A San Francisco federal judge had decided that Oracle could not claim copyright protection on parts of Java, but on Friday the three-judge Federal Circuit panel reversed that ruling.
“We conclude that a set of commands to instruct a computer to carry out desired operations may contain expression that is eligible for copyright protection,” Federal Circuit Judge Kathleen O’Malley wrote.
This is terrible news for the technology industry and us enthusiasts.
This case should have ended with this. Everything after that is a sham.
Or with the creation of OpenJDK. How do you explain something suing over something that exists under the GPL.
The license is only valid for server/desktop usage of OpenJDK.
As I thought Java was open source, is this the ‘loophole’ Oracle is suing over?
When Sun made OpenJDK available, the license never covered embedded scenarios, like J2ME and JavaCard for example.
Google then tried to negotiate with Sun, for embedded use, but those talks failed.
They then came up with Dalvik and used Harmony for the base Java support.
Gosling said that the Sun was not that happy, contrary to the link posted by Tom.
http://nighthacks.com/roller/jag/entry/my_attitude_on_oracle_v
For the non-Java programmer, what does that mean specifically?
Whatever the case, it seems that Google knew they were on shaky ground, esp if they didn’t get explicit permission from Sun to use the parts that they didn’t have a license for.
Not much, it’s just a note. Oracle didn’t prevail on any of the patent claims in the original trial.
This is mostly about whether the structure, sequence, and organization of an API is an expression of an idea, and whether or not Google had an exemption to copyright law when they infringed.
The Jury already found Google to infringe, it was just hung on the fair use doctrine. It was all made moot due to the Judge’s ruling that APIs weren’t copyrightable, but that all changed today.
Now there will be another trial on fair use, and if Google fails there then it’s liable for past damages and ongoing infringement. That $6B they originally asked for will look like chump change.
Apple might be able to at best annoy Google/Samsung. This has the potential to completely destroy Android’s developer platform.
If I’m understanding the situation correctly, Google couldn’t license the APIs under the terms they wanted, so they created their own virtual machine to try and work around it.
I guess this would be like Wine/ReactOS building their own version of the Win32 API from scratch, using the same function names? Which this court just ruled as illegal ….
They wanted to have the familiarity of Java without the compatibility (Which was Java’s selling point). Obviously this was a major no-no in Sun’s eyes, so Google circumvented them by rolling the runtime, the class libraries, and co-opting the Java language for their own gain.
Oracle’s attack on Google was two pronged. Patents and Copyright. Patents covering the implementation and copyright covering the creative works the APIs are comprised of.
Oracle lost pretty soundly on patents but the copyright issue was seen by many (including me) as a potential winner for Oracle. So at this point the fact that they wrote their own VM, byte code, etc isn’t too relevant any longer.
What is relevant is the fact that Google copied the SSO of Java’s APIs. This much is set in stone already. A Jury decided that matter.
Also set in stone is that APIs are copyrightable (barring the SCOTUS).
The only thing left is for the Judge (not a Jury. Oracle and Google agreed to not have this decided by a Jury) to decide if Google had a good reason to infringe. That reason being fair use.
The problem is that while the Appeals Court didn’t rule on fair use, they did state that they agreed with a lot of what Oracle said.
Looks like Florian wasn’t wrong after all. Nice job, armchair lawyers.
Florian was, is and will forever be wrong because he is a piece of paid by Oracle sh!t.
He called this ruling in December. Lol. I don’t see how him doing consulting for Oracle makes a difference.
Because he is a self proclaimed pundit. He is supposed to be using his subject matter expertise to publish opinion for the benefit of the public. He has done quite a bit of that over the years and done it well.
However, when you offer opinion on the outcome of a legal case involving someone who pays you its stops being punditry and becomes cheer leading.
He’s is no longer a pundit on matters involving Oracle, he is a shill. Not in a derogatory sense – in a literal sense. His opinion on the matter is worth exactly nothing to anyone by his employer.
