Legal Analysis of Oracle v. Google 206
snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Martin Heller provides an in-depth analysis of Oracle's legal argument against Google, a suit that includes seven alleged counts of software process patent infringement and one count of copyright infringement. 'Oracle's desired relief is drastic: not just permanent injunctions, but destruction of all copies that violate copyright (thus, wiping all Android devices), plus triple damages and legal costs. Also, it demands a jury trial,' Heller writes, and while this amounts mainly to saber-rattling, the Supreme Court's recent Bilski ruling did not completely invalidate software process patents despite their shaky ground due to prior art."
Infoworld? (Score:3, Insightful)
Where's Groklaw in all of this?
Re:Infoworld? (Score:5, Informative)
right here http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100815110101756
Haw. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Why screw Oracle and not F*ck You Google for selling me a product you had no legal right to sell me?
Because it is Oracle who is trying to make life worse for you and me, and not Google.
This is in depth analysis? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll sum up the article:
1) Oracle is suing Java over Android.
2) Oracle hired a really good lawyer, so they must be serious.
3) I sure hate software patents.
4) Oracle would like all copies of Android destroyed, but this isn't likely.
5) Sun might settle out of court.
6) Did I mention I hate software patents?
7) You should try to make life harder for Oracle, since I hate software patents.
With all due respect to the author, half the posts on this Slashdot thread will probably have as much to say and contain as much useful information -- but really, maybe whoever wrote/published the article summary is more to blame for claims the article just doesn't live up to.
Re:This is in depth analysis? (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Oracle is suing Java over Android.
Doesn't Oracle own Java, at least to the extent that anyone owns Java?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's the thing - THERE IS NO JAVA IN ANDROID!
Android uses the Java language syntax, sorta! When Sun's Java compiler compiles the code and generates bytecode, Google's backend then converts it to Dalvik bytecode. By the time the application is delivered to the Android platform, it has absolutely nothing to do with Java. Even the VMs are completely different. The fact the base language is Java-based is completely irrelevant.
Ignoring the fact that Oracle is full of shit, last I read, the patents in question
Re: (Score:2)
Ergo, if it turns out the patents aren't bullshit and actually do happen to apply to this situation, then they are a threat to the entire industry. CPython, .Net, you name it: they're all just as likely to infringe these patents as Dalvik is.
Re:This is in depth analysis? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's the thing - THERE IS NO JAVA IN ANDROID!
oracle is suing because they hold many patents that are expressed in sun's (their) JVM/JDK, but also expressed in android / dalvikVM. that's the thing about patents, it doesn't matter if they aren't using something called "java", they are using a lot of ideas behind java.
Android uses the Java language syntax, sorta!
actually the android SDK is based on the java language, exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up! This was indeed a remarkably uninformative article.
Re: (Score:2)
Second.
I particularly liked his "The patent titles don't sound novel to me, therefore they must be invalid" argument.
If you're going to pretend to 'legal analysis', you have to at least skim the patents themselves, not just the titles.
Re:This is in depth analysis? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
1) Oracle is suing Java over Android.
- I am suing my knees, they fucking hurt.
Two short pages are "in-depth analysis" ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Zing!
Re:Two short pages are "in-depth analysis" ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did they buy Sun for this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Coffee maker patent (Score:5, Funny)
(Heck -- my coffee-maker probably violates them!)
Foiled by the old Java patent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Did they buy Sun for this? (Score:5, Informative)
The patents are so broad and ill defined that if they uphold there are not many processes that do not violate them.
I read one at random and it was about memory-requirement analysis of bytecode class-files. So no, not really.
Perhaps you meant to say "software patents are evil"?
Re: (Score:2)
This is what is happening, now let's speculate (Score:2)
Wow... waste of time article there. I could read most of this in slashdot comments. I think that article lost its informative nature after the first four paragraphs. The speculation got deep and fast and ended with "if I were younger, I would..." and then completely forgot that he wasn't endorsing an Oracle boycott and said "are you ready to vote with your wallet?"
I think the editor fell asleep at the wheel on this one.
Mods ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, mod up the submitter. Submitting is his good right, and we should reward his efforts.
Please, mod timothy down for accepting a boring, not-even-a-story.
Please, mod the original author 'overrated', since his story should never have made it into infoworld in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a logical disconnect here. You're saying we should mod up the submitter for submitting a story that sucks, and mod down the editor who accepted it? Why wouldn't I mod down both, if only to discourage said behavior from being repeated?
(Yes, I know this is just theoretical, since the story itself and comments are the only things we can mod up
Groklaw was WAY more informative (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100815110101756 [groklaw.net]
Just read the first few paragraphs of this and it's 2:30 here... time for bed. But I got as far as what eerily described Sun's suit against Microsoft so long ago.
Sun sued Microsoft successfully for their embrace and extend of Java. They claimed it damaged the Java dream of single binaries that run everywhere. Most of us on slashdot agree with that notion as a Microsoft version of Java would make Sun's Java appear broken due to their huge distribution model.
Now we have Sun (Oracle America) making claims against Google. Not that they are violating a license or agreement, but in spirit may contain the same basic drives as described in the Groklaw article. "New-Sun" is, perhaps, trying to do what "Sun" did before -- successfully take down a giant a step or two. After all, what were the end results of Sun v. Microsoft?
Re:Groklaw was WAY more informative (Score:4, Informative)
Subtle difference to the analogy:
MS embraced and extended Java and called it Java, thus breaking the Java standard that is supposed to run everywhere - MS Java can only be expected to run [properly] on a MS JRE, NOT ANY JRE.;
whereas Google took Java, possibly embraced and extended, BUT did NOT call it Java - there can be no confusion over the resultant code being able to run everywhere there is a JRE - but also created a cross-compiler which took Java [source] and converted it to their version.
The problem comes in that Oracle are claiming that Software Patents cover Java and thus are being violated as only licensed for use in Java [and JRE] and NOT for use in a different product [I think - I seem to remember on a casual reading about this case that Java licensing for Mobile devices being more expensive than for a "desktop" computer and Google not willing to pay for the obvious market inflation, hence "developing" their own Runtime Environment which also had the benefit of being able to be optimised better].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
whereas Google took Java, possibly embraced and extended, BUT did NOT call it Java - there can be no confusion over the resultant code being able to run everywhere there is a JRE - but also created a cross-compiler which took Java [source] and converted it to their version.
i'm on a few android aliases, and this question comes every week or so. developers are constantly confused, so i think it's a bit of an overstatement to say "there can be no confusion".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
``"New-Sun" is, perhaps, trying to do what "Sun" did before -- successfully take down a giant a step or two. After all, what were the end results of Sun v. Microsoft?''
Instead of Microsoft making an incompatible Java-like platform and calling it Java, we got Microsoft making an incompatible Java-done-better platform and calling it .NET. I regard this as a Good Thing: first of all, because it prevented Microsoft from taking over Java and kept the competition from Sun alive, and, secondly, because I feel that
Re:Groklaw was WAY more informative (Score:4, Informative)
Big difference is that Microsoft signed a contract saying they wouldn't do what they did. Google did a clean-room implementation. MS case was about contracts; this case is about patents. Also, Java wasn't under the GPL at the time of MS's shenanigans, but it is now. Further, from my point of view, MS tried to extend Java, so software developed for MS's systems wouldn't run elsewhere, which potentially hurts everyone but MS; Google, AFAIK, implemented a subset of Java, so software developed on other systems might not run on Google's, which really only hurts Google. The cases really aren't parallel at all, but you are correct that Oracle America's motivations may be similar.
Re:Groklaw was WAY more informative (Score:5, Insightful)
Not the same at all. Google has never claimed they have implemented Java, hasn't licenced the tech from Sun, hasn't used the Java trademark or logo. Microsoft did and proceeded to make their version incompatible. Android uses Java as the programming API but the actual bytecode and VM it runs under is completely different.
Partly this is to skirt around this issue, but also I suspect because it is genuinely more efficient. Dalvik is an incredibly lightweight VM, perfectly suited for its use.
