourselves from this idiocy.

[juancarlospaco]

There are more Java VM too, even Microsoft has their own Java VM.

[Chronon]

Business is business and if the Open source Sector is going to "play" with big boys they need to get it right and make sure they do not infringe on patents. They will bite you.

Its not hard to avoid, during the development cycle you check that you are not taking other peoples property , its that simple.
That may apply in this case, but it isn't that simple in general. You may develop something in complete isolation using no information from any outside source and still unknowingly infringe on a patent. How many salaries are you willing to pay to comb patent archives for possible overlap (however vague it may be) with your products/inventions?

[earthpigg]

That may apply in this case, but it isn't that simple in general. You may develop something in complete isolation using no information from any outside source and still unknowingly infringe on a patent. How many salaries are you willing to pay to comb patent archives for possible overlap (however vague it may be) with your products/inventions?

he agrees with you, he was being sarcastic/satirical.

pretty sure everyone here shares the opinion that you just expressed.

[Dr. C]

Miguel de Icaza's web log (http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2010/Aug-13.html) has a very interesting perspective on this. This lawsuit is not an attack on FLOSS by Oracle, quit the contrary. Java was released under the GPL v2 and is also available under a proprietary license from Oracle by paying the appropriate license fee,

If Google has effectively turned Java into an Apache license then the FLOSS argument including any implicit patent grants in GPL v2 is gone. Furthermore Google would also be left with the choice of infringing the GPL or a propriety license. The question becomes why is litigation on Oracle's part is this situation in an attack on FLOSS?

Here is another thought Why Google chose the Apache Software License over GPLv2 for Android (http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/11/why-google-chose-the-apache-software-license-over-gplv2.ars)

[alexfish]

looks like they are after any language that can access and control oracle

but I can understand their stance if something is free and open source if say the likes of Microsoft used the FOS version to make money then there would be a need to look at the legalities of Foss under the terms of the licence . to me I hope it is only a message , sun is probably better in the hands of Oracle than some I could mention.

But also came up with this on a search
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/01/javascript-gtk-bindings.ars

[KiwiNZ]

Advice to anyone wishing to start up a software development company. You need to hire the following.....

3 Developers
1 Accountant
23 Lawyers
1 writer for manuals
7,345 writers to create acronyms
24 Bloggers
25,000 Patent Specialists

[MooPi]

I'd like to sum up this mess. A Troll(Oracle) pisses on a Giants (Google) boots to see if the other will flinch. The perfect end to this story is when the Troll gets its head bashed and the Giant steals the boots off the Troll :-)

[oobuntoo]

Oracle is the new SCO. It shall be known from now on as SCOracle :lol:

[Dr. C]

Oracle is the new SCO. It shall be known from now on as SCOracle :lol:

For enforcing the GPL?

[oobuntoo]

For enforcing the GPL?

For being patent troll.
I don't believe for a second that they are using to uphold GPL. It's pure greed.

[murderslastcrow]

I think both these companies are aware of what's at stake for consumers if they make a wrong move. I don't think either of them would risk anything too heavy, as it would effect their user bases directly and powerfully.

Be careful not to criminalize anyone unduly- when you assume someone's a bad guy, they're more likely to act like one.

[Delvien]

Life would be better without patents, but then lawyers would be out of jobs.

[JDShu]

Life would be better without patents, but then lawyers would be out of jobs.

You really think so? :P

[phrostbyte]

Life would be better without patents, lawyers would be out of jobs.

Fix'ed.

[koenn]

I don't see why someone would patent an open source product. It just doesn't make sense to open source something and then say you cant copy it.

Java wasn't always open source; the patents date back from before Sun made Java open source, but they are still valid, so Sun issued a patent grant on the Java specification - i.e. a permission to use patented technology.



This patent grant only covers fully conformant implementations of the
Java specification.

Also, Java is many things (a language, a specification, a virtual machine, a development toolkit, a collection of runtime libraries, ...) - it all depends on wat ecactly was open sourced, and what is coverd by patents, etc. It's complicatied.

Google's Java in Darvik is supposedly not fully compliant with this spec, and/or uses Java Mobile Edition or so, so the patent grant doesn't apply, so Google infringes on Oracle's patent
- or that's how i read it.

[phrostbyte]

I think this will be bad long term for Java. Google really gained little using Java. They already wrote their own VM. They could have easily used a different language or came up with their own. It was probably a mistake to even consider using Java for Android even if it was totally free.

This will have a chilling effect on anyone who wants to do anything mildly interesting with Java. But then again, Oracle is a boring company that makes boring products they sell to other boring companies. So perhaps they don't really care.

(PS: I'm a professional Java programmer, but I realise that it's not the best language in the world by any stretch.)

[Sslaxx]

I think this will be bad long term for Java. Google really gained little using Java. They could have easily used a different language or came up with their own.
Not heard of Google Go? shudders

[phrostbyte]

Not heard of Google Go? shudders

Well Google Go is an "experimental" language, so it's hard to wrap your head around by design.

Google could have easily made a more familiar language, a language similar to Java but while fixing many of it's warts. People would happily use it, I think. I don't really see why they needed to go with Java.

[Ric_NYC]

Meego (Intel and Nokia) and WebOS (HP) don't use Java I think.

[gnomeuser]

Meego (Intel and Nokia) and WebOS (HP) don't use Java I think.

MeeGo is C++ which is a highly unproductive language for most mobile deployments (cost and speed of development tends to be less economical than Java). Luckily I believe Mono will provide bindings for the official API so one might still be able to use a "proper language"(tm).

WebOS I haven't paid much attention to as it was till HP bought Palm beyond even niche.

[phrostbyte]

MeeGo is C++ which is a highly unproductive language for most mobile deployments (cost and speed of development tends to be less economical than Java).

That's highly debatable really.

[Ric_NYC]

MeeGo is C++ which is a highly unproductive language for most mobile deployments (cost and speed of development tends to be less economical than Java). Luckily I believe Mono will provide bindings for the official API so one might still be able to use a "proper language"(tm).

WebOS I haven't paid much attention to as it was till HP bought Palm beyond even niche.

If they wanted to support .NET they would use the real thing not a version of it.


Just a reminder: Moblin (Meego) using Silverlight instead of Moonlight:

http://www.zdnet.de/business_video_richtungsweisende_ansprachen_video_ microsoft_demonstriert_silverlight_3_unter_moblin_ linux_story-39002024-41503185-1.htm

[Ric_NYC]

Some info:

Meego:

MeeGo is a Linux-based open source mobile operating system project[1] which was announced at Mobile World Congress in February 2010 by Intel and Nokia in a joint press conference. Its aim is to merge the efforts of Intel on Moblin and of Nokia on Maemo into one project. It is hosted by the Linux Foundation.[2]

Core OS

The MeeGo Core operating system is a Linux distribution, drawing on Nokia’s Debian-based Maemo and Intel’s Fedora-based Moblin.[14] MeeGo is one of the first Linux distributions to use the Btrfs file system as default, and uses a YUM, rather than APT, repository.


