Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 13th Aug 2010 01:32 UTC, submitted by JeremyPoulson
Legal I'm supposed to be asleep right now, but this news kind of hit me like a ton of bricks: Oracle is suing Google over its Android mobile operating system, claiming it infringes on its patented Java technology. Not a good week to be Google, is it?
Order by: Score:
GPL
by Elv13 on Fri 13th Aug 2010 01:47 UTC
Elv13
Member since:
2006-06-12

As far as I know, Google does not use the OpenSource java version, they wrote a VM from scratch. I don't think GPL protect them. Sun sued Microsoft for doing that some years ago.

Reply Score: 4

RE: GPL
by Damir on Fri 13th Aug 2010 05:06 UTC in reply to "GPL"
Damir Member since:
2009-07-20

Google is a bit smarter compared to Microsoft: they never use word 'java' when it comes to language used by Dalvik VM.

Reply Score: 1

RE: GPL
by ahmetaa on Fri 13th Aug 2010 05:22 UTC in reply to "GPL"
ahmetaa Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually writing your own JVM with any kind of license is completely valid. AFAIK reasons for creating dalvik were technical (which are not so relevant anymore).
The problem point is possibly the partial JDK they are using. Android uses pieces of an apache licensed version of JDK called Harmony. And they avoid using the word "JDK" for that subset. The only point i can think that Google may be in trouble is that Harmony may include Sun JDK's code in it. It is bad because their licenses are not compatible.
But i doubt that is the attack point of Oracle and nevertheless i believe they will fail and lose a lot of credibility from developers. For once, Google makes Java relevant in mobile world, and they use it heavily in their internal applications.
I would much prefer Oracle to join Google on Android development instead of playing dirty.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: GPL
by Elv13 on Fri 13th Aug 2010 06:00 UTC in reply to "RE: GPL"
Elv13 Member since:
2006-06-12

Actually writing your own JVM with any kind of license is completely valid.

Until you rewrite patented code without using the original code. The GPL grant patent license for derivative work, it does not dissolve the patent.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: GPL
by ahmetaa on Fri 13th Aug 2010 06:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: GPL"
ahmetaa Member since:
2005-07-06

You do not patent a 'code', maybe mechanisms. But i guess there are always workarounds for that.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: GPL
by viton on Fri 13th Aug 2010 07:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: GPL"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

wrong! there are a patents on specific code sequences
like this branchless abs
int const mask = v >> sizeof(int) * CHAR_BIT - 1;
r = (v ^ mask) - mask;

the code is of course dumb simple and used everywhere
this patent belongs to Sun BTW

I wish the whole chain of persons who are responsible of patenting such basic things be burned in hell forever.

Reply Score: 8

RE[5]: GPL
by Tuishimi on Fri 13th Aug 2010 15:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: GPL"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I just don't get that kind of stuff.

If I come up with some way of doing something more efficiently in our code, I immediately share it with my co-workers. If it is non-work-related code that I am working on (maybe not efficient but for fun) I even share it on places like DeviantArt.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: GPL - software patents
by jabbotts on Fri 13th Aug 2010 13:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: GPL"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Software patents; utter BS where copywrite (as is the GPL) should be used to enforce the original developer's rights. In the US and equally irrational patent regions, somehow the mathematics formula known as software can be patented.

Reply Score: 3

asf?
by netsql on Fri 13th Aug 2010 10:40 UTC in reply to "GPL"
netsql Member since:
2005-09-09

I think Apache (software foundation) porteed Java as Harmony.
Then Google ported Harmony as Android.

Right?

Reply Score: 1

Confirming my worst fears
by bannor99 on Fri 13th Aug 2010 01:53 UTC
bannor99
Member since:
2005-09-15

When I heard SUN was up for sale, I was saddened as I didn't think there was anyone who'd be interested, whose pockets where deep enough and who'd keep the opensource tradition alive.