IMO Oracle is just angling for a piece of the pie. Their own efforts with Java ME failed because the tech was allowed to stagnate so it was a no brainer that people moved over to Android. ME is okay, but it's just not up to the task of powering a smart phone. It's too bad for Oracle, but really they only have themselves to blame. The odd thing is they could probably still carve out a niche on Android if they ported JavaFX across - it would probably be quite a nice fit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Google's going to
Re: (Score:2)
Just because the text language is Java says nothing of the runtime. After all, Google's GWT uses Java as a language but then it translates the Java source into Javascript that runs in a browser. Similarly, IKVM runs Java byte code dynamic but can also compile it to run natively over the .N
Re: (Score:2)
After all, what were the end results of Sun v. Microsoft?
Windows XP Service Pack 1a
Re: (Score:2)
After all, what were the end results of Sun v. Microsoft?
MSFT Market cap two hundred billion, SUNW rescued before bankruptcy was forced on them?
Re: (Score:2)
After all, what were the end results of Sun v. Microsoft? .net.
The end result was that MS abandoned JAVA and developed it's own replacement. They even provided a tool for converting your JAVA code to run on
A jury Trial (Score:2)
"Also demands a jury trial"
So you're going to grab a bunch of people 'off the street' and try to get them to understand what patents are, what software is and how this software infringes this patent. This will defentally give an honest and fair trial.
Re:A jury Trial (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Also demands a jury trial"
So you're going to grab a bunch of people 'off the street' and try to get them to understand what patents are, what software is and how this software infringes this patent. This will defentally give an honest and fair trial.
Well, based on "destruction of all copies that violate copyright (thus, wiping all Android devices)" I'd say that Oracle isn't aiming for a trial. Bringing a lawsuit like this looks very much like corporate extortion to me.
But then, I'm neither a lawyer nor an American.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, exactly, that's why it's the plaintiffs (Oracle) not the defendants (Google) who want the jury trial. They know they've got a better chance of bamboozling a jury than a judge.
"If you're guilty, choose a jury..." (Score:3, Interesting)
destruction of all copies that violate copyright (Score:2)
How does this work? would google have to hunt down every single android phone and destroy/wipe its software?
If so, they will have to extract my android device from Lary ellison's bum.
Re: (Score:2)
Well apple have 'remote detonation' abilities - so maybe Google have the same. Probably would offer a 'refund' then after X weeks disable it remotely.
But since this is taking place in America, what will happen is:
Party X will win. Party Y will file an appeal
Party Y will win. Party X will file an appeal.
And eventually one of them will either give up - or google replaces all its software to conform to standards.
Handheld armageddon? (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, let's follow this train of thought:
- Oracle wins, forcing destruction of all copies that violate copyright.
- This means _all_ Android handsets must be not only factory reset, but zapped entirely. This also includes _all 3rd party_ apps and services from the professional and recreational community. That's _a lot_ of software.
- All Android users will be up in arms.
- Hundreds of thousands of Americans will file a class action law suit (but against whom, Google or Oracle?).
- Hundreds of thousands of non-A
Re: (Score:2)
'How does this work? would google have to hunt down every single android phone and destroy/wipe its software?'
http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2010/06/exercising-our-remote-application.html [blogspot.com]
"After the researcher voluntarily removed these applications from Android Market, we decided, per the Android Market Terms of Service, to exercise our remote application removal feature on the remaining installed copies to complete the cleanup...The remote application removal feature is one of many security controls
Re: (Score:2)
that removes apps only, not android itself.. i would find it very hard to believe google would build in a self-wipe function
Re: (Score:2)
From the official site - 'Android is a software stack for mobile devices that includes an operating system, middleware and key applications.'. There are several key applications which, if disabled, would effectively cripple the device (on my phone, even 'Android System' is listed as an app, though I've no idea if Google has the ability to disable it remotely). Are any of these apps potentially subject to Oracle's patent attack?
Help me Slashdot (Score:2, Insightful)
Sun sues Microsoft over Java = GOOD? Oracle sues Google over Java = BAD?