Software development

The officially endorsed way to develop MeeGo applications is to use the Qt framework and Qt Creator as development environment, but writing GTK applications is also supported.[15]


(Wikipedia)


Meego in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GB-nnFhGKbk

[nrs]

Too lazy to go through the entire thread to see if it's already been posted:
Link: De Icaza: Sun's Schwartz Pitched Google Lawsuit to Oracle (http://www.osnews.com/story/23684/De_Icaza_Sun_s_Schwartz_Pitched_Google_Lawsuit_to_ Oracle)

Miguel De Icaza has provided a very interesting insight into the case. His report has been confirmed by James Gosling, known as the father of Java who left Sun right after the merger. Icaza speculates that the potential to monetise on Java by suing Google was pitched by Jonathan Schwartz during Sun's sales talks with Oracle.

[mickie.kext]

So you are basically saying, as a great supporter of Free Software that you are, that it's OK to attack Free Software projects with patents.

BTW The patent grant apparently doesn't apply to the mobile space, only to desktop and server so it looks like OpenJDK can't be used in phones unless you get a patent licence from Oracle.

From: http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Oracle-sues-Google-over-Android-1058333.html




Don't worry. Oracle only wants money. That's why they are suing Google. To force them into licencing Java from them. Mono is completely uninteresting for them. Microsoft is safe because of the Sun-MS deal from 2004.
What is nice about this lawsuit is that Oracle showed the patents so Mono can know look at them. de Icaza has already said two don't apply. Your scenario is highly unlikely.

Cheers.

First, the thing you quoted apply to proprietary implementations. Like for example IBM j9. Ones that are not under GPL (and Dalvik is in that group too, that is why they are getting sued). GPL doesn't discriminate against fields of endeavor; all derivatives get the patent license. Read the GPL if you don't understand. If google based their implementation on OpenJDK, Oracle suit would be baseless. This way, it could go either way.

As for Mono... Oracle could also want to buy Novell. But fist force them to pay royalties for Mono and reduce value of the company. Novell has some cash in the bank, and they have a history of happily paying royalties (to Microsoft). So why wouldn't Oracle sue Novell? It is easy pickings.

Even if none of those patents don't apply to Mono, do you think that this is all that Oracle has? They bougt BEA (WebLogic was first Java Application server and JRockit is alternate JVM by BEA), they bought Sun, they have their own Java technology. Sun and BEA had lots of Java patents and this is only a chunk. They are not crazy to show everything. I think Mono reads all over Oracle's patents. Not that I would like Mono dead, but I would like Mono advocates to stop lambasting Java and stop claiming this somehow helps their precious Mono.

Cheers.

[MooPi]

From mickie.kext : If google based their implementation on OpenJDK, Oracle suit would be baseless
Lets all hope this is the case.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9180678/Update_Oracle_sues_Google_over_Java_use_in_Android

Info on Dalvik
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalvik_%28software%29

[mickie.kext]

From mickie.kext : If google based their implementation on OpenJDK, Oracle suit would be baseless
Lets all hope this is the case.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9180678/Update_Oracle_sues_Google_over_Java_use_in_Android

Info on Dalvik
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalvik_%28software%29
I don't see how this links relates to what I said... or you are just posting it as an update?

Problem with Dalvik is exactly that is not derived from OpenJDK and that is incompatible with Java. In fact, it is not Java the platform. It is just have same language syntax. It is competitor to Java. It could wipe Java proper from mobile space. And it has Apache license who allows proprietary forks, unlike GPL. That probably desn't sit well with Oracle because they can get proprietary competitor from nowhere that way.

Those are probably things why Oracle is suing.

If it was based on OpenJDK, it would be GPL itself, and GPL license grant would cover it so Oracle couldn't have a case. And since OpenJDK is GPL + claspath exception for stable Java APIs, Google would probably keep exception and those APIs and preserve compatibility. So Oracle probably wouldn't even want to sue because Google's development would pour back in OpenJDK and Google's implementation would not be a competitor to Oracle.

[zekopeko]

First, the thing you quoted apply to proprietary implementations. Like for example IBM j9. Ones that are not under GPL (and Dalvik is in that group too, that is why they are getting sued). GPL doesn't discriminate against fields of endeavor; all derivatives get the patent license. Read the GPL if you don't understand. If google based their implementation on OpenJDK, Oracle suit would be baseless. This way, it could go either way.

You're wrong. OpenJDK is under GPLv2 with Classpath exception. GPLv2 doesn't have a patent grant like GPLv3 does. Ooopsss!


As for Mono... Oracle could also want to buy Novell. But fist force them to pay royalties for Mono and reduce value of the company. Novell has some cash in the bank, and they have a history of happily paying royalties (to Microsoft). So why wouldn't Oracle sue Novell? It is easy pickings.

Even if none of those patents don't apply to Mono, do you think that this is all that Oracle has? They bougt BEA (WebLogic was first Java Application server and JRockit is alternate JVM by BEA), they bought Sun, they have their own Java technology. Sun and BEA had lots of Java patents and this is only a chunk. They are not crazy to show everything. I think Mono reads all over Oracle's patents. Not that I would like Mono dead, but I would like Mono advocates to stop lambasting Java and stop claiming this somehow helps their precious Mono.

Sure it helps Mono. It paints a nice irony for everyone that said Java was safe and people should use that instead of Java. It's even funnier that there are more legal protection in place for Mono then there are for Java from their respective creators as this lawsuit shows.

Second of all you are ignoring why Oracle sued Google. Java licencing was a very profitable business back in the good old days of Sun, up to a billion US a year. But that declined to a few hundred million by the time Oracle bought Sun. Oracle was gunning for Google from the start of the Sun acquisition, for the simple fact of getting piece of the Android pie.

Mono isn't even in Oracle's sights. Even if Oracle sued Mono Novell has some pretty nasty XML patents that could make a bigger dent in Oracle then vise versa. That is if those mysterious patents you claim (without any proof I might add) exist against Mono and Oracle has them.

[Dr. C]

For being patent troll.
I don't believe for a second that they are using to uphold GPL. It's pure greed.

If Google had released Android under GPL v2 I would agree with this but they did not. They released Android under the Apache license. Why to get around the GPL v2 copyleft. So who is the real anti FLOSS culprit here?


You're wrong. OpenJDK is under GPLv2 with Classpath exception. GPLv2 doesn't have a patent grant like GPLv3 does. Ooopsss!


I would leave this to the lawyers. There is a very good case that GPL v2 has an implicit patent grant. http://robertogaloppini.net/2007/03/29/open-source-licensing-and-patents-gplv2-has-already-adressed-the-issue/

Oracle's position is actually very reasonable. Put up with the GPL v2 copyleft or pay up if you want propriety stuff such as digital restrictions management. And yes they are using software patents to enforce this.

[zekopeko]

If Google had released Android under GPL v2 I would agree with this but they did not. They released Android under the Apache license. Why to get around the GPL v2 copyleft. So who is the real anti FLOSS culprit here?

Contrary to your belief, the GPL isn't the only FOSS licence out there. Apache 2 is FOSS licence.
If Google released Android under GPLv2 you would never see Android succeed. They did it specifically so phone manufactures could use it as they see fit.



I would leave this to the lawyers. There is a very good case that GPL v2 has an implicit patent grant. http://robertogaloppini.net/2007/03/29/open-source-licensing-and-patents-gplv2-has-already-adressed-the-issue/

Oracle's position is actually very reasonable. Put up with the GPL v2 copyleft or pay up if you want propriety stuff such as digital restrictions management. And yes they are using software patents to enforce this.

I disagree. I think that the case is weaker then you think. Sun specifically reserved the right to grant a separate patent grant.

You also might read up on Android. It didn't derive any code from the OpenJDK project. They used code from Apache 2 Harmony project.

What you are implying with your statements is that the GPL is the only FOSS licence and that it's OK to attack FOSS projects.

[neu5eeCh]

yes. with it, they also got OpenOffice and MySQL as i understand it.

Oracle did *not* "get" Openoffice. If they stopped contributing to OO tomorrow, any other company could pick up where they left off and already have.

The more I read about this spat, the more irrelevant it seems (to any but Android developers). Unless there's $$ in it, Oracle doesn't give a rat's behind about the open source community. Google could give less of a rat's behind. Sure, they're using Linux, but it's a means to an end and if they find a better means, they'll use it.

The notion that the Oracle/Google slug fest will benefit MS is a big yawn.

Another possibility is that it will dawn on any and all companies that the only way to avoid these massive slug fests is to use open source software. No patents. No lawsuits.

Google is not your friend. If Oracle takes them down, so be it. It doesn't concern the desktop linux crowd. They'll just keep plugging along.

[zekopeko]

Another possibility is that it will dawn on any and all companies that the only way to avoid these massive slug fests is to use open source software. No patents. No lawsuits.

I don't think you know how patents work.

[Dr. C]

Contrary to your belief, the GPL isn't the only FOSS licence out there. Apache 2 is FOSS licence.
If Google released Android under GPLv2 you would never see Android succeed. They did it specifically so phone manufactures could use it as they see fit.



I disagree. I think that the case is weaker then you think. Sun specifically reserved their right to grant a separate patent grant.

You also might read up on Android. It didn't derive any code from the OpenJDK project. They used code from Apache 2 Harmony project.

What you are implying with your statements is that the GPL is the only FOSS licence and that it's OK to attack FOSS projects.

I am well aware the Apache license is FLOSS and that the GPL is not the only FLOSS license; but the Apache license is not copyleft. If you replace existing GPL code with Apache code the motivation in most cases is to add malicious features such as DRM using propriety software. The result is that the phone manufacturers can cripple Android phones to please the telcos and the RIAA / MPAA much easier with Apache than with GPL v2.

The practical impact of the Oracle lawsuit is for the most part that Oracle is seeking royalties on the malicious features as opposed to the underlying FLOSS since Google could avoid paying by licensing the existing GPL code.

[neu5eeCh]

I don't think you know how patents work.

That's possible.

But this is what I had in mind: http://opensource.com/law/10/5/total-victory-patent-lawsuit-against-open-source-software

[MooPi]

We should all fear the borg, I mean Oracle "OOPS" did I just put that to print. Really Oracle is by far much larger more demonstrative thug of a computer/software corporation. And we all thought Microsoft was evil. We only needed to hold our breaths until the real Beelzebub stood up. I can't imagine why Oracle would like to shake the tree so hard by going after Google. I like these article and blogs:
http://infoworld.com/t/other-operating-systems/oracles-borg-assimilation-sun-nears-completion-930

http://infoworld.com/t/languages-and-standards/oracle-launches-scorched-earth-fight-profit-java-875

I would really like to see this end with Google winning and Oracle bruised and battered whimpering away to the shadows to groveling "We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us. Sneaky little hobbitses. Wicked, tricksy, false! "

[zekopeko]

I am well aware the Apache license is FLOSS and that the GPL is not the only FLOSS license; but the Apache license is not copyleft. If you replace existing GPL code with Apache code the motivation in most cases is to add malicious features such as DRM using propriety software. The result is that the phone manufacturers can cripple Android phones to please the telcos and the RIAA / MPAA much easier with Apache than with GPL v2.

And if it was GPL the telcos and RIAA wouldn't touch it.


The practical impact of the Oracle lawsuit is for the most part that Oracle is seeking royalties on the malicious features as opposed to the underlying FLOSS

This is total BS. Oracle isn't seeking royalties for "malicious" features but for the Dalvik VM. It would be like somebody suing GCC. So at least get your facts straight.


since Google could avoid paying by licensing the existing GPL code.

Amazing. You are now saying that for somebody to develop free software they have to get a license from Oracle. That is so NOT in the spirit of FOSS.
The whole problem is that Oracle doesn't like Google taking Java and creating something different with it. If you can't modify software freely then it's not FOSS.

[zekopeko]

That's possible.

But this is what I had in mind: http://opensource.com/law/10/5/total-victory-patent-lawsuit-against-open-source-software

That was a single case about patents and FOSS. It's nothing ground breaking.

[Austin25]

Linus might be able to sue Google because they are calling it their OS. GPL says give credit.
I may be wrong, I'm not a lawyer.

[neu5eeCh]

I can't believe all the hand-wringing over Google. Just last week, after their proposal to carve up the Internet, they were the evil empire. There were folks on this mailing list who were going to delete all their Google software. Now it feels like most of what I read is: poor, poor, poor little Google getting beat up by nasty ol' Oracle.

Well... I hope they knock each other's teeth out. Pass me the popcorn.

[GMU_DodgyHodgy]

Oracle's footing on this is very weak. They are trying to wring out some quick money from a recent acquisition. Google is very large and will not give up lightly.

If they go after Google on these terms then they will have to tackle IBM which as a lot based on Java - and if they do they will find someone who is equal or better at using lawyers to fight.

I give 60-40 odds in favor of Google and a smack down on Oracle.

They should put this much effort into making their products better.

[KiwiNZ]

Oracle's footing on this is very weak. They are trying to wring out some quick money from a recent acquisition. Google is very large and will not give up lightly.

If they go after Google on these terms then they will have to tackle IBM which as a lot based on Java - and if they do they will find someone who is equal or better at using lawyers to fight.

I give 60-40 odds in favor of Google and a smack down on Oracle.

They should put this much effort into making their products better.

What legal knowledge do you base this finding on?. Have you read the respective briefs and submissions of both parties? And examine fully the code in question?

[MooPi]

I hear 85% of all statistic are made up ?! :-) Same goes for opinions :):) In fact everything I just said was made up. I still hope Oracles gets screwed 100%.

[Dr. C]

And if it was GPL the telcos and RIAA wouldn't touch it. They would not have much choice. The Nokia n900 is a perfect example. That is the power of FLOSS with a copyleft



This is total BS. Oracle isn't seeking royalties for "malicious" features but for the Dalvik VM. It would be like somebody suing GCC. So at least get your facts straight. It is more like someone does a "clean room" implementation of GCC and then releases it under the Apache licensee in order to allow for malicious features not permitted under the GPL copyleft.


Amazing. You are now saying that for somebody to develop free software they have to get a license from Oracle. That is so NOT in the spirit of FOSS.
The whole problem is that Oracle doesn't like Google taking Java and creating something different with it. If you can't modify software freely then it's not FOSS.

Of course one needs a license from Oracle to develop with Java. One has the choice of the GPL V2 as the license completely in the spirit of FLOSS. It is for the malicious features that are incompatible with the GPL copyleft that a proprietary license is required not for FLOSS development .

[zekopeko]

They would not have much choice. The Nokia n900 is a perfect example. That is the power of FLOSS with a copyleft

My point was that the liberal licence allowed Android to be embraced by the phone manufactures.


It is more like someone does a "clean room" implementation of GCC and then releases it under the Apache licensee in order to allow for malicious features not permitted under the GPL copyleft.

And that is fully OK. They didn't take GPL code and turned it to an Apache 2 licence (which they couldn't do anyway). The GPL doesn't apply in this case. The Dalvik VM is fully FOSS. It just isn't under a copy-left licence.

Plenty of FOSS projects did a "clean room" implementation of a proprietary project. So if/when those projects get sued I'm expecting you to fully support the proprietary company because they are defending their code/licence from the evil FOSS developers.


Of course one needs a license from Oracle to develop with Java. One has the choice of the GPL V2 as the license completely in the spirit of FLOSS. It is for the malicious features that are incompatible with the GPL copyleft that a proprietary license is required not for FLOSS development .

It's pretty obvious you are simply spouting nonsense at this point and not thinking about implications of such a lawsuit.

Lets say I take the GPL Java code and play with it, modify it etc. to create BetterJavaClone. It is still under the GPL (my BetterJavaClone) but since it doesn't conform to the Java specification of Oracle they sue me. So they just sued me for using GPL code, in effect denying me the freedom of modifying it to suit my needs.

You keep talking about these "malicious" features and how bad they are ,while ignoring the elephant in the room: Java is no longer free software since you can't do anything with it that Oracle doesn't bless. That is against one of the core principles of FOSS.

It's sad if you still think that Oracle is the GPL champion of freedom here. That is what they are selling to people that think the GPL is the-one-true-FOSS-licence. They want money from Google and they don't care about the GPL.

[AllRadioisDead]

Linus might be able to sue Google because they are calling it their OS. GPL says give credit.
I may be wrong, I'm not a lawyer.
Didn't Google fork the kernel?

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Didn't Google fork the kernel?

Everyone who does anything with the kernel maintains their own branch (sometimes derived from Linus's, sometimes with no changes, sometimes with LOTS of changes). Besides, that has nothing to do with this Oracle thingy.

[murderslastcrow]

When will Java be Public Domain? *wishful thinking* I almost feel like Oracle would be a better company as parts than a sum of those parts. I think there are a lot of people within the company with differing motives. If everyone were able to work with and on the same technology, but as separate entities, I think the people within Oracle would be more successful and happy.

I guess it's always been sort of inevitable for open source companies to start using software patents themselves. It just seems like it will re-enforce the dark side of this, rather than alleviate it.

[phrostbyte]

I can't believe all the hand-wringing over Google. Just last week, after their proposal to carve up the Internet, they were the evil empire. There were folks on this mailing list who were going to delete all their Google software. Now it feels like most of what I read is: poor, poor, poor little Google getting beat up by nasty ol' Oracle.

Well... I hope they knock each other's teeth out. Pass me the popcorn.

You have a very good point. And I think I know what this is.

I think it's just that Google is better at inspiring people (ie: they are better at PR).

Oracle is seriously a boring company that writes LoB apps. The Innoteck of software companies. They lack any ideology, any reason to exist except to make money writing boring LoB.

As far as who is better to open source overall, I'm not 100% sure. Oracle DOES contribute to the Linux kernel. Oracle has a history of contributing to FOSS. They are not anti-FOSS. Ellison often defends FOSS.

On the other hand Google has a ton of FOSS projects, including Android and Chromium. Google is also a proponent of FOSS development.

Both companies make their living writing proprietary software, however. :) They just don't feel threatened by FOSS, or they even say that in many cases it helps them make more money.

So who to root for? I'm really not sure.

[KiwiNZ]

You have a very good point. And I think I know what this is.

I think it's just that Google is better at inspiring people (ie: they are better at PR).

Oracle is seriously a boring company that writes LoB apps. The Innoteck of software companies. They lack any ideology, any reason to exist except to make money writing boring LoB.

As far as who is better to open source overall, I'm not 100% sure. Oracle DOES contribute to the Linux kernel. Oracle has a history of contributing to FOSS. They are not anti-FOSS. Ellison often defends FOSS.

On the other hand Google has a ton of FOSS projects, including Android and Chromium. Google is also a proponent of FOSS development.

Both companies make their living writing proprietary software, however. :) They just don't feel threatened by FOSS, or they even say that in many cases it helps them make more money.

So who to root for? I'm really not sure.

Unless you are a Partner,employee or a larger Stock holder I see no point "rooting" for any side.

It always amuses me when these cases come up as they do every year and we see these threads and the inevitable post that goes like ...

I really hate company A I hope die for doing this and the post has no relationship to company A

[Dr. C]

My point was that the liberal licence allowed Android to be embraced by the phone manufactures.

One has to ask the question. Why is the GPL so abhorrent to the phone manufactures?



And that is fully OK. They didn't take GPL code and turned it to an Apache 2 licence (which they couldn't do anyway). The GPL doesn't apply in this case. The Dalvik VM is fully FOSS. It just isn't under a copy-left licence.

Plenty of FOSS projects did a "clean room" implementation of a proprietary project. So if/when those projects get sued I'm expecting you to fully support the proprietary company because they are defending their code/licence from the evil FOSS developers.

The reason a "clean room" implementation of a propriety project works is that by its very nature very few people have access to the propriety software source code so one can prove the room is actually clean. But how on earth can you show the room is clean on a "clean room" implementation of another FLOSS project where the source code is available for anyone to download from the Internet. Let's keep in mind that Oracle is also suing for copyright infringement.


It's pretty obvious you are simply spouting nonsense at this point and not thinking about implications of such a lawsuit.

Lets say I take the GPL Java code and play with it, modify it etc. to create BetterJavaClone. It is still under the GPL (my BetterJavaClone) but since it doesn't conform to the Java specification of Oracle they sue me. So they just sued me for using GPL code, in effect denying me the freedom of modifying it to suit my needs.

You keep talking about these "malicious" features and how bad they are ,while ignoring the elephant in the room: Java is no longer free software since you can't do anything with it that Oracle doesn't bless. That is against one of the core principles of FOSS.

It's sad if you still think that Oracle is the GPL champion of freedom here. That is what they are selling to people that think the GPL is the-one-true-FOSS-licence. They want money from Google and they don't care about the GPL.

If Oracle actually sued someone over a GPL implementation of GPL code they had obtained from Oracle then you would have a very valid point. But this is not the case here.

What is really sad is how many people actually think that Android actually delivers the Four Freedoms of Free Software to the end users as opposed to the phone companies.

[zekopeko]

One has to ask the question. Why is the GPL so abhorrent to the phone manufactures?

For a very simple reason. If the stack was entirely GPL they can't differentiate their products from one another. They are essential the same. Not a very good way to compete.



The reason a "clean room" implementation of a propriety project works is that by its very nature very few people have access to the propriety software source code so one can prove the room is actually clean. But how on earth can you show the room is clean on a "clean room" implementation of another FLOSS project where the source code is available for anyone to download from the Internet. Let's keep in mind that Oracle is also suing for copyright infringement.

Sure it can. Just hire people that never looked at the code for the VM, give them the Java spec and let them loose. Google does have a fair number of ex-Java developers OTOH. But in the end the infringement will have to be determined by the court.


If Oracle actually sued someone over a GPL implementation of GPL code they had obtained from Oracle then you would have a very valid point. But this is not the case here.

Oracle attacked a free implementation of a language that is supposedly free. It isn't. You can go all day on your little licence crusade but the gist of the matter is that Oracle doesn't want people changing Java if they can't charge for it. That is the opposite of freedom you keep saying the GPL version has.



What is really sad is how many people actually think that Android actually delivers the Four Freedoms of Free Software to the end users as opposed to the phone companies.

Sure it does. It's FOSS. Not your type maybe but good enough for the rest of us.

[Legendary_Bibo]

I went through Oracle's splash screens in the file system just to change the colors to something more monochrome in GIMP. Is that odd?

No. :D

[MooPi]

Unless you are a Partner,employee or a larger Stock holder I see no point "rooting" for any side.

It always amuses me when these cases come up as they do every year and we see these threads and the inevitable post that goes like ...

I really hate company A I hope die for doing this and the post has no relationship to company A


I have no relations with Google other than I use their services. I consider that enough to root for Google. The Oracle demeanor irks me as well Mr. Ellisons attitude, just my opinion. Actually this is how everyone reacts to outside stimilous unless your completely stoic.

[Sslaxx]

I'm more interested in if the lawsuit might have any wider repercussions outside of Android...

[ender4]

That would probably make sense if Oracle and Microsoft were the same company. But since they aren't it has little to do with this.

It absolutely does have to do with this. The United States judicial system is based on precedent. If Oracle sues Google and Wins, then that creates a precedent that would enable Microsoft to sue Wine.

[zekopeko]

It absolutely does have to do with this. The United States judicial system is based on precedent. If Oracle sues Google and Wins, then that creates a precedent that would enable Microsoft to sue Wine.


Do you even know what you are talking about? Not every case that comes before the court results in a precedent. It has to be issued from a higher court for one.

So stop talking non-sense. Microsoft can sue Wine any time it wants.

[phrostbyte]

It absolutely does have to do with this. The United States judicial system is based on precedent. If Oracle sues Google and Wins, then that creates a precedent that would enable Microsoft to sue Wine.

It would be a little harder to sue Wine and win because of the doctrine of laches.

[Nick_Jinn]

Do you even know what you are talking about? Not every case that comes before the court results in a precedent. It has to be issued from a higher court for one.

So stop talking non-sense. Microsoft can sue Wine any time it wants.


They may or may not win.

Precedent is a huge matter in law. Previous rulings have a big effect on future rulings, though there are ways to work around previous rulings depending on the logic behind your argument.

[phrostbyte]

Unless you are a Partner,employee or a larger Stock holder I see no point "rooting" for any side.

It always amuses me when these cases come up as they do every year and we see these threads and the inevitable post that goes like ...

I really hate company A I hope die for doing this and the post has no relationship to company A


I always root for whatever will be better for technology and FOSS. :)

[KiwiNZ]

I always root for whatever will be better for technology and FOSS. :)

wasted energy as someone will always step up and fill the void.

Tilt at the Windmills you can reach.

[Nick_Jinn]

Sometimes the common people are able to overcome the really powerful and wealthy. Sometimes just spreading an opinion can have a butterfly effect. Something as simple as voicing disgust for Walmart, if enough people do it, can become contagious and result in slowing their expansion. Public opinion can be swayed by people talking.

Nothing is too big to be tackled when people work together.


I also think its fine to have an opinion regardless of expectations of having a tangible result. Just not liking something is a fair enough reason to talk about it, and you dont have to justify it by proving your words will be effective in the big scheme of things.

[KiwiNZ]

Oracle suing Google over Android is just not something to get emotionally involved with. The affect on the average person will be negligible.

The same with RIM suing Apple

Nokia Suing Motorola

Maybe if Oracle wins Google may have to look towards Microsoft solutions , Silverlight etc , but their devices will still be there and the consumer will still have their toys.

At the end of it all Corporations slugging it out rarely affects you and me.

[phrostbyte]

wasted energy as someone will always step up and fill the void.

Tilt at the Windmills you can reach.

