
Oracle: Google 'directly copied' our Java code - cshekhar
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9193538/Oracle_Google_directly_copied_our_Java_code?taxonomyId=17
======
dododo
in part they seem to be claiming copyright on the java api. is that possible?

some other examples come to mind: wine's implementation of the windows api,
various unices/linux implementing the unix api (but maybe there's some waiver
here?), and so on.

~~~
andrewf
Among SCO's myriad claims, they alleged Linux violates its copyright over the
SysV APIs and ABIs. I doubt the court got around to addressing that issue.

~~~
hendler
If the above is correct, then under Oracle rules re-writing an API would be
copyright infringement?

Not only would this restrict the ability to write alternatives to an API, but
would effectively disallow code which is 100% yours from being run against an
'''invalid''' "API". (I guess this is the Java trap RS defined?)

Some one should copyright println()or sprintf().

I have wanted to like the JVM for 10+ years, and now that technically it's in
a good place for server-side code, looks like there is a battle over whether
it is going to be "open" or not.

My opinion (without knowing enough about this situation in particular I'm
afraid):

API's are "public" interfaces and an instrument for free speech. To restrict
the use of an API goes beyond protecting the author of the API.

Many coders may not know Google wrote its own implementation, (or modified the
original) and the "Java" brand and Java marketplace has been complicated.
However, complexity is unavoidable and necessary when working with complex
systems.

Company A makes bolt X (a patented bolt). Any company can make nuts. Company B
makes a very different size bolt (Y) that is designed to use some of the nuts
that fit bolt X. The bolt was not copied, but the diameter and threading is
the same, by design.

Is this illegal?

------
davidw
Here's the actual complaint:
<http://www.scribd.com/doc/39856344/oraclevsgoogle>

I don't see too much about the copyright claims in here, though.

------
olefoo
Well, I know what language I won't be using for future projects...

The creation of this sort of legal uncertainty around a project that was open-
source in name if not always in spirit is a concern though.

~~~
noarchy
To start, I'll say that I think Oracle has damaged their Java brand with their
lawsuit. I have no idea how things will end up in courts, but that is another
matter. What Oracle is accusing Google of having done is hardly comparable to
what thousands of programmers, myself included, have done in thousands of Java
projects over the years. I understand the skepticism and doubts about the
direction of Java under Oracle's guidance, but I certainly don't have any
fears about using Java as I have been.

~~~
Carlfish
I don't think Oracle particularly cares about the Java brand.

The Java brand was important to Sun because in recent years its value had
eclipsed the value of the Sun brand, to the extent that they even renamed
their stock ticker 'JAVA'. They poured resources into Java and Java-related
projects because it was all that was keeping the ailing company relevant.

Oracle has no such problem with its brand. The company hasn't a great
reputation as a philanthropist, and you have to look at what Oracle can get
out of its ownership of Java. Those things are (a) exploiting the Intellectual
Property, and (b) maintaining support for Oracle's own Java products.

Being a 'good steward of the language' is only important if it serves one of
those two goals: i.e. if it improves Oracle's products, helps existing paying
Java licensees, or creates opportunities for Oracle to license Java IP.

I'm not sure this is a healthy way for a programming language to be
maintained.

------
greenlblue
Why didn't google go with more open technologies? They wrote the fastest
javascript interpreter and they couldn't figure out how to use it in their
phones for app development. I guess Java has more libraries and whatnot but
honestly how many apps make any real use of them.

~~~
kkowalczyk
It wasn't Google who made the decision to use Java. What we today know as
Android OS was developed by Android, Inc (purchased by Google in 2005).
Android, Inc. was led by Andy Rubin and their technology was essentially the
same as the technology used in his previous startup, Danger Inc, started in
2002.

Decision to use Linux for the kernel and Java as a language for user space
programs was therefore made in 2002 and at the time it was a very sensible
decision.

V8 was released 6 years later and even today JavaScript is extremely bare
bones as a language and wrt. to base libraries (only recently there has been a
push to standardize on basic things like file support, modules etc.).

As such JavaScript is not capable enough to write many kinds of programs one
would like to write. Not today and definitely not in 2002.

Additionally, Dalvik Java VM in Android is much better tuned for constrained,
low memory, low power mobile devices than V8, which was designed for desktop
class computer. Technically it's a better solution for the target devices than
V8.

~~~
tzs
"Decision to use Linux for the kernel and Java as a language for user space
programs was therefore made in 2002 and at the time it was a very sensible
decision".

And when they failed to come to terms with Sun to license JavaME, they could
have revisited that decision, especially considering that they essentially
threw out the Android UI when iPhone came out and changed everyone's notion of
what a smartphone should like. Android post-iPhone looks and acts nothing like
Android pre-iPhone.

Even if they kept their code in Java, they could have made it so that the
official way to write third-party applications was to write native code. That
would have given them the flexibility of migrating away from Java without
impacting third parties in the case of future problems over Java intellectual
property.

"As such JavaScript is not capable enough to write many kinds of programs one
would like to write. Not today and definitely not in 2002".

What kind of program for a mobile device would Javascript today not be capable
of?

~~~
nkassis
Handling binary files? The language itself is fine but some support for
special things is still lacking. But that's changing fast, in the future it
would be an ok choice.

------
jawee
Does anyone smell SCO?

~~~
nkassis
Except Oracle has revenues to offset the cost of litigation, this could last
years.

------
eldenbishop
Dunno....looking at the code examples , particularly PolicyNodeImpl.java looks
like they where simply converted straight from the original code. There is
simply no way the Google code was not copied/generated from the Sun code.

You can view the example here ->

<http://www.scribd.com/doc/40316099/orclgoogcode>

------
cshekhar
If this fight goes in favor of oracle will it impact android developments ? I
mean for developers how does it matters ?

------
bhiggins
someone directly copied my answer to 2+2. boo hoo.

------
yvombinator
is this a response to google's response or just a really old reporting of the
case?

i thought google already completely trashed their claims in quite harsh words

------
known
Does it mean Oracle never _copied_ anything?