I thought perhaps Fujitsu might be a good choice - buy SUN, help them clean up their act, sponsor the promising software projects, make some killer SPARC boxen of all sizes, etc.
But, 'twas not to be. Then I heard IBM made an offer.
Okay, Big Blue can be something schizophrenic where open source and open standards are concerned but, not the worst choice. Lots of potential in that acquisition.
But the EU overseers poisoned that deal by holding up the go-ahead over antitrust foot-dragging allowing SUN's competitors (including IBM) to pilfer the big money clients. So, Big Blue tooks their toys home - why buy the cow when you've stolen all the milk or, at least, the cream, right?
And,along came Oracle. My reaction? Let's wait and see but I highly doubt this'll end well. The corporate philosophies are just too different. And sometimes, Larry E seem to exhibit the worst traits of both Bill and the Steves ( Jobs / Ballmer )

Reply Score: 8

RE: Confirming my worst fears
by bannor99 on Fri 13th Aug 2010 21:51 UTC in reply to "Confirming my worst fears"
bannor99 Member since:
2005-09-15

Damn, there's an acquisition that never occurred to me - Google buying SUN. Not as good a fit as Fujitsu but as much potential as IBM and on par with Oracle for compatibility and a much better fit for company philosophy.
And, that would have given full control over Java and a possible goodness merger of ZFS and GoogleFS

Reply Score: 2

SUNrise :)
by John Blink on Fri 13th Aug 2010 02:05 UTC
John Blink
Member since:
2005-10-11

Maybe there would still be a SUN if they had sued Google.

Reply Score: 1

Oracle - New Villain?
by TusharG on Fri 13th Aug 2010 02:06 UTC
TusharG
Member since:
2005-07-06

Oracle is slowly going in my bad books. First they acquired SUN and there are lot of good OSS projects of whos future is not secure because they are now under oracle.
Android is the first platform that managed to really challange iOS. Going by this rule we shouldnt be surprise if Nokia & Intel also gets suied in case if they have used java in Meego!

Reply Score: 6

v RE: Oracle - New Villain?
by Mapou on Fri 13th Aug 2010 02:52 UTC in reply to "Oracle - New Villain?"
RE[2]: Oracle - New Villain?
by bazerka on Fri 13th Aug 2010 04:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Oracle - New Villain?"
bazerka Member since:
2006-07-23

Sun originally invented Unix


Um, no. UNIX was created in 1969 by AT&T. Sun Microsystems didn't come into existence until 1982. Perhaps you're getting confused by the fact that one of Sun's founders, Bill Nealy, was a primary developer of BSD Unix *prior* to founding Sun?

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Oracle - New Villain?
by christian on Fri 13th Aug 2010 09:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Oracle - New Villain?"
christian Member since:
2005-07-06

"Sun originally invented Unix


Um, no. UNIX was created in 1969 by AT&T. Sun Microsystems didn't come into existence until 1982. Perhaps you're getting confused by the fact that one of Sun's founders, Bill Nealy, was a primary developer of BSD Unix *prior* to founding Sun?
"

Bill Joy, surely?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Oracle - New Villain?
by itanic on Fri 13th Aug 2010 10:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Oracle - New Villain?"
itanic Member since:
2008-08-03

You mean Bill Joy, also of vi fame?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Oracle - New Villain?
by Mapou on Fri 13th Aug 2010 18:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Oracle - New Villain?"
Mapou Member since:
2006-05-09

My mistake. I was thinking of BSD Unix and Scott McNealy. Sun owns many patents on Unix subsystems. Scott once threatened to use them to force Steve Jobs to leave Sun alone. IIRC, Jobs wanted Sun to stop using some technology that belonged to Apple.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Oracle - New Villain?
by jibadeeha on Fri 13th Aug 2010 05:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Oracle - New Villain?"
jibadeeha Member since:
2009-08-10

Yep. Sun originally invented Unix.


What are they teaching kids in school these days?

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Oracle - New Villain?
by antwarrior on Fri 13th Aug 2010 10:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Oracle - New Villain?"
antwarrior Member since:
2006-02-11

"Yep. Sun originally invented Unix.


What are they teaching kids in school these days?
"


Come on. Lay off the teenagers. It's an understandable mistake. Most of us are old fogeys here have been around long enough to see a lot of change in technology. Right now the computer landscape has never been more heterogeneous in the number OS's, hardware platforms and computer languages. So the kid can be excused for not knowing exactly where and when Unix came from.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Oracle - New Villain?
by jibadeeha on Fri 13th Aug 2010 16:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Oracle - New Villain?"
jibadeeha Member since:
2009-08-10

Yep. Sun originally invented Unix.


What are they teaching kids in school these days?



Come on. Lay off the teenagers. It's an understandable mistake. Most of us are old fogeys here have been around long enough to see a lot of change in technology. Right now the computer landscape has never been more heterogeneous in the number OS's, hardware platforms and computer languages. So the kid can be excused for not knowing exactly where and when Unix came from.


Your comment is even funnier than mine.