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft were shipping their own, crippled JVM with Windows in an attempt to screw Sun over, I'm not really sure you can put Google in the same category here.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that MS added incompatible Windows-specific features to their Java implementation, which was the /real/ issue. Anything written in MS-Java had a chance of working only on Windows as a result, which defeated the purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Sun sues Microsoft over Java = GOOD? Oracle sues Google over Java = BAD?
This is an over simplification. As I understand it:
Re: (Score:2)
Technical Analysis much simpler (Score:4, Funny)
Ahhhh shit! Time to learn another fucking language and 10 more over-engineered libraries! So much for time with the family.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
``Time to learn another fucking language and 10 more over-engineered libraries!''
Not if Google does the Right Thing and just goes with an already existing language and existing libraries. It's not like that wouldn't work on today's mobile devices. They already have Linux running on them; now give us a libc and a widget library and we're off to a great start.
Making your mobile platform incompatible with anything already out there is a choice, and not a choice I agree with.
Re: (Score:2)
They already have Linux running on them; now give us a libc and a widget library and we're off to a great start.
They already have a libc, you can get at it via the NDK.
The snag is that you can't - afaik - run a native application directly, it has to be done via Java/Dalvik and calling the native code via JNI. And also the NDK has no libraries to access the user interface.
If they could just solve those two little problems, you could do fully native GUI application development in C++.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The snag is that you can't - afaik - run a native application directly, it has to be done via Java/Dalvik and calling the native code via JNI. And also the NDK has no libraries to access the user interface.
True, although you can access OpenGL from native code now. Still, the java wrapper/JNI stuff is a massive pain in the arse.
Re: (Score:2)
Making your mobile platform incompatible with anything already out there is a choice, and not a choice I agree with.
Do you make phones? If not your opinion is worthless as you are not a Google customer for Android.
Google have to do what the likes of HTC, Samsung, Motorola and whoever else want. That means they want to be able to build a phone manufacturer specific "look and feel" on top of android that makes their android unique. They usually do not want to open source this work because these are hardware manufacturers. Companies that design their own hardware are generally reluctant to embrace open source for some reaso
It's not evil for Oracle to demand such remedies (Score:5, Informative)
There's a fundamental error in the InfoWorld analysis referenced above:
Oracle simply asks for absolutely standard remedies in this situation. There's nothing evil about it, and it cannot be reasonably interpreted as a strategy to destroy open source as a whole or anything like that.
I'm saying this even though I opposed Oracle's acquisition of Sun [blogspot.com]. I just want to point out that if a case like this goes to court, the plaintiff will always ask for those kinds of remedies. There's nothing unusual about it. In fact, asking for less would be unusual and would probably confuse the judges as to what Oracle actually wants.
Intellectual property rights are exclusive rights. That's the way the law has designed them -- it's not a matter of Oracle being evil. Those IPRs entitle a right holder to enforce exclusivity. That necessarily means to ask for an injunction, and under such circumstances as the ones of this case (with copyright in play), also the destruction of infringing material.
The way to prevent that scenario from materializing is a license agreement between Oracle and Google. So it's up to the two parties to sit down and negotiate, and I believe we as a community should now expect both of them to be constructive. The court can't impose a license agreement on the two of them. If the court has to rule, it will -- if Oracle is right -- have to enforce exclusivity. That's sort of binary, whereas a license agreement would offer much more flexibility.
It's regrettable that they couldn't work this out before the matter was taken to court. But it's not too late until there is a final court ruling.
Re: (Score:2)
Can Google buy Oracle extract the IP they want and later spin Oracle of again minus the bits its becoming apparent it would have been better Oracle hadn't got hold of in the first place?
Google is bigger and richer and they wouldn't be losing money taking over a profitable company, would they?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Google is big, but Google is not big enough to just buy Oracle. Their market caps are pretty close: Google at ~$150bn, Oracle at ~$115bn.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be interesting to see how the stock holders would move if Google made an offer.
Re: (Score:2)
The term 'intellectual property' is designed to confuse us about patents and copyright concepts. Basically you can not own ideas, but in the interest of stimulating innovation and sharing ideas, lawmakers provide a temporary, exclusive right to your ideas via patents and copyright. As opposed to land and other property that is for exclusive use in perpetuity.
