Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | login

On to paragraph 13:

"the district court found that the structure, sequence and organization of the JC-5000S was expression, and thus subject to protection."

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/05/oracle-v-google-cant-make...

Judge Alsup told Google's counsel that Google had to address the Johnson Controls decision with a view to the Java APIs.

-----


Gosling: "Despite my well-known opinions on Oracle, they wouldn't do any of the nightmare scenarios that some have imagined: such a meltdown would not be in their own self interest. They have actually been unexpectedly good stewards of Java (although less so of Solaris)."

-----


But with his closing argument, Google counsel Robert Van Nest insisted that the search giant was well within its rights in building its own version of Java, claiming “fair use” of Oracle’s copyrights.

Google's defense is incredibly weak. relying mostly on fair use.

the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

-----


Google's best defense is that API can't be copyrighted actually, and that will be decided by the judge if the jury find Google's work is not fair use.

-----


jury told by Judge to assume APIs are copyrightable.

Since that order emphasizes the importance of the APIs, it probably weighs in Oracle's favor.

We'll find out for sure in a few days.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/04/oracle-presi...

-----


From the article:

> There is one thing the jury won't know: the issue of whether APIs can be copyrighted at all is actually up in the air. It's a legal gray area that will be decided by Judge William Alsup—but only after the jury gives its verdict in this case. (When that happens, even a jury verdict in Oracle's favor could be a hollow one.)

which is exactly what felipeko was referring to.

-----


That is awful. Honestly, the idea of APIs, and not their implementation, being copyrighted makes no sense to me, since it goes against the fundamental principle behind copyright law (versus patent law).

If a juror genuinely believes that the idea of copyrighting APIs and extending that copyright to alternate implementations makes no sense, how can they come up with a decision that's anything but arbitrary? That's like me saying, 'Assume that 1 * 5 = 0, and then decide if if the satisfiability problem can be solved in linear time'.

If you give me a nonsensical set of assumptions, how can I come up with an answer that's not also nonsensical? If you give me some messed up numerical system like that one, well sure, maybe those definitions would propagate though to the definition of polynomial complexity as well. But what does that mean for the real world? Nothing - and law is meant to be applied, not some abstract theoretical exercise.

-----


Which I agreed with. That's why I said "We'll find out for sure in a few days."

I just posted this to highlight the fact that things are in Oracle's favor.

jury told by Judge to assume APIs are copyrightable.

Since that order emphasizes the importance of the APIs, it probably weighs in Oracle's favor.

-----


Sun/Oracle had OpenJDK (published under GPL) which is supported by everyone including IBM (after it abandoned Harmony).

>you're going to have to expect non-"Java" open source forks.

yes, licensed under GPL not ASL.

Here's what Andy Rubin had to say about GPL:

"The problem with GPL in embedded systems [such as smartphones and tablets] is that it's viral [...]"

"Sun chose GPL for this exact reason so that companies would need to come back to them and take a direct license and pay royalties."

-----


You forgot to mention the years that Sun strung Harmony along (since JCP decisions at the start of OpenJDK development in 2006!), a behavior that Oracle came out vocally and publicly against until they acquired Sun.

> yes, licensed under GPL not ASL.

I feel like you don't really read the posts you respond to. That kind of thinking was exactly the impetus for the non-"Java" forking I was referring to. Hypothetical: someone forks OpenJDK and makes incompatible changes to the APIs. They have no interest in passing the TCK or following the restrictions in the OpenJDK Community TCK License Agreement. Are they able to release this as long as they don't call it Java? More concretely, should GNU Classpath be shut down?

Precedent up to this point says that that both are fine and have to be tolerated. Jonathan Schwartz said both bothered them but had to be tolerated, but you've made clear that his opinion couldn't possibly be relevant. We'll just have to see how this case turns out.

-----


>Jonathan Schwartz said both bothered them but had to be tolerated, but you've made clear that his opinion couldn't possibly be relevant. We'll just have to see how this case turns out.

His "endorsement" is not a license or a permission to break copyright/license agreements.

-----


It wasn't an endorsement, it was an explanation for why they didn't take legal action against Harmony, or Classpath, or Android.

You didn't answer my questions.

-----


He said many things that were pro-Android. Endorsements, explanation, etc. it doesn't matter. What he said was not a license.