I find your lack of faith disturbing. :)

[Nick_Jinn]

Its hard to say how much impact it could have. Nothing exists in a vacuum. Something as simple as a court battle could directly or indirectly have a lot of unforeseen consequences. It could foreseeably set a precedent for other similar projects and getting sued, and there are a lot of developers here. Also, some people might just not like Oracle for dropping their community development model and moving in a more proprietary direction. There are perfectly valid reasons for taking sides, not that opinions should have to be validated.

[KiwiNZ]

I find your lack of faith disturbing. :)

The Dark side, faith is what I decide. :evil:

[toupeiro]

How is this circumstance any different from the GNU project completely rewriting UNIX tools from the ground up to perform the very same actions?! Last I checked, java must still be executed, it not completely self-sustained, it still needs a kernel, just like GNU did... It sounds like google recreated java using completely unique code.. They didn't take anything. This is a slippery slope in my opinion. If Oracle feels they have ground here, and they win, that potentially sets a precedent for GNU/Linux to be targetted.

[the yawner]

I almost feel like Oracle would be a better company as parts than a sum of those parts.
I heard a certain Mr. Cobb might be able to help you. ;)

Anyway, I see the most probable route this issue could take is an out of court settlement/licensing agreement.

[Chame_Wizard]

Let's see what Oracle really wants.:popcorn:

[regala]

Doesn't make much sense to me, last time I checked Java and Android are both open source software.

Wouldn't that be like Debian suing Canonical?

not at all. there are patents that Google knowingly infringes in Dalvik, the micro jvm they developed for Android, to get rid of Sun Java Micro Edition which would have prevented them to free in extenso Android. Maybe Google just did not care because Sun promised not to sue any open source project trying to push Java on more tracks, like Android is doing now. And they knew Oracle would sue as soon as the dust from the Oracle-Sun settlement would have had fell down. They just don't care to give a bunch of money to Oracle, and clearly dont want to lose any control on Android.

[Nick_Jinn]

How is this circumstance any different from the GNU project completely rewriting UNIX tools from the ground up to perform the very same actions?! Last I checked, java must still be executed, it not completely self-sustained, it still needs a kernel, just like GNU did... It sounds like google recreated java using completely unique code.. They didn't take anything. This is a slippery slope in my opinion. If Oracle feels they have ground here, and they win, that potentially sets a precedent for GNU/Linux to be targetted.



GNU is not the big money maker that Android is, at least for personal users. There is a lot more money to go after in regard to Android.

I guess Linux is a bit of threat in the server market. A huge threat. I hope they just want money from Google, but it sets some dangerous precedents, and US law is largely based on precedent.


I think it would be a mistake to go after Linux. There is a crafty bunch here. I think they would find ways of creating obstacles.

[zekopeko]

I guess Linux is a bit of threat in the server market. A huge threat. I hope they just want money from Google, but it sets some dangerous precedents, and US law is largely based on precedent.

You really have to stop making such ignorant claims about the US legal system. At this point it's starting to look like outright lying and not a simple misunderstanding of the inner working of the precedent doctrine.

So to repeat again: Only a fraction of court rulings become legal precedents. They have to be issued by a higher court to apply and usually solve specific problems that the statutory law hasn't codified. This lawsuit look like your run-of-the-mill patent and copyright infringement lawsuit.

[Nick_Jinn]

Your response lacks precision and sophistication.

I have seen and heard of rulings from court battles that did not come from the higher courts being used successfully in court battles.

You are thinking of 'Binding Precedent' or 'Mandated/Mandatory precedent....Other court rulings still set 'precedent'. There is also persuasive precedent from the lower courts.



Believe it or not, it is pretty common for courts to rely on persuasive precedent. It does make a difference. Dont correct somebody if you dont know what you are talking about.

[zekopeko]

Your response lacks precision and sophistication.

I have seen and heard of rulings from court battles that did not come from the higher courts being used successfully in court battles.

You are thinking of 'Binding Precedent' or 'Mandated/Mandatory precedent....Other court rulings still set 'precedent'. There is also persuasive precedent from the lower courts.

Believe it or not, it is pretty common for courts to rely on persuasive precedent. It does make a difference. Dont correct somebody if you dont know what you are talking about.

Somebody has been reading Wikipedia. Good for you. That still doesn't make your assertions correct.

[Nick_Jinn]

Is "legal precedent" even the correct terminology for what you are talking about? Did you mean to say 'mandatory precedent' in place of 'legal precedent? Even civil persuasive precedent is 'legal precedent'. You are not using correct terminology and your statements lack precision.

And no, I didnt just look up Wikipedia. I took a civil rights and the law class and we talked about using precedent from other court rulings.



You seem to be claiming that only mandatory precedent is significant.....at least that is what I think you meant by "legal precedent". That is not correct. Persuasive precedent, even from civil hearings in the lower courts, do have an impact on future court rulings and can be used as an argument in court, though they are not binding the same way that a ruling from say the Supreme court is. A persuasive precedent can be contradicted but it still has some weight and influence. If you dont think that persuasive precedent is significant in any way shape or form, then we will have to agree to disagree.



http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-legal-precedent.htm


Not Wikipedia.
Even persuasive precedent is 'legal precedent', so you are not correct.

[Dustin2128]

Somebody has been reading Wikipedia. Good for you. That still doesn't make your assertions correct.
don't tear down arguments like that, explain precisely why the opposing argument doesn't hold weight.

[Nick_Jinn]

If I am wrong I will apologize. Ive been wrong before.

'No, your wrong!' is hardly an argument.

[Austin25]

If I am wrong I will apologize. Ive been wrong before.

'No, your wrong!' is hardly an argument.
Of course. It should be "No, you're wrong!"

I think a flame war is a quick way to the death of a thread, so I say we quit arguing immaturely, and start passively presenting our opinions, agree, or respectfully disagree. I hope this post ends the fighting, and saves this thread.

Now, that being said, I think Google could save themselves from many lawsuits over GPL by simply giving credit where credit is due. As for non-GPL suits, they have enough money to pay royalties.

[zekopeko]

don't tear down arguments like that, explain precisely why the opposing argument doesn't hold weight.

He should first prove why his first "argument" holds water. I fail to see how this lawsuit is precedent-setting. Or how it enables Microsoft from suing Wine since they could have done it from the moment of Wine's inception. I get the feeling that he thinks FOSS projects are somehow treated differently then proprietary ones and that simply isn't true.