It really doesn’t matter if he is right or wrong. He should have recused himself and not spoken openly about it. Assuming he cared about keeping his reputation intact, that was the only honorable thing he could do in his situation.
I don’t think it becomes cheer leading as a direct result of him doing consulting work for Oracle, especially when a lot of his calls were right on the money.
The professionalism of not recusing himself from commenting is I suppose between him and his conscious, but it has no bearing on his accuracy or credibility.
And this is precisely why the collective internet dropped their jaw today, because they’d rather bury good insight under the guise of morality and ethics rather than taking it with a grain of salt.
Results speak more than morality or ethics (which are entirely subjective).
Come on.
Sun itself sold
the good nice golden looks
of Java to Oracle.
Problem here is that
communities are being sold.
As if cattle they were.
‘Libre’ is about freedom.
Wrooong licencing.
Bad luck, Margarito.
No Way, Jose.
:/
Well, O-racle, doesn’t sounds like Mi-racle…
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/massachusetts-romneycare…
Kochise
The article is a bit vague where it says “Google had argued that software should only be allowed to be patented, not copyrighted.” I assume they mean APIs. Anyhow the case isn’t over yet. It now has to be sent back to the lower court with the instruction that APIs *are* copyrightable, but as the article points out, Alsup could still decide that Google’s use of the APIs was fair use.
Google should switch to C#.
The C# 6.0 compiler (Roslyn) is fully Open Source under Apache 2.0 (which includes a full patent grant).
http://roslyn.codeplex.com/
Microsoft has stated that they are working with ECMA to bring the open specification up to date:
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-334.h…
They would not need to switch away from Dalvik although I imagine it would need to be enhanced to support C#. Proper support for CIL (.NET bytecode) would mean that F# and VB.NET could be supported as well. They are also fully Open Source (also Apache 2.0).
http://fsharp.org/
If they want to switch away from Dalvik, .NET for small devices is fully Open Source (Apache 2.0 again with a patent grant) and available as a foundation:
http://netmf.codeplex.com/
The CLI/CLR itself (sorta the .NET JVM) is an ECMA standard:
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-335.h…
covered by the Community Promise:
http://www.microsoft.com/openspecifications/en/us/programs/communit…
and the DLR is also Open Source (Apache 2.0)
http://dlr.codeplex.com/
One of the languages that runs just fine on .NET is Java. So, they could continue to support legacy code bases just fine if they used a .NET foundation.
http://www.ikvm.net/
I know that many people will have the gut reaction that .NET is less safe legally than Java. That argument is in opposition with the facts.
Why in the world would Google switch to Microsoft crap? Microsoft should never be trusted.
Maybe switching to Qt makes the most sense if Google ever decides to dump Dalvik, but the ecosystem is already built to run on Dalvik, so it would be insane to switch to anything else for the foreseeable future.
Well Microsoft’s various patent grants, community promises, code releases (under OSS licenses), and standards participation sure beats the hell out of what Sun/Oracle ever did.
Microsoft also routinely partners with Xamarin(Mono team) (they presented at BUILD ffs), gives them testing suites and technical specs in advance, etc.
C# and .NET would actually solve all of Google’s problems (both current and upcoming) with Oracle.
What about the upcoming problems with Microsoft? You really think MS wouldn’t do their best to bring Android down, like they already are doing?
Perhaps (arguable, given that Microsoft now manufactures and sells Android devices), but not using C# and .NET as an attack vector.
The promises and patent grants are legally binding. You’d have an equitable estoppel defense.
This is in stark contrast to the weak defense Google put up (and that Thom references). Here’s a quote from Judge Alsup:
What about the upcoming problems with Microsoft? You really think MS wouldn’t do their best to bring Android down, like they already are doing? [/q]
Microsoft already gets a license from most Android sales.
“Their best” attack against Android is probably making Windows Phone free.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2014/04/02/microsoft-offers-…
Of course, Microsoft is actually an Android phone maker:
http://www.nokia.com/global/products/nokia-x/
Instead of philosophical arguments, I would like to hear your legal explanation of how Microsoft gets around the Apache 2.0 license that they have used for much of the .NET code. It is OSI recognized and contains an explicit patent grant.