Edited 2010-08-13 16:29 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Oracle - New Villain?
by chekr on Fri 13th Aug 2010 02:59 UTC in reply to "Oracle - New Villain?"
chekr Member since:
2005-11-05

Going by this rule we shouldnt be surprise if Nokia & Intel also gets suied in case if they have used java in Meego!


thankfully java is not a part of meego

Reply Score: 3

RE: Oracle - New Villain?
by lfeagan on Fri 13th Aug 2010 03:09 UTC in reply to "Oracle - New Villain?"
lfeagan Member since:
2006-04-01

IBM is a paying Java licensee. Nokia uses IBM's J9 implementation as do many other mobile device manufacturers/developers.

Here is a list of some of the Java licensees:

http://java.sun.com/javase/licensees.jsp

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Oracle - New Villain?
by ahmetaa on Fri 13th Aug 2010 05:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Oracle - New Villain?"
ahmetaa Member since:
2005-07-06

Android does not need that license. Google does not say, or want to say "this application is compatible with Java SE". Neither they claim using JME. They only mention Java the language, which does not require a license. The libraries comes partly from Apache Harmony project but Google don't claim to have a compatible JDK library either.

Edited 2010-08-13 05:30 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Oracle - New Villain?
by tyrione on Fri 13th Aug 2010 05:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Oracle - New Villain?"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Android does not need that license. Google does not say, or want to say "this application is compatible with Java SE". Neither they claim using JME. They only mention Java the language, which does not require a license. The libraries comes partly from Apache Harmony project but Google don't claim to have a compatible JDK library either.


Keep dreaming. Google does need to license. And the courts will rule in Oracle's favor with the restrictions of said license.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Oracle - New Villain?
by ahmetaa on Fri 13th Aug 2010 06:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Oracle - New Villain?"
ahmetaa Member since:
2005-07-06

Well we will see. I don't think this is about that Java SE license. Patents related with this law suit seems to related with VM mechanisms.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Oracle - New Villain?
by wirespot on Fri 13th Aug 2010 12:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Oracle - New Villain?"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Well we will see. I don't think this is about that Java SE license.


I don't think so either. Actually I think it's much much simpler than that. Android is starting to take off so Oracle wants a cut of the cake, whether they deserve it or not.

Presumably, they hope that holding something over Google will lead to a lucrative settlement or, who knows, even a per-copy license fee. Although God knows how they expect to track copies of software distributed as FOSS. Maybe they expect to win with Google and then use the decision to go after anybody using Android (big mobile phone manufacturers first).

Or maybe there's some secretive and unrelated dispute currently going on between Google and Oracle, and Oracle is using this lawsuit to strike back.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Oracle - New Villain?
by Lobotomik on Fri 13th Aug 2010 09:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Oracle - New Villain?"
Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

Says who? On what base?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Oracle - New Villain?
by miscz on Fri 13th Aug 2010 18:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Oracle - New Villain?"
miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

I think company like Google was aware of this threat when creating Android. Was there even official statement from their part? I think they have something up their sleeve even though the legal battle will probably be long and costly.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Oracle - New Villain?
by vivainio on Fri 13th Aug 2010 04:32 UTC in reply to "Oracle - New Villain?"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

Android is the first platform that managed to really challange iOS. Going by this rule we shouldnt be surprise if Nokia & Intel also gets suied in case if they have used java in Meego!

What "rule"? Dalvik is the problem, not using Java alone (MeeGo could add e.g. OpenJDK or IBM JDK safely). I guess forcing Google to switch to normal JVM is what Oracle wants; that's the way they can be partial to the growing high end (non-J2ME) smartphone market.

Dear Motorola,

Time to contact someone at Nokia/Intel/Linux Foundation? I'm sure a demo of MeeGo running on an upcoming device can be arranged at your earliest convenience ;-).

Edited 2010-08-13 04:33 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Oracle - New Villain?
by ahmetaa on Fri 13th Aug 2010 05:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Oracle - New Villain?"
ahmetaa Member since:
2005-07-06

Comment Reposted.

Edited 2010-08-13 05:34 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Oracle - New Villain?
by ahmetaa on Fri 13th Aug 2010 05:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Oracle - New Villain?"
ahmetaa Member since:
2005-07-06

And how will using their own JRE (or using an available one apart from Oracles JRE) will make Google pay licenses to Oracle? show me the proof.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Oracle - New Villain?
by vivainio on Fri 13th Aug 2010 05:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Oracle - New Villain?"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

And how will using their own JRE (or using an available one apart from Oracles JRE) will make Google pay licenses to Oracle? show me the proof.


That's what the lawsuit will determine. The claim is for copyright & patent infringement.

Unlike Sun, Oracle has money, so this might be something that has been brewing for a while; only now they have the resources to engage.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Oracle - New Villain?
by ahmetaa on Fri 13th Aug 2010 05:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Oracle - New Villain?"
ahmetaa Member since:
2005-07-06

To add, MeeGo or even Android are also under a bigger patent threat from MS.

Edited 2010-08-13 05:47 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Oracle - New Villain?
by vivainio on Fri 13th Aug 2010 05:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Oracle - New Villain?"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

To add, MeeGo or even Android are also under a bigger patent threat from MS.


I don't see how that would be the case. Unless this is one of those "Linux infringes on SCO/Microsoft patent rights".

Clearly Android is under a bigger threat from Oracle than anybody is from Microsoft because, you know, Oracle is suing as we speak.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Oracle - New Villain?
by ahmetaa on Fri 13th Aug 2010 06:23 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Oracle - New Villain?"
ahmetaa Member since:
2005-07-06

MS did sue HTC possibly using Linux related patents.
That is real too.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Oracle - New Villain?
by vivainio on Fri 13th Aug 2010 06:30 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Oracle - New Villain?"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

MS did sue HTC possibly using Linux related patents.
That is real too.

Link please.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Oracle - New Villain?
by bitwelder on Fri 13th Aug 2010 06:49 UTC in reply to "Oracle - New Villain?"
bitwelder Member since:
2010-04-27

Oracle to Google: "I see you guys are baking a nice pie. I'm King Larry and you ought to keep a slice of it for me. I love those pies". :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Oracle - New Villain?
by _txf_ on Fri 13th Aug 2010 14:55 UTC in reply to "Oracle - New Villain?"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Slowly going into your bad books? Ever since I can remember Oracle has been evil.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Oracle - New Villain?
by MollyC on Sat 14th Aug 2010 01:19 UTC in reply to "Oracle - New Villain?"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Oracle as a villain is nothing new.
Hell, Larry Ellison even LOOKS like Satan! lol

Reply Score: 3

Good news for .net?
by Alex Forster on Fri 13th Aug 2010 02:07 UTC
Alex Forster
Member since:
2005-08-12

Microsoft's already made very liberal patent promises, and right now the Java community is in turmoil over the slow pace of Java evolution. It's constantly being compared unfavorably to C#.

This news is at least a swift kick in the face for the "Java = open, .NET = closed" talking point.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Good news for .net?
by ndrw on Fri 13th Aug 2010 03:07 UTC in reply to "Good news for .net?"
ndrw Member since:
2009-06-30

I agree that this is a bad news for third-party Java (that includes OpenJDK, IBM's Java, gcj, Mono and "who-knows-maybe-even-.Net") users. It may be a sign that Oracle is attempting to regain a control (make it proprietary again) of Java.

However, claiming that .Net is more open than Java is simply wrong. From the beginning to the end, .Net is a single platform, closed source and proprietary product. You are conditionally permitted to use it (which in 99% of cases is enough) but it doesn't even come close to Java's ubiquity and openness (at least until now).

My biggest hope is that with Google will play hard by counter-suing Oracle in their own field. That would perhaps bring some sanity in this craziness and speed up the collapse of the patent system.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Good news for .net?
by Alex Forster on Fri 13th Aug 2010 03:57 UTC in reply to "Good news for .net?"
Alex Forster Member since:
2005-08-12

Whoa, hit a nerve.

Like it or not, under Microsoft's patent exemption for C# this could never happen. Opensource or commercial, feel free to implement any of the following specifications without repercussion from Microsoft-

http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx - Community promise (patents)
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx - Open specification promise (file format and protocol specs)

C# and the CLI are specified in separate standards, so, for example, Mono is allowed to compile C# to native Object-C/nibs and create an iPhone application without fear of falling outside of coverage by the community promise.

Google, who translates JBC to Dalvik bytecode, is getting sued because Java's patent exemption requires that you implement both the JVM and Java together and to spec, or else neither are covered.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Good news for .net?
by ndrw on Fri 13th Aug 2010 04:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Good news for .net?"
ndrw Member since:
2009-06-30

(I'm assuming you're replying to me (not to yourself), please be more careful with threading.)



That's a promise by Microsoft, not by Oracle. I was talking about Oracle's actions here, not Microsoft's.

Google, who translates JBC to Dalvik bytecode, is getting sued because Java's patent exemption requires that you implement both the JVM and Java together and to spec, or else neither are covered.


Thanks, that's a useful information. If it is true, other java implementations would be unaffected (and you can then discard my earlier comment).

From your other comment:
Also, dismissing Mono as a viable implementation is equivalent to dismissing Harmony as a viable implementation.


Mono implements parts of .Net. I don't dismiss it.

But Mono is not .Net. Neither legally nor technically. It will never implement .Net in full (because it is either illegal or infeasible - for part that are tied to Windows). To me, Mono is just Mono - a separate product that happens to be compatible with .Net at low (runtime, language, basic class libraries) level.

I don't know much about Harmony but it looks like they want to be fully compatible with Java SE platform. And indeed, you can already find classes like javax.swing.* in their repository.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Good news for .net?
by kelvin on Fri 13th Aug 2010 08:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Good news for .net?"
kelvin Member since:
2005-07-06

Like it or not, under Microsoft's patent exemption for C# this could never happen. Opensource or commercial, feel free to implement any of the following specifications without repercussion from Microsoft

This is only partially correct. As far as I recall, the Microsoft patent exemption only covers compatible implementations of .net (such as Mono). If one were to implement a semi-compatible clr which infringes on Microsoft's patents, one would be open for a patent infringement lawsuit.

It will be interesting to see which patents Oracle are claiming infringement on.

Disclaimer: I'm a big fan of both Mono and Java.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Good news for .net?
by pgeorgi on Fri 13th Aug 2010 11:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good news for .net?"
pgeorgi Member since:
2010-02-18

It will be interesting to see which patents Oracle are claiming infringement on.

The list is already published. From a short glance, it's:
- some OO optimization techniques (static initialization stuff, class preloading)
- a few JIT techniques
- security policy stuff (can class X be loaded? what kind of access does it have to the rest of the world?)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Good news for .net?
by Alex Forster on Fri 13th Aug 2010 15:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good news for .net?"
Alex Forster Member since:
2005-08-12

Of course it only covers "compatible" implementations.

Let's say that one of their patents isn't utter bullshit. Let's say that Outlook's PST format specification actually does something innovative and unique that's worth protecting - maybe they lifted a feature from Sql Server.

Let's also say I want to use this innovative feature in my database engine. If Microsoft allowed their PST patent exemption to cover "non-compatible" implementations, I could call my database engine a partial implementation of the PST format and get that patent exemption.

The point is that they're fine with you implementing a PST reader/writer library, but it's not cool if you pick and choose any of their patents and use them for other things.

Edited 2010-08-13 15:28 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Good news for .net?
by Alex Forster on Fri 13th Aug 2010 04:05 UTC in reply to "Good news for .net?"
Alex Forster Member since:
2005-08-12

Also, dismissing Mono as a viable implementation is equivalent to dismissing Harmony as a viable implementation.

I bet Larry wants to wrestle back some control over Java. While the free release of the JRE and the JDK was a general good for society, it was also a philanthropic gesture that made no business sense. Can anyone blame him, or even expect him to do otherwise?

Edited 2010-08-13 04:21 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Good news for .net?
by gnufreex on Fri 13th Aug 2010 07:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Good news for .net?"
gnufreex Member since:
2010-05-06

Harmony is not viable implementation of Java. Mono is not viable implementation of .NET.

OpenJDK is viable implementation of Java, and it is released under GPL by Sun(and now continued by Oracle) which means that patent licenses come with it. If Google based their VM on OpenJDK, Oracle couldn't sue them because GPL gives patent license for to all users of the software.

Dalvik VM is based on Apache Harmony. It has no OpenJDK code and is not GPL; it is under Apache license which is similar to BSD license which permits closing down the code. And it also permits frivolous patent lawsuits by contributor against the user or downstream distributor (which is Google in this case). That's something GPL does not allow. I am saying this because Oracle was a contributor to Apache Harmony before they bought Sun (and before even Java was opensourced). If Harmony was GPL, this lawsuit would be void.

But to get back on topic: Dalvik VM is incompatible with official Java. So Oracle is not suing for Java, it sues because Google attempted Embrace Extend Extinguish Java, like Microsoft tried before and got sued by Sun.