Besides that, the problem is not what they ask but why they ask it. Basically Oracle thinks Dalvik is an illegal copy/clone/implementation of Java an
Get rid of it (Score:2, Funny)
How can I vote this article down? It's so insipid and lacks anything new I wonder why it was approved in the first place.
Groklaw did publish something useful and interesting, this piece of opinion is nothing new.
Re: (Score:2)
You press the - button to the left edge of the title.
But its probably too late for that. Its red.
status of java, and comparison to c# (Score:4, Informative)
I've done two other analyses of Oracle v. Google [swpat.org]:
Secret deal (Score:2)
Maybe Oracle and Google have secretly agreed to create this circus in order to show the world how stupid software patents are?
If this ever makes it to the supreme court, the most likely result is the invalidation of the whole software patents idea. Specially after the media has gone over it again and again and people is educated about how stupid software patents are, judges included.
New slashdot logo for Oracle (Score:2, Insightful)
I propose a new logo for Oracle stories on Slashdot. As Oracle is obviously The Evil Empire, it should get a Death Star as its logo.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
hooker logo would be more appropriate, oracle invited everyone to bed then demanded pay after.
Jury trial (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Given that it would seem the jury pool will consist only of people who don't own a cell phone or a computer, which should really provide a crap shoot for all involved. Might as well let the judge be that octopus that perfectly predicted the World Cup results.
2004? Solid factual analysis? (Score:2)
"... and represented former vice president Al Gore in the disputed 2004 U.S. election results."
Saber Rattling (Score:2)
The remedies Oracle is requesting almost certainly amount to saber-rattling, because I doubt they could get an injunction under the criteria the Supreme Court set in MercExchange [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It wouldn't help with patent infringement, especially after the fact.
They'd also have to gpl every single android maker's software, which(htc comes to mind) they might not want to.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> They'd also have to gpl every single android maker's software
Not so. And where there's doubt, they could just use the Classpath exception, just as Sun used for OpenJDK (distributed under GPLv2 [swpat.org] plus the "Classpath exception").
Re:Google should publish the Android layer under G (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not saying that Oracle has a legitimate case, but I don't see how Android being GPL'd would invalidate any of their claims if you assume they are valid to begin with.
If the idea is that making Android free eliminates Oracle's ability to litigate against it, consider that a stubborn enough man will insist on trying to get blood from a stone, and Larry Ellison is several orders of magnitude more stubborn than that.
Re: (Score:2)
GPL as such doesn't help. However, it is interesting to note that if Google had used Sun Java as starting point they would have had the GPLv2 implicit patent protection.
GPLv2's implicit patent grant doesn't really help (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting posting, thanks. I still don't see how you can say that the implicit patent grant probably does not protect modified redistribution at all... The EU decision says
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Google should publish the Android layer under G (Score:5, Insightful)
patents != copyright
GPL is a license which grants certain rights using copyright law. This has no bearing on patent infringement.
Re:Google should publish the Android layer under G (Score:4, Informative)
Actually the GPL3 has patent wavier in it so it isn't just a license to do with copyright.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually the GPL3 has patent wavier in it so it isn't just a license to do with copyright.
Unless Sun/Oracle released the code under GPLv3, Google can't waive Oracle's patents.
Re:Google should publish the Android layer under G (Score:5, Interesting)
>>Actually the GPL3 has patent wavier in it so it isn't just a license to do with copyright.
>Unless Sun/Oracle released the code under GPLv3, Google can't waive Oracle's patents.
You're both wrong. The GPL has had a patent waiver clause since version 2. It states that if you use or distribute code under it you explicitly give a zero-royalty patent permission to all users who receive it under the license. Sun released OpenJDK under GPLv2 so indeed no patents SUN had on OpenJDK code can be asserted on it or anything derived from it (as explicitly required by the license). The fact that the patents changed ownership should not invalidate this in the least - since the licensee of the copyright was also the patent owner at the time - and granted the explicit patent license, the new owner cannot revoke it unless it can show breach of contract.