I do not mind hating Microsoft but some acknowledgement of the facts would be great.
I don’t know. This is not my field of expertise and I’ve given it 15 minutes of thought.
What I do know is that Microsoft stands to lose billions on losing the market to Google (and not just smartphones, they risk their cash cow windows as some part of computing is moving from desktops).
With that in mind, I’m sure they’d put much smarter people than me looking for any possible way to attack Android (I’m sure those people are already hard at work…) and if they found a way to use C#/.Net without outright breaking the law, I have no doubt that they’d exploit every opportunity.
And that’s not “Microsoft is evil”, that’s pretty much what every major company would do in that situation.
The facts are easy, but facts aside (brain science shows us that facts and objective reality are rarely useful to make persuasive arguments), embedded apps are developed on machines using something other than Android/iOS/WinRT. Windows is popular for Android app production and development. Xamarin.Android (embedded mono) apps can be developed with Microsoft’s Visual Studio.
Having top level support for .NET in Android would be nothing but win for Microsoft. In the past leadership at MS didn’t see things that way. Their new CEO seems to get it.
Out of interest, how much of Microsoft’s assets do you think they’ve released under Open Source licenses, and how much of their patent portfolio do you think they’ve made any “promises” on?
As far as .NET goes, most of the ones that even make sense in a cross platform context. (Obviously something like WinForms is probably not a good idea).
C# and the CLI (subsequently including the BCL, metadata format, runtime environment, et all) are both ECMA specifications and covered under a patent grant.
Most of what I could imagine would apply to Google is covered. I don’t think they’ll be pulling in the ASP.NET libraries.
Are you talking about those really old version that are specified by ECMA? Because Microsoft stopped doing that a long time ago, though they are now talking about doing that again.
I would not know but I suspect much and perhaps most of their patent portfolio remains behind the iron curtain. What I do know is that 100% of the patents required to implement or extend anything licensed as Apache 2.0 have been made available. How many Microsoft patents do I have to fear if I base my business of their Apache 2.0 software? None. Ask your lawyer.
On the .NET side they have released an awful lot of their assets as Apache 2.0 including ASP.NET MVC, Web API, Entity Framework, MEF, the DLR, .NET Micro, F#, C#, VB.NET, IronRuby, IronPython…
Apache 2.0 is not only a copyright license but an explicit patent grant with full commercial privileges.
I know you are not a lawyer but you really need to ask one about the difference between “promises” and licenses. Either that or dig a trench and grab a gun because the law does not protect you from anybody any better.
Based on your line of logic, the Apache web-server is unsafe and a good chunk of the Internet should be expecting letters from lawyers soon.
As for the “Community Promise”, it is also legally more than a promise. I am sure you have heard lectures about estoppel and latches before. What people seem to be missing is that for the Apache 2.0 stuff, you do not need to rely on the “promise” at all. It is just the pudding on top.
I’m at a loss to understand how you made it from A (my post) to B (whatever you just posted) there. I just asked a simple question, you’re now talking about the Internet being sued?
Because it is technically superior and less legally encumbered?
You do not have to trust them if you have a copyright license and full patent grant. I do not trust them.
Android already supports native code. Qt already works on Android. It comes with all the pros and cons of native code.
http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5/android-support.html
You do not have to dump Dalvik (as I said before). Just stop using Java to generate the bytecode. Dalvik is pretty slow though so it is worth considering.
You appear to have expended your efforts on building up emotional capabilities instead of your technical expertise.
From a 3rd party perspective, it’s hard to discern if this comment was supposed to apply to the previous poster or yourself. 😉
Fair enough. Thanks for the feedback.
This is a hot-button for me as I am weary of saying “look here is a legal document” and getting back “you are a fool if you trust them” as a response.
The whole point of the legal document is that you do not have to trust them. I am desperate for at least some sliver of a technical or legal argument or fact in the counter argument. Alas, this is the Internet.
The real news in this story is the far-reaching implications of proprietary APIs and my comments are a distraction to that. The entire software industry could be up-ended.
I agree completely, and I apologize if my quip came off as confrontational. My point earlier was that the two of you were dealing with matters of opinion.
E.g. .Net being superior technically and licensing wise is highly debatable. Plus it would make little strategic sense for google to base one of their key products on a direct rival’s technology. Same goes for those introducing Qt into the conversation, it almost seems as if people are just throwing the names of toolkits around and see what sticks.
Furthermore. The Apache Foundation and Microsoft corporation are two very different entities. Assumptions regarding the legal department of the latter based on the track record of the former should be taken with a grain of salt. Even if MS uses the Apache license in a few pieces of code they’ve released.
In the end, since nobody in this thread is an actual IP lawyer, we all are share the same level of “technical” competence as far as the matter of the article is concerned: nil. 😉
An assertion that .NET and C# (or mono) has a better license for Google’s use (Apache 2.0) is better than Java’s, for which Google has absolutely no license or rights at all – is fact, not opinion. It’s actually a simple fact too, based in long standing patent and copyright law, but it keeps getting lost to the anti-Microsoft tribalism devouring this thread.
That .NET is technically better than Java is opinion for sure, but I think a strong case can be made. I say this as someone who is new to both Java and C# – a lot of things are way easier to pull off in C#. async is a thing of pure beauty in c#, and Java just doesn’t have anything comparable. Delegates and lamda functions are crazy useful (almost like JavaScript). Built in event properties in c# – so great. On the other side, inline classes in Java are kind of neat.
Dalvik isn’t the issue its the API. They could keep the VM, and just switch the language.
In any case, they’re experimenting with art, a native binary format as an alternative to Dalvik.
Seriously? Because Microsoft would never try to do anything to hurt Android?
You think they wouldn’t weasel out of any perceived promises they’ve made if it meant they get to be the top mobile OS provider?
Empty promises until they’re fulfilled.
Microsoft has a terrible track record.
Look at Silverlight
I don’t think you understand the issue at hand. Google is in trouble for using the API of Java, the class and function names. Not the JVM. IKVM does the same dang thing that Google did. The’d be in just as much trouble as they are now.
C# has gradualy been opened up in various ways over the years. It might be more open now than Java, I am not a lawyer and I’d have to study up on the various licenses to see if it were possible and practical or not for a company to do what Google did back in 2004 today with .Net.
But that’s just it. Back when Android was started that wasn’t the case. Android had to decide what language to use in 2004, not 2014. I think their decisions made a lot of sense.
Good job, Federal Circuit. Way to completely miss the point of Alsup’s ruling. This is what happens when the Court of Appeals is run by IP lawyers.
Google should just buy Oracle and be done with it.
And then open source all their code and IPR – and make a point of not using it themselves.
Oracle has a 200B market cap. It’s one of the biggest technology companies in the country and Larry Ellison is unlikely to sell his ownership. Buying them would likely cost close to $300B.
If they wanted to own Java they should have purchased sun Microsystems cheap (7.4B), paid for a proper license, or worked on support of another major programming language to be used as a replacement.
Actually, they just need to introduce a New! Improved! Android-optimized! API for Android 5, alongside the creaky, old, antiquated, and sub-optimized Oracle API, and encourage developers to move to it quickly for best results. Add an “Optimize for Five” badge with featured positioning in Play as an added incentive.
Then, if SCOTUS eventually rules against Google, they can just drop those sad old Oracle APIs in Android 6 and be non-infringing. They won’t avoid paying for past infringement, of course, but it will avoid Oracle’s inevitable filing for an injunction and demand for future royalty payments.
But methinks Shakespeare was right.
History changed forever.
The lesson:
SUN was NOT a competitor.
They where just asking for
their just slice of the fruit pay.
SHARE the fruit pay.
You got it at the end of scale,
but lot of people got you up there.
Edited 2014-05-11 19:58 UTC
Sun no more had the time and lawyers.
And Google knew it.
And Sun knew Google knew it.
Sun was asking for chivalry. Mercy, if you like.
They didn’t got it.
This is just my hypothesis.
Shadows in the cave of the slaves.
Buying the judges would be cheaper.
If this goes further, they might end up paying Oracle a sh*load of money. If they do, the next step they should to would be to push out a new language and api to totally replace java in android, then use their momentum to simply make java totally irrelevant in the mobile space (again).
Oh dear. How many APIs produced by other companies or organizations are used in Oracle’s core products? How many are properly licensed? Icarus may have been a better name for this company…
How many of them does Oracle reimplement without a license, how many are creative, original, and copyrightable works?
API design is an art form.
How about Solaris Containers for Linux Applications (SCLA)?
Well, shit.
It is probably up to the specific copyright holders to take action if that’s their prerogative, I suppose.
There’s a lot of context missing, such as any kind of negotiated terms between the two parties, including permission granted explicitly or otherwise implied.
In this specific instance though, Oracle felt inclined to go after legal remedies with regards to Google. Others may/may not feel the same.
I think though to speak to what I think this discussion hints at, the people affected by this are people doing at best something that’s legally murky (interoperable implementations of existing APIs) . It’s important to make the distinction between them, and normal consumers of APIs.
No one who actually works in IT until today has ever considered interoperable software implementations as “legally murky”.
Also a single decision from a single court of appeal does not invalidate five decades of prevailing attitude and practice, no matter how much the idea gives Larry a semi. As it stand it isn’t even enough to be considered a precedent, so lets stop blowing it out of proportion.
Edited 2014-05-09 23:04 UTC
I imagine every technology company in the US will file and amicus brief on the side of Google if this hits SCOTUS.
I don’t think this will go to the SCOTUS, contrary to the internet today, there’s nothing really earth shattering about this verdict. What in fact was surprising was the original verdict falling on the side of Google.
I was surprised too. A judge using sound logic to reach a decision, and supporting it with carefully reasoned arguments.
Mind-blowing…
Made all the more mind blowing because that judge still does coding every now and then and knows something about it, which is rare and noteworthy.
Right, and while your hard ons over his Java programming skills (oh, wow) are nice and all, it doesn’t change the fact that he was wrong, and his ruling was inconsistent with existing case law regarding software copyright.
REALLY? In another post you said there was no case law denying the copyrightability of APIs. There is also no case law supporting it either AFAIK. So how can you say his ruling was inconsistent? And at least he had the sense to learn about the matter he was judging.
Not only that, but I don’t think case law/precedent is concrete. A judge is allowed to see differently if the current case has different circumstances/facts. Not that it matters, since as you say there is no case law for this before.
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/886/1173/19…
There isn’t (to my knowledge) any case law that affirms the non-copyrightability of APIs.
And yes, reimplementing an existing API is a legally murky situation because it is at the discretion of the copyright holder how they will enforce it.
Interoperability, the common good, and all the sunshine and rainbows in the world don’t trump the statutory obligation the courts have to affirm the rights of the copyright holders.
So now, barring Google prevailing on fair use (not too likely, given that the end result of Google infringing isn’t even an interoperable implementation of Java), it seems like Google is approximately fucked.
Or they can hope that the Supreme Court grants them a writ and that those pasty old guys understand this shit.
There isn’t any case law that affirms the copyrightable nature of APIs either. There is however fifty decades of accepted practice that says otherwise, and various decisions such as Feist v. Rural that support such an argument.
Up until Larry came a’ sprayin’ his seed all over the place it was never a consideration. Thanks, Oracle!
Ohh, ohh, show me where in those statutory rights they get to claim copyright over a mere implementation? If the law says they do then all fucking hell is about to break loose.
You know Nelson I’ve been giving you the benefit of the doubt the past year but these days you’re not even subtle about the pure unmitigated shit you spout, so I’m pretty much just going to write you off at this point. I’m sure that’ll send some people into a tizzy about “Strawmen” but fuck it, I really can’t be bothered to argue with someone so entirely contrarian all the damn time. It’s boring and predictable.
That’s because APIs specifically haven’t been litigated on (until now), but the distinction between an API and computer software as a whole isn’t a very well defined one. As a result various rulings regarding ability to copyright the SSO of software is applicable.
That includes the ruling I linked to before.
Oh, please. This has always been an open question, just one that was best left unanswered. Hence the gray area. Well, here’s your answer.
Haha.
Yeah, that will be very interesting
Lord HTC has been found guilty, Samsung more then once, Google with this and over 20 companies paying Microsoft for Android and Linux use.
Can we please just come to the realization that eventually the piper must be paid for this theft.
You can’t just copy something and because it’s open source then try to say it’s not a copy!
Not flying!
If I can get sued because I develop software that accepts the same inputs and delivers the same outputs from/to an external agent and my software can be used in place of another component and I can get sued for that, then the software industry and technology in general will die in the united states.
The entire PC industry exists as it is today because of the fact that people were allowed to map inputs and outputs on chips and sell them as replacements to the market!
How can we apply this
hardware ‘self-evident truth’
to a software API?
How can you come to that conclusion when the material in question does not contain ANYTHING that can be construed as an operation???
Hopefully the next judge isn’t a moron.
It was a panel of judges. The next judge will be Judge Alsup as it was remanded back to the lower courts. That’s of course unless the Supreme Court agrees to take up the case. Then on to another panel of judges.
Otherwise this matter is over with and all that’s left to hash out is fair use.
If you think Google won’t appeal this to the Supreme court your crazy. I you think the Supreme court won’t take the case when they were explicitly called out in the decision your crazy. If you think the Supreme court will uphold this decision, well you might be right…
But if they do they’re crazy.
Regardless, one way or another this won’t stand. The judge said:
The only companies this benefits are already entrenched software makers with protectionist tendencies (i.e. Oracle, Apple, maybe MS though I doubt they would even support this). This will scare the shit out of the other 90% of the software industry… If SCOTUS doesn’t fix this then it will be lobbied to death and Congress will.
It won’t stand.
The Supreme Court granting cert is a little bit more involved than just “they name dropped us”.
First is probability. The odds are highly stacked against SCOTUS action. The SCOTUS denies a vast, vast majority of the requests they receive.
Second. The Supreme Court isn’t here to check the Appellate court. It’s here to resolve open questions on federal law. Of which there are plenty more controversial subjects that would draw their attention.
Google would have to do a damn good job convincing the four (of nine) Justices they need that this case is cert worthy.
I think in this case it has more to do with how well of a job Google’s lawyers can do, vs how well of a job Oracle’s lawyers can do proving/disproving cert worthiness. I happen to think Oracle has an easier time by default.
I think the odds are in Oracle’s favor actually. Especially if it doesn’t go to the SCOTUS. At that point I think the strong comments regarding fair use by the Apellate court will definitely have an impact.
Congress? You really think Congress will “fix” (implying it’s broken in the first place, a notion I disagree with) this? Come on. This is the country where we shut down the government over funding for healthcare for sick people. Congress is gridlocked at least until the midterms.
It also depends on whether or not this Administration disagrees (the President ultimately has veto power) with the outcome when all is said and done.
Of course, all of this would be a moot point if Google sees the writing on the wall and settles with Oracle.
This isn’t a political hot potato like healthcare. Its a tech sector issue, it doesn’t affect anyone else significantly, and it really has no partisan string attached.
Congress may be horrible at acting upon the will of the people, but they have a good track record on converting industry lobby money into law.
Are there any examples of public domain books detailing the API?
I think Google would be better off using Python as its language for Android.
Edited 2014-05-10 03:49 UTC
Don’t be ridiculous, everybody knows Google should move Android over to LISP. Duh…
Google has been a rock-solid Python backer, for which I’m appreciative, and they continue to be very supportive. Unladen Swallow was a particularly generous contribution, with a very well-managed integration to upstream to boot.
But if Android 5 breaks with Java, I think it’s equally probably they would switch to Dart. Dart arguably has more value to them if they can persuade Firefox et. al. to include the native browser runtime, possibly unifying the preferred language for mobile and web with something Google effectively controls.
Whether this is good for the world’s citizenry is a different question, of course.
Doesn’t this mean all emulators are buggered?
I don’t really think it’s terrible. Java is an API, a programming language, a virtual machine.They cherry picked what they need and modified it to an incompatible extent without collaborating with anyone. When Microsoft did that, everyone was cheering Sun as a saviour for suing them. It’s embrace, extend altogether again, but with Google instead of Microsoft. Java has a community process in place for making changes and there are a lot of projects that are based on it. It’s as open as it gets. The point is to make it compatible though. If Google did just the part with embrace/extend it probably would have been fine.
The main difference that Microsoft Java was marketed as a drop-in replacement for Sun Java. Same class files, same complete set of APIs.
And then added their own byte code extensions to make things a one-way street, but kept it compatible enough so it’s only visible when trying to run MS Java code on other JVMs.
Android’s use of Java is different: you won’t mistake an APK for a JAR or vice-versa, and you won’t be able to easily run an Android application on a JVM or vice-versa. Google is also quite careful to state that they support the Java language instead of Java-the-ecosystem.
Was Google permitted to adopt parts of Java that way? No idea (although I have pretty strong opinion when it comes to the copyrightability of interfaces), but it’s a different situation from what happened with MS Java.
Case in point: the MS Java lawsuit ended with Microsoft not being allowed to use the “Java compatible” trademark (among other obligations), which isn’t even in question here – Google doesn’t claim compatibility and doesn’t use the mark and Oracle didn’t sue for it.
Keep in mind that what Microsoft was faulted for is using “Java” and extending it. Google wrote their own virtual machine and doesn’t ever call it Java. They are just using the Java language and they aren’t altering it. This is why Harmony could exist. They didn’t call it Java either.
Microsoft had a contract they signed with Sun that promised them that all the binaries produced would be compatible with other JVMS. Microsoft broke that contract and was sued on that basis.
Apple later had a different contract with Sun, which allowed apple to make non-compatable jars. Jobs at one point proclaimed OS X to be the OS for Java, and that Java would always have the same first tier support for OSX apis.
Google, on the other hand, never singed anything with Sun. They just took open source code (Apache Harmony) , modified it and kept it open sourced.
I don’t see why that’s wrong. Google doesn’t advertise it as Java or promise any compatibility.
Oracle can only assert copyright over Java with the version that existed after they purchased it from Sun, Sun already allowed Google to freely use it in Android. They do after all have the email from the then president congratulating them, and no where do you see any copyright talk.
SCOTUS will be next and they regularly throw out most of what comes out of that court in California
Edited 2014-05-10 04:00 UTC
SCOTUS “will be next” first requires writ of certiorari, of which a majority of petitions are denied.
However, if you have any insight as to what criteria Google’s lawyers might say that this case falls under, I’d like to know. I’ve reviewed the Court Rules and haven’t found anything applicable.
if Google abandons the use of Java in Android 5, Oracle will loose a damn lot of Java supporters. And J2ME will have even less impact after.
In my opinion this is just a short term success for Oracle, a pyrrhic victory nothing more.
pica
I hate the Java platform and I think Android is a huge part of what has allowed it to retain this much mind share. Google is one company that could have likely created a real truly open competitor to C# and Java and I am really disappointed they didn’t put more effort behind that path.
Maybe they will double down on Go?
Maybe they should switch to Dart!!
I once attended a day-long seminar put on by Oracle. They expounded their support of open source. IMHO they are showing quite the opposite of that now. Hey, Oracle? Kiss my ass…
… this sort of lends credibility to the theory that Oracle is really a legal firm that sells databases on the side.
Now that APIs have been ruled to be copyrightable OSNews might be found to be infringing on someone’s IP with all the API calls you use in the URLs.
Madness, I know.
Edited 2014-05-10 22:54 UTC