OpenJDK is not under threat and remains under GPL like before, Free for anyone to use. Java remains open standard like before. Only Google would have to switch to GPL'd OpenJDK to avoid paying royalties for every android copy.

Reply Score: 8

RE: Good news for .net?
by ahmetaa on Fri 13th Aug 2010 05:39 UTC in reply to "Good news for .net?"
ahmetaa Member since:
2005-07-06

Aparently you dont understand the license issue with Java. it says:
`Only Java SE licensees can claim compatibility with Java SE specifications and can ship Java SE-branded products.` it is much clear than microsoft's so called promise.
Wait once mono guys talk about .net compatibility or mono adopted by a major company. you will see the real crap storm

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Good news for .net?
by aliquis on Fri 13th Aug 2010 09:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Good news for .net?"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

Maybe.

Or Microsoft likes it because it means more people learn and develop for .NET.

Reply Score: 2

open source java
by TechGeek on Fri 13th Aug 2010 02:09 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

If Google wrote their own Java VM, then there wouldn't be any copyright infringement. There are plenty of Java vm's from different groups. As for patents, Sun pledged their patents under the OIN I believe. That covers any use of the patents that are covered under an open source license which Android is. Sun also open sourced Java, allowing everyone to use it. Unless Google is using some obscure library that didn't get included....But those libraries were excluded because Sun didn't own them. Which means it wouldn't be up to Oracle to sue for the use, it would the rights holders. Very strange tactic. I wonder why Oracle would do this as they don't seem like competitors to Google.

Reply Score: 3

...
by Hiev on Fri 13th Aug 2010 02:26 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Oh the irony, just when many were untrusting MS for .NET, Oracle sues for java first. Not that im glad but I this made me smile. I precit an out of cort arrangement..

Edited 2010-08-13 02:28 UTC

Reply Score: 5

Larry Ellison = Super Villain
by tony on Fri 13th Aug 2010 02:30 UTC
tony
Member since:
2005-07-06

It's easy to forget that behind that suit, Larry Ellison is a supervillain. He flies and does aerobatics in his own MiG 29 fighter (seriously).

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/business/Raw_Video__Larry_Ellison_Fl...

Reply Score: 5

Comment by Lazarus
by Lazarus on Fri 13th Aug 2010 02:32 UTC
Lazarus
Member since:
2005-08-10

Didn't take an oracle to see that coming...

Horrible joke, I know.

Reply Score: 14

The Oracle Cycle
by organgtool on Fri 13th Aug 2010 02:48 UTC
organgtool
Member since:
2010-02-25

As someone who has been forced to use Oracle products extensively for nearly a decade, let me describe "The Oracle Cycle" to those who aren't familiar with their products. It begins with the development of a new product. The product shows plenty of promise and is priced somewhat competitively. Once many projects have adopted this product, the price shoots up and the licensing gets really strict. The product never seems to live up to its potential and the outrageous pricing eventually forces people to choose other products. Once a competitor's product gains popularity, Oracle proceeds to buy the competition. Then they end support for their waning product and focus on pushing their newly acquired product. This includes killing everything that was good about that product and completely stunting the growth of that software. Eventually people get fed up with the horrible state of the Oracle's acquired software and switch to a competitor of Oracle. Of course the next step involves Oracle buying that competitor and thus continuing the cycle.

This is frustrating if you're an Oracle customer because you're infrastructure is constantly changing. You're used to OC4J, well too bad because that's being eclipsed by WebLogic. Finally started to understand Toplink, well make way for Eclipselink. It's even worse if you try to avoid Oracle because eventually they will buy the competition and then you're stuck with them.

As bad as all of this is, suing based on software patents is a new low. I advise everyone to stay away from their products - if not for their business practices then for the poor quality of their products (with the exception of OracleDB).

Reply Score: 13

SCO #2
by vtolkov on Fri 13th Aug 2010 03:11 UTC
vtolkov
Member since:
2006-07-26

It seems they choose SCO way. Maybe they should share the same result.

Edited 2010-08-13 03:14 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: SCO #2
by robbyn on Fri 13th Aug 2010 06:28 UTC in reply to "SCO #2"
robbyn Member since:
2007-05-14

SCO's move was a desperate one, I don't think that Oracle is in the same situation.

Reply Score: 1

RE: SCO #2
by fretinator on Fri 13th Aug 2010 14:20 UTC in reply to "SCO #2"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, at least we know what SCOracle has been up to lately. No wonder they were too busy to wory about OpenSolaris - they were too busy fostering innovation.

Reply Score: 2

remember Apache Harmony project
by dvhh on Fri 13th Aug 2010 04:06 UTC
dvhh
Member since:
2006-03-20

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Harmony#Difficulties_to_obtain_...
and Dalvik is actually using part of ASF Harmony.

Reply Score: 2

Bad PR move
by nt_jerkface on Fri 13th Aug 2010 04:07 UTC
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

Though Google doesn't use the standard JME Oracle should still be glad that they are using Java.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Bad PR move
by Priest on Fri 13th Aug 2010 08:20 UTC in reply to "Bad PR move"
Priest Member since:
2006-05-12

inorite? Almost anything I would need a language to accomplish would be best done by some other language with one exception: Phones

I am eagerly waiting for everyone else to get sick of Java and move on. This move from Oracle is a nudge in the right direction.

Reply Score: 2

Python Please!
by FunkyELF on Fri 13th Aug 2010 05:18 UTC
FunkyELF
Member since:
2006-07-26

I remember hearing about developing native C applications on Android but I don't think anything came of it or at least I can't find the corresponding C APIs.

I say ditch Java and go C or Python.

If they make Python APIs just like their Java APIs porting should be super simple or perhaps even automated.

I have ported a bunch of Java code to run on Jython. Just remove declarations, change "this" to "self", bla bla bla. You need to handle overridden methods carefully, but other than that its pretty darned straight forward.

I think if they made Python APIs porting Java Android apps to Python Android apps would be as simple as porting java to jython.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Python Please!
by Zifre on Fri 13th Aug 2010 15:55 UTC in reply to "Python Please!"
Zifre Member since:
2009-10-04

The problem is that Python is an order of magnitude slower. And on an battery-powered, resource-constrained device, that is not acceptable. There is simply no way to make a dynamically typed language as fast as a statically typed language, unless you do type inference, which would always work.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Python Please!
by FunkyELF on Fri 13th Aug 2010 18:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Python Please!"
FunkyELF Member since:
2006-07-26

The problem is that Python is an order of magnitude slower. And on an battery-powered, resource-constrained device, that is not acceptable. There is simply no way to make a dynamically typed language as fast as a statically typed language, unless you do type inference, which would always work.


I don't believe that argument.
It comes down to the implementation of the VM. Both Python and Java use a VM.
Google is working on integrating LLVM into Python (project Unladen Swallow) to speed things up.
Doesn't Apple use LLVM in their iOS too?

Either way.... Android as it is is pretty slow. My phone (MyTouch 3G) is about as slow as it gets. Its been on the border of usable since the day I got it. I will welcome any change to the platform.

Native needs to happen though. Native applications, native API's.... lets drop the Java already.

How about running Google's new language Go? That should be fast.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Python Please!
by TheGZeus on Fri 13th Aug 2010 18:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Python Please!"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Dynamic languages like Python are much harder to speed up.
The best 'fast Python' is Cython, which is actually a sub-set with some more C in it.
Could they have used Cython? Yeah. It's more like Python than Dalvik is like Java (people use Java for the libraries!).
They didn't.
I figure eventually they'll get over the 'no native code' thing, and C et al will be allowed into their 'store'.
That said, using Java as an intermediate language from Python would be cool, but the language has constraints about closures due to the machine on which it runs.

Frankly, I'd rather write Java bytecode than Java. It's basically OO-Forth, and I think it's more readable.
Sadly, Dalvik is register-based :O(

Reply Score: 2

v About time
by tyrione on Fri 13th Aug 2010 06:00 UTC
Why always java?
by Priest on Fri 13th Aug 2010 06:41 UTC
Priest
Member since:
2006-05-12

Someone remind me again why everyone uses Java? I have one Java class left for my CS degree and I don't intend on using the language ever again after that.

Unfortunately it is the only language my school offers a CS degree in.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why always java?
by emilsedgh on Fri 13th Aug 2010 07:51 UTC in reply to "Why always java?"
emilsedgh Member since:
2007-06-21

Thats the reason itself. They want more people to be able to write apps. So they choose a language that eveyone knows.

So they can claim they have 100,000 apps.
Quality of these 100,000 apps? Crap.

Its totally a Quantity > Quality situation.

Reply Score: 3

Boies
by vivainio on Fri 13th Aug 2010 06:58 UTC
vivainio
Member since:
2008-12-26

The reg lists David Boies as one of the Oracle vultures:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/oracle_sues_google/

You may remember him from the SCO case.

Reply Score: 5

v What about Red Hat?
by Slambert666 on Fri 13th Aug 2010 07:18 UTC
RE: What about Red Hat?
by gnufreex on Fri 13th Aug 2010 08:05 UTC in reply to "What about Red Hat?"
gnufreex Member since:
2010-05-06

This has nothing to do with Java. It is just as same as Oracle suing Novell for Mono.

Java is OpenJDK, and that's irrevocable. Worst thing that Oracle could do with Free Java is abandon OpenJDK. But that would be worst to them, non to other people, since Red Hat and GNU Classpath comunity would just continue developing OpenJDK and compete against Oracle Java. Oracle can't sue OpenJDK since they contributed it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: What about Red Hat?
by Slambert666 on Fri 13th Aug 2010 08:59 UTC in reply to "RE: What about Red Hat?"
Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

This has nothing to do with Java. It is just as same as Oracle suing Novell for Mono.


Sure, but in this case they are suing an alternative JVM implementation. An indicator that they will not allow alternative implementations without patent licensing.

Java is OpenJDK, and that's irrevocable. Worst thing that Oracle could do with Free Java is abandon OpenJDK. But that would be worst to them, non to other people, since Red Hat and GNU Classpath comunity would just continue developing OpenJDK and compete against Oracle Java. Oracle can't sue OpenJDK since they contributed it.


If oracle will not allow derivative works without patent licensing then they have used the patent loophole in the GPL that will effectively stop derivative works. ie nobody can use a "changed" OpenJDK without a patent license from Oracle.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: What about Red Hat?
by gnufreex on Fri 13th Aug 2010 13:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What about Red Hat?"
gnufreex Member since:
2010-05-06

Sure, but in this case they are suing an alternative JVM implementation. An indicator that they will not allow alternative implementations without patent licensing.

I don't think anything else than GPL'd implementations (like openjdk and GNU classpath) are needed. They don't want to let people to implement Java under gift like licenses like Apache, and that is understandabe because they don't want closed down incompatible forks.
If oracle will not allow derivative works without patent licensing then they have used the patent loophole in the GPL that will effectively stop derivative works. ie nobody can use a "changed" OpenJDK without a patent license from Oracle.


There is no patent loophole, for this case. If you are thinking about Novell-MS deal, Oracle can't exploit such a loophole. Microsoft position wrt Linux is different than Oracle wrt Java. Microsoft didn't invent or buy Linux, they never distributed it, and they never disclosed alleged patents. All they have is FUD, and that loophole is only good for FUD. The moment they disclose patents, they would need either to prove infringement or shut up because GPL forbids distributors to take out exclusive patent license for distributing GPL'd software. Companies will just say: we have to obey GPL because our business depends on that, so either you give a license to whole community, or we will ligate until death. Loophole only works for unknown patents, if company wants to pay blindly without seeing patents like Nowell did. If they admit they saw patents in question, then they can't take out exclusive license and have to broaden the deal to include entire community, else they are breaking the GPL.

On the other hand, Oracle invented Java (legally, because they bought it) they distributed OpenJDK under GPL, and they disclosed patents. So they have no stand against any GPL'd Java implementation. They given irrevocable patent license to those patents covered in Java, to all GPL'd implementations of Java. They can't block derivative works, only thing that derivative work needs to do to stay safe is integrate a chunk of OpenJDK code. And Oracle can't whack them.

Knowing Oracle's past behaviour of contributing GPL'd code (Linux, InnoDB, contributions to gcc) and Sun's beef with Apache foundation, I think Oracle's plan is not to un-GPL Java (they know that such a thing is impossible and trying will backfire in their face). They only want to whack BSD/Apache licensed Java implementations because they don't want fragmentation, and don't want proprietary forks of Java which those licenses permit. They want Java to be GPL only and they don't want their competitors to run away with the code. Apache licensed Harmony would undercut Java.

Note that IBM is among primary contributors of Apache Harmony and Larry hates IBM. He sure want to stomp their work.

Edited 2010-08-13 13:49 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Software patents...
by draburn on Fri 13th Aug 2010 07:26 UTC
draburn
Member since:
2010-03-05

... are simply a cancer. You should be pressuring at all levels to remove them from earth's face.

PS: I'm spanish, and luckily we haven't fallen to the software patents nonsense (yet).

Reply Score: 7

Laymans attempt to explain this mess
by Praxis on Fri