What questions? anyone can fork OpenJDK and release it under a different license due to the classpath exceptions, and if they pass the TCK they can call their software Java. If not they cant't. but PhoneME doesn't have the classpath exception and that's why Google didn't like that.

Here's Andy Rubin's email:

"We are building a platform where the entire purpose is to let people differentiate on top of it," said Android chief Andy Rubin in an August 11, 2007, e-mail that Oracle is touting in its case against Google (PDF). "Sun chose GPL for this exact reason so that companies would need to come back to them and take a direct license and pay royalties."

so what is your point?

-----


Quotes out of context might work on juries where anyone with technical experience has been excused, but he's clearly talking about their GPL code (which they went to great lengths to not use) because no-one in the industry thinks API's are copyrightable or should be. If they did they'd have worked around it like they did the GPL code.

-----


Here's what the ASF had to say:

that Java specifications are proprietary technology that must be licensed directly from the spec lead under whatever terms the spec lead chooses;

-----


Note that IBM dumped Harmony in favor of OpenJDK last year after realizing Harmony will never get a TCK license from Sun/Oracle. The Apache Foundation resigned from the JCP Executive Committee in protest shortly after that and last year an open vote was taken within the Project Management Committee, which resulted in a 20-2 majority to discontinue development."

Here's what the Apache Foundation had to say:

when the Apache Foundation resigned from the JCP Executive Committee in protest, it actually stated on the organization's official blog that the "Java specifications are proprietary technology that must be licensed directly from the spec lead under whatever terms the spec lead chooses."

Source: http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/04/oracle-asks-court-to-clea...

https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/the_asf_resigns_fr...

-----


I'm fairly certain that Apache was referring to the TCK license when they were talking about Java specifications. They don't use the word API - probably because the idea of copyrighting an API wasn't considered possible (and hopefully still isn't).

Apache wanted to be able to call Harmony "Java", everyone already knew that it was API compatible.

-----


it's not just Gosling.

"Just because Sun didn't have patent suits in our genetic code doesn't mean we didn't feel wronged. While I have differences with Oracle, in this case they are in the right. Google totally slimed Sun. We were all really disturbed, even Jonathan: he just decided to put on a happy face and tried to turn lemons into lemonade. which annoyed a lot of folks at Sun."

In a March 8, 2007 e-mail to Schwartz about working with Google on licensing or partnering with Sun on Java, Sun's co-founder and chairman, Scott McNealy, characterized the relationship with Google at the time: "The Google thing is really a pain. They are immune to copyright laws, good citizenship, they dont share. They dont even call back."

-----


If Sun didn't want to risk ever feeling this way, they shouldn't have made Java open in the way they did. They purposely made Java so that this kind of thing could happen, and then felt wronged when it actually did.

-----


>purposely made Java so that this kind of thing could happen?

what kind of thing? can you explain a little bit more.

-----


I think he was talking about forks. As you see, when Sun opened it's language, people said at Sun said some interesting stuff:

"But I think there’ll be lots of forks, and I approve. I suspect that basement hackers and university CompSci departments and other unexpected parties will take the Java source, hack groovy improvements into it, compile it, and want to give it to the world. They’ll discover that getting their creation blessed as “Java” requires running the TCK/trademark gauntlet, which isn’t groovy at all. So they’ll think of a clever name for it and publish anyhow."

Director of Web Technologies at Sun Microsystems, 12/11/2006 [ Source: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2006/11/12/OSS-Java ]

This sound exactly what Google did, so why are they suing now?

-----


Well... that seems fairly damning.

-----


>"hack groovy improvements into it, compile it, and want to give it to the world."

under GPL (OpenJDK) not ASL (Harmony <-- groovy name).

Here's what the Apache Foundation said after it discontinued work on Harmony.

"Java specifications are proprietary technology that must be licensed directly from the spec lead under whatever terms the spec lead chooses."

-----


From what I understand, whatever license Java is released under allows for the possibility of another party creating a clean room implementation of the language and releasing it on their own, outside of any control, influence, or fees due to Sun.

-----


doesn't matter. he's James Gosling.

-----


Gosling said that Sun was "wronged" by Google and that Oracle is right to sue Google for the way it used Java code in Android.