What GPLv3 did was to EXPAND the patent clause to cover things like the Microsoft/Novell deal - whereby if a company distributes any GPLv3 code - and obtains or purchases patent protection from third party (as Novell did) it HAS to offer this patent protection free of charge to all recipients of the code regardless who they got it from. If they are not willing to do so - they may not distribute (or derive from) the code, or alternatively they can refuse to sign such a deal - but what it basically did was make sure nothing with a GPLv3 license can be in Suze Linux unless Novell manages to convince Microsoft to change the patent protection deal so it's free to all users of said code.
As it turned out - GPLv3 effectively killed the Microsoft patent racket and no distro has signed up for it since Xandros several years ago now.
Either way it wouldn't be google waiving Oracle's patents - SUN already waived them, themselves for any OpenJDK derivatives. The trouble is Google didn't use OpenJDK - in fact technically speaking Android doesn't run java AT ALL.
It doesn't run Harmony either - it contains no JVM whatsoever (the Oracle Lawyers are obviously confused).
Dalvik is NOT a JVM. It does not, indeed CANNOT, run Java Bytecode. It has it's own bytecode format. Google just provided a toolkit that let you compile Java sourcecode to Dalvik Bytecode rather than Java Bytecode. This compiler used the much of the classpath code from Harmony to ensure it was compatible with Java source code as far as possible - but that's the extent of it.
I think Oracle is in for a major shock - Google had originally planned to use an adapted JVM but since SUN wouldn't give them what they needed from one, and Java had patents over it, they chose not to. They instead did a clean-room implementation of their own VM that just happens to have a compiler that can convert Java code (and Bytecode) to it's own. In fact, the technique is identical to the way IKVM runs Java on .net. .net, over java, hell even over Python (beca
That's the real issue here - if Oracle can somehow convince a judge that what Google did DOES in fact violate their patents (unlikely since it's not even a replacement technology or even a compatible one, it merely contains a compatibility layer but Dalvik native Bytecode can in theory be compiled from any language you write a compiler for) then that means Oracle can sue Microsoft next and win under case-law.
They'd control not only Java but essentially all VM-executeable software development ! I sincerely doubt that the patents they have can cover widely enough to give them that (unless the judge is REALLY stupid and Google really REALLY mess up their defense) but I think Larry thinks the possible pay-off is worth the risk of failure.
Look at the damages sought- it includes WIPING EVERY ANDROID CLEAN ! Regardless that these devices belong to CONSUMERS - not to google ! If Oracle can convince the court that any JVM capable of running code translated from Java Bytecode violates it's patents - then wiping every Android at will is the kind of power they will gain, not just in mobile but over all programming. Over
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with your really long comment is that even though Sun released OpenJDK under GPL, Google did not use any of its code. Google has called Dalvik a clean room implementation of a register based VM. It's not even byte compatible with JVM.
Since Dalvik is not derived from OpenJDK it can not enjoy its GPL protections.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I said that in my post.
I started by correcting the statements about the GPL - then I specifically indicated that this does NOT however apply to Google because they didn't USE the GPL'd code from SUN at all.
In fact I said everything in your correction - and then some.
The real problem with my long comment is that you didn't read it.
Re:Google should publish the Android layer under G (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe because it was too long... ;)
I did read it, but the assertions you made in the rest of your comment showed a lack of understanding of how this legal process works.
Patents are not copyrights and it doesn't matter if Google used Oracle's code directly. Except that ironically if Google did they would have a better case to defend themselves.
The absurdity of patents is the fact that you only have to make something that does something similar to be in violation of a patent. To use a slashdot car metaphor/story - Robert Kearns invented the intermittent wipers and was granted a patent. He went to the big three automakers and they refused his offer to sale them the right to use them. Ford motor company decided that they could make their own intermittent wipers, and eventually Robert Kearns sued Ford for patent infringement. Ford settled the case for $10 million. Kearn subsequently sued Chrysler and ultimately won in court a judgement of $30 million. This was even with the auto makers arguing that the patent needed to meet some standard of originality and novelty.
Sun was granted these patents as they relate to virtual machines. Google appears to have created a clean room implementation that mimics the behavior described in those patents. Oracle the purchaser of Sun feels like they have case for patent infringement against Google and sued. Google can not refer to Microsoft's ".net" as a counter example, since Microsoft and Sun entered into a cross licensing agreement in 2003 as part of the settlement of the long dispute over Microsoft's handling of Java. Both sides have sufficient money to make this a long and drawn out court battle. Google has more to lose than Oracle. Oracle understands this and upped the ante with the severe damage relief being demanded.
I will not be surprised in the end that this is settled without a court judgement with an establishment of cross licensing agreement and some money heading Oracle's way. It's not about "right" or "wrong"... it is all about the Benjamins...
Re: (Score:2)
Pizza-pizza!?
GPLv2's implicit patent grant wouldn't really help (Score:5, Informative)
There's some confusion out there about how Google would be in a better position from a patent point of view if it had used existing Java code under the GPL (OpenJDK, phoneME). The Android ecosystem as a whole would have had other benefits (such as making it much harder for the makers of Android-based phones to keep important parts of their source code closed) but it wouldn't really help as far as Oracle's patent infringement allegations are concerned.
The GPLv2 (under which OpenJDK and large parts of phoneME are available) does not contain an explicit patent grant. Only an implicit one. As a result, any fork (derived/modified version) is probably not covered.
The InfoWorld article that this Slashdot story refers to talks a lot about forking as a possible strategy -- especially toward the end, where MySQL is also mentioned. I was very much involved with the debate over whether Oracle should get to acquire MySQL (together with Monty, MySQL's original author/founder, I opposed the deal). In that context, it was also a subject of debate whether MySQL forks would be safe from Oracle patent threats in the future. Eben Moglen, who was basically part of Oracle's legal team and had botched the patent aspect of GPLv2 (thus tried to fix the problem with GPLv3), argued that GPLv2 would take care of those forks. However, the European Commission, which (unlike Moglen) is impartial and has vast legal resources, concluded that the implicit patent grant does not -- at least not reliably, but probably not at all -- protect forks.
If you're interested in more detail on the question of whether Google would be or would have been better off with GPLv2, here's a link to the related part of a blog posting of mine [blogspot.com]. It discusses that question and right thereafter (or you can go there directly [blogspot.com]) explains that my work related to Oracle's acquisition of MySQL was not an effort to change MySQL's license away from the GPL to something else. I have meanwhile published documents from the process that serve as conclusive evidence that I argued vehemently against -- not for -- a license change. Still, the GPLv2's limitation concerning patent claims against forks is a fact.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Covering forks" really isn't very meaningful. What that means is that you can't redistribute the software under the GPL at all since you can't meet the terms of the GPL. As a result, the GPL on OpenJDK (or any other patent-covered software) is really a sham.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The way I read the European Commission's decision, Oracle submitted Eben's paper as a supporting document along with its reply to the Commission's Statement of Objections. Attaching a supporting document is not the same as making a claim in one's own name. For an example, companies routinely attach market research from the likes of IDC and Gartner to their submissions, and that doesn't mean that they necessarily claim all of what's stated in those reports. (Of course, the way it was used calls into question
Re:Remember J++ anyone... (Score:4, Informative)
What if we say that our Android devices are running JAndroid, that happens to be very compatible with Java... but of course is not Java...
That's what they did - Android devices run Dalvik, which is actually not compatible with Java at all. However, you can recompile a Java class into a Dalvik class, which is what the SDK does.
Re: (Score:2)
``And when it comes to BTRFS, I think the Linux community needs to pull it out and reject it. After this, who wants Oracle copyright'd source code in their tree? Anyone? How do you know Oracle won't pull some nasty stunt further down the road when you've built an appliance based on BTRFS?''
Like MeeGo, the other Linux-based-mobile-platform-pushed-by-a-large-vendor besides Android. Based on BTRFS.
But really, I don't think Oracle is out to kill Linux. I think they're out to get money from Google, and using thi
Re: (Score:2)
They renamed "the company formerly known as SUN" to "Oracle America". So they probably refer to them internally as OA, the same as corporatespeak for "Office Administrator". I have nothing against a good secretary, but that's still seems pretty denigrating, esp. considering SUN's technical background. But we always knew Oracle was pretty evil, I suppose.