[Nick_Jinn]

I have supported my claim with proof, that lawsuits of this class set precedent. You must be confused because of the difference between mandatory or binding precedent and persuasive precedent. Your argument rested on the assertion that only court rulings for the higher courts set 'legal precedent'. In reality, binding precedent can be created even by mid ranking courts and applies to any court beneath them, but pursuasive precedent can be created even from a LOWER court and be used to help decide a ruling in a higher court......No, persuasive precedent is not mandatory in the sense that you only need to prove that your case is similar and that it has already been ruled upon, as is the case with mandatory precedent, but you went a step farther and said that a ruling like this has absolutely no effect on future rulings whatsoever when in reality persuasive precedent is actually fairly powerful, especially in some a complicated and arcane branch of law as copyright law. Persuasive precedent can be important for future higher court rulings as well as it becoming automatically binding for all lower courts.....I dont know what court is hearing this case but its going to set some form of precedent no matter what. Considering how popular Google and Android is, its likely to be a well known and widely publicized case among copyright judges and lawyers. Its going to have an effect.

My claims seem self evident to me. I am not sure what you want me to prove. You however did not even use the correct terminology for what you were trying to say.

Even persuasive precedent is 'legal precedent'. You probably read something somewhere talking about how mandatory precedent can only come from a court that is higher than the one hearing the case, then part of the story got lost in translation and you heard it as "only higher courts can set 'precedent'". There isnt really a minimum place in the hierarchy to set mandatory precedent, but its only mandatory if its coming from a higher court...but you seem to be suggesting that persuasive precedent is absolutely powerless because its not mandatory that a higher court follow it, but its not completely powerless. A lot of court rulings have been won by citing previous rulings that were not binding but persuasive.


Do you doubt that court decisions have been decided by persuasive precedent or were you just pointing out that precedent is only mandatory if its coming from a higher court?...I am assuming that is what you meant by 'legal precedent', though that isnt the correct terminology for what you were trying to say.

[the yawner]

How does it exactly set a precedent? As I understand it, a precedent simply implies that a decision on a past case can be cited to settle any future cases that have similar circumstances. The best example would be that case that decided if a software patent would be honored (given that at the time, there was no existing US law with regards to software patents).

In Oracle vs. Google, Oracle's Java and Google's Dalvik are competitors on the mobile device space. The common opinion is that Oracle is attempting to either eliminate Dalvik, or at least extract licensing fees from Google.

The basis for Oracle's argument is that the Dalvik implementation infringes on Java patents for mobile devices. If they are right, then Dalvik can no longer be used for Android development less Google and possibly the phone manufacturers pay for license fees.

This hinges on that small matter of whether Oracle's argument holds water. And if it does, it does not mean Microsoft can cite Oracle vs. Google as an argument to sue Wine. In fact, they don't really need to that. They simply need to prove that even Wine's clean room implementation infringes some obscure something something from their portfolio. That is, if they do have that something, and if it is enforceable.

PS. I may be using incorrect terms and whatnots as I am merely trying to wrap this with my non-lawyer-thing mind.

[zekopeko]

snip>I dont know what court is hearing this case but its going to set some form of precedent no matter what. Considering how popular Google and Android is, its likely to be a well known and widely publicized case among copyright judges and lawyers. Its going to have an effect.

It's being heard by a Federal District court, the lowest of courts in the federal court system. Precedents don't become famous because big companies were involved in the lawsuit but because they settle/refine an area of law that was lacking in either legal definition or changed social expectations.


My claims seem self evident to me. I am not sure what you want me to prove. You however did not even use the correct terminology for what you were trying to say.

I used the correct terminology and it was obvious what I was trying to convey. What I want you to prove is that there is something remarkable in this case that could be the basis for a precedent.


Even persuasive precedent is 'legal precedent'. You probably read something somewhere talking about how mandatory precedent can only come from a court that is higher than the one hearing the case, then part of the story got lost in translation and you heard it as "only higher courts can set 'precedent'". There isnt really a minimum place in the hierarchy to set mandatory precedent, but its only mandatory if its coming from a higher court...but you seem to be suggesting that persuasive precedent is absolutely powerless because its not mandatory that a higher court follow it, but its not completely powerless. A lot of court rulings have been won by citing previous rulings that were not binding but persuasive.

Man you really latched on that persuasive precedent. Probably because it supports your argument.
But you have yet to prove that this lawsuit has legal questions that haven't been settled (or are in need of changing) by previous precedents .

What makes this case special? Why would it create a precedent? Why would it allow Microsoft to sue Wine and why wasn't Microsoft capable to do so before?


Do you doubt that court decisions have been decided by persuasive precedent or were you just pointing out that precedent is only mandatory if its coming from a higher court?...I am assuming that is what you meant by 'legal precedent', though that isnt the correct terminology for what you were trying to say.

I was just pointing that one is mandatory, hence the name, while the other isn't. The judge can safely the second but not the first.

[zekopeko]

How does it exactly set a precedent? As I understand it, a precedent simply implies that a decision on a past case can be cited to settle any future cases that have similar circumstances. The best example would be that case that decided if a software patent would be honored (given that at the time, there was no existing US law with regards to software patents).

In Oracle vs. Google, Oracle's Java and Google's Dalvik are competitors on the mobile device space. The common opinion is that Oracle is attempting to either eliminate Dalvik, or at least extract licensing fees from Google.

The basis for Oracle's argument is that the Dalvik implementation infringes on Java patents for mobile devices. If they are right, then Dalvik can no longer be used for Android development less Google and possibly the phone manufacturers pay for license fees.

This hinges on that small matter of whether Oracle's argument holds water. And if it does, it does not mean Microsoft can cite Oracle vs. Google as an argument to sue Wine. In fact, they don't really need to that. They simply need to prove that even Wine's clean room implementation infringes some obscure something something from their portfolio. That is, if they do have that something, and if it is enforceable.

PS. I may be using incorrect terms and whatnots as I am merely trying to wrap this with my non-lawyer-thing mind.

I don't like +1-ing but you deserve it. You explained it far better then me. Good work.

[Nick_Jinn]

It's being heard by a Federal District court, the lowest of courts in the federal court system. Precedents don't become famous because big companies were involved in the lawsuit

Uhhh. Yes they do. You and I are sitting here talking about it right? Its big news in techie circles? Thats called fame.

Regardless, that is not an argument against the existence of persuasive precedent.


I used the correct terminolog.

Eiher your terminology was wrong or your understanding was wrong.

'Legal Precedent', can be created by a lower court and applies to a case in a higher court. Its not 'Mandatory Precedent' however.

Sorry. Your statement was not factually correct.



Man you really latched on that persuasive precedent. Probably because it supports your argument.

That is what rational people do. They latch onto facts that support their argument.

You on the other hand are just engaging in ad hominem attacks but are yet to provide a logical argument to support your position. You dont by any chance watch Fox news do you?


I was just pointing that one is mandatory, hence the name, while the other isn't. The judge can safely the second but not the first.


No. You basically said that persuasive precedent doesnt exist or that its not important. In reality, pursuasive precedent is pretty significant despite being non binding. Its not enough to prove that it has been ruled on previously, as is the case with binding precedent, but its still a major argument that can help win a case. People can cite previous cases showing that others have been sued for similar usage. Often that is enough to win a case, even if its non binding precedent.


Is it always enough to win a case? Not necessarily. A higher court can overrule it. Its still something that can significantly strengthen one sides position.

[endotherm]

Interesting. I didn't know you had to have Oracle's permission to use Java. Odd

Did Sun ever pursue stuff like this?
yes. MS tried to integrate a homegrown RE into XP, and sun sued them, partly because the MS implementation didn't work well.

[endotherm]

The basis for Oracle's argument is that the Dalvik implementation infringes on Java patents for mobile devices. If they are right, then Dalvik can no longer be used for Android development less Google and possibly the phone manufacturers pay for license fees.


as I understand it, it's even uglier than that.
java is "Open" in that there is a "Clean Room" specification that you can freely use to create your own jvm, but that specification must be tied to a complete implementation (eg: it implements all funtions in the Java Standard Edition). this was done to prevent frivolous forking, and keep sun dominant in the java game.

the java mobile specification is not open, and is not covered in the open spec with patent grant. dalvik attempted to write a mobile jvm but baed on the cleanroom spec, and is thus not a complete JSE implementation, so it is not covered specification license grant, and could be construed to be infringing without that grant.

[Ric_NYC]

Steve Jobs is my best friend, and I love him dearly, and he's one of the most remarkable people on this planet.(Larry Ellison, the CEO of Oracle).

http://www.peoplesoft-planet.com/Larry-Ellison-Discusses-Steve-Jobs-In-Interview.html

[KiwiNZ]

(Larry Ellison, the CEO of Oracle).

http://www.peoplesoft-planet.com/Larry-Ellison-Discusses-Steve-Jobs-In-Interview.html


A lot of people in IT are friends

[zekopeko]

Uhhh. Yes they do. You and I are sitting here talking about it right? Its big news in techie circles? Thats called fame.Regardless, that is not an argument against the existence of persuasive precedent.


I bet that SCO vs Novell was also pretty big in tech circles but nothing came of it that was relevant to precedents AFAIK.
And where did I say I deny the existence of persuasive precedent?



Eiher your terminology was wrong or your understanding was wrong.
'Legal Precedent', can be created by a lower court and applies to a case in a higher court. Its not 'Mandatory Precedent' however.
Sorry. Your statement was not factually correct.

OK, fair point. I was trying to make a distinction from legal precedent and when people say "OMG! This never happened before!"


That is what rational people do. They latch onto facts that support their argument.
You on the other hand are just engaging in ad hominem attacks but are yet to provide a logical argument to support your position. You dont by any chance watch Fox news do you?

Hahahahahahahaha!!! You're funny. I'm engaging in ad hominem attacks while you try and imply I watch Fox News? That is a text book ad hominem attack.



No. You basically said that persuasive precedent doesnt exist or that its not important. In reality, pursuasive precedent is pretty significant despite being non binding. Its not enough to prove that it has been ruled on previously, as is the case with binding precedent, but its still a major argument that can help win a case. People can cite previous cases showing that others have been sued for similar usage. Often that is enough to win a case, even if its non binding precedent.

I didn't say that persuasive precedent isn't import but that there isn't a guarantee that it will be used or even successful.



Is it always enough to win a case? Not necessarily. A higher court can overrule it. Its still something that can significantly strengthen one sides position.

If there exists a relevant precedent that would help Oracle in this case then sure. But at this point you are guessing, well to be honest you never stopped.

[phrostbyte]

He should first prove why his first "argument" holds water. I fail to see how this lawsuit is precedent-setting. Or how it enables Microsoft from suing Wine since they could have done it from the moment of Wine's inception. I get the feeling that he thinks FOSS projects are somehow treated differently then proprietary ones and that simply isn't true.

A plaintiff can always point to any case in the books and somehow relate it to the current case. There is no "law of precedents" which defines what is a precedent or not, or even if a judge or jury has to follow a precedent.

[murderslastcrow]

I'd like to think that some day we'll have people, even a judge and jury, who will strip away all the B.S. and look at the technical reality of the situation and how it applies to them.

Regardless of semantics, logical fallacies, and all matters of persuasion, the motivations and ownership here are obvious. Whatever the precedent set, in court or in these discussions, it should be visibly accurate, and not subject to persuasion.

[zekopeko]

A plaintiff can always point to any case in the books and somehow relate it to the current case. There is no "law of precedents" which defines what is a precedent or not, or even if a judge or jury has to follow a precedent.

But to be compelling it would have to be used numerous times and enter in regular judicial use when solving a particular problem.

All of this really doesn't matter in the end since the original assertion was, paraphrasing here, "If Oracle win, Microsoft can then sue Wine" which is a non-sequitur. Microsoft can always sue Wine. If they would be successful is another matter entirely. IIRC you pointed out one legal doctrine why it might fail.

[the yawner]

I should point out that Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net/) has some good resources relating to this issue.

On the matter of setting a precedent, I think this case could only be cited if Google wins, and other parties follow suit with their own clean room implementation of Java for mobile devices. But that wouldn't make any sense...

[regala]

I don't like +1-ing but you deserve it. You explained it far better then me. Good work.

oh oh oh, that's funny, he was just saying that this case won't even set a legal precedent, because legislation already exists to settle patent infringements. Are you crazy, or do you like talking to the void ? :)

[the yawner]

oh oh oh, that's funny, he was just saying that this case won't even set a legal precedent, because legislation already exists to settle patent infringements. Are you crazy, or do you like talking to the void ? :)

Err... I believe that was the core of his argument? I merely tried to simplify his point because I too couldn't see how the circumstances leading to Oracle vs Google could set a precedent. It was getting lost amidst the discussions with terminologies and other legal mumbo jumbos.

[regala]

bouh, you are mean, and wrong !

bouh, you are meaner and wronger !


will you stop, please ? we don't care about which one of you is wronger, nutter, or more ridiculous.

[regala]

Err... I believe that was the core of his argument? I merely tried to simplify his point because I too couldn't see how the circumstances leading to Oracle vs Google could set a precedent. It was getting lost amidst the discussions with terminologies and other legal mumbo jumbos.

true :)
but you see, when two whiners, one as wrong as the other, lose complete sight of the matter at hand, confusing is the best and the quickest way to cool things.

[zekopeko]

will you stop, please ? we don't care about which one of you is wronger, nutter, or more ridiculous.

If it offends you delicate French sensibilities don't read it.

[KiwiNZ]

Time to close this down.

Thanks for participating