Just because Sun didn't have patent suits in our genetic code doesn't mean we didn't feel wronged. While I have differences with Oracle, in this case they are in the right. Google totally slimed Sun. We were all really disturbed, even Jonathan: he just decided to put on a happy face and tried to turn lemons into lemonade.

In a March 8, 2007 e-mail to Schwartz about working with Google on licensing or partnering with Sun on Java, Sun's co-founder and chairman, Scott McNealy, characterized the relationship with Google at the time: "The Google thing is really a pain. They are immune to copyright laws, good citizenship, they dont share. They dont even call back."

"It's really hard to tell what their intentions are with Android. They put this thing out there, and you've got lots of people picking it up. The big attraction seems to be the zero on the price tag. But everybody I've talked to who is building an Android phone or whatever, they're all going in and they're just hacking on it. And so all these Android phones are going to be incompatible.

"One of the reasons that we charge license fees is because we've got organizations of people that do compatibility testing and actual negotiating amongst the different handset makers so that things like GPS APIs look the same. And what's going on in the Android world is there's kind of no adult in charge. And all these handset manufacturers are doing whatever they damn well please. Which means that it's just going to be randomness. It could be let a thousand flowers bloom, but it also could be a dog's breakfast. And I guess having been around the track a few times, it feels like it's going to be more of a dog's breakfast."

-----


Putting aside the IP issue, this sounds like a textbook example of worse-is-better[1]. Sun spent years trying to corral mobile vendors through a single standards process to ensure the "correct" result while Google shipped and iterated on something just good enough. Android may be a "dog's breakfast", but it's a couple of orders of magnitude more successful than Sun's Java-on-mobile efforts ever were.

Apple's mobile success might seem like a counter example with the iPhone as a "better-is-better" perfectly polished jewel, but when you look beneath the surface, the iOS implementation is filled with compromises and hacky tricks[2]. The magic comes from always compromising in favor of what really matters (simplicity, responsiveness), rather than refusing to compromise at all.

[1] http://dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html

[2] I'm particularly fond of the way it maintains a recently rendered version of your application's interface to show you for the fraction of a second it takes to activate the app and bring it back to the foreground. It's only marginally more useful than a black screen, but works wonders for the perception of responsiveness.

-----


Reminds me why Java has the reputation for being over-engineered. Google actually shipped a version of Java that was sane to code with, and Sun is just jealous they didn't come up with it first. Android is the first time I could actually say that I enjoyed coding in Java. Couldn't say the same with Sun's complicated over-engineered stuff.

-----


I've watched Gosling's various comments about Android over the years, and it really does sound like a case of sour grapes: Google saw success where Gosling's creation saw overwhelming failure (it is simply incredible for Gosling to actually denigrate Android -- which by and large is incredibly common across thousands of devices -- with the disaster that was J2ME).

-----


I don't know why you have to drag iOS into this discussion, but it's a known fact that there are way more compromises and "hacky tricks" in Android than iOS.

-----


Interesting. I can't comment on the relative volume of hacks in iOS vs. Android. Presumably both have quite a few.

My point was that "worse-is-better" was validated by the success of Android vs. Sun's own mobile efforts as characterized by Sun's executives here. And that despite appearances, the other major successful mobile platform is an application of worse-is-better as well.

I'm surprised the smart guys at Sun—who were themselves beneficiaries of worse-is-better in the Unix workstation market—built their mobile strategy around designing the "one true API". I suppose the (somewhat accidental?) success of Java convinced them it was a viable approach.

-----


Just because Sun didn't have patent suits in our genetic code doesn't mean we didn't feel wronged. While I have differences with Oracle, in this case they are in the right. Google totally slimed Sun. We were all really disturbed, even Jonathan: he just decided to put on a happy face and tried to turn lemons into lemonade.

In a March 8, 2007 e-mail to Schwartz about working with Google on licensing or partnering with Sun on Java, Sun's co-founder and chairman, Scott McNealy, characterized the relationship with Google at the time: "The Google thing is really a pain. They are immune to copyright laws, good citizenship, they dont share. They dont even call back."

"It's really hard to tell what their intentions are with Android. They put this thing out there, and you've got lots of people picking it up. The big attraction seems to be the zero on the price tag. But everybody I've talked to who is building an Android phone or whatever, they're all going in and they're just hacking on it. And so all these Android phones are going to be incompatible.

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Y Combinator | Apply | Contact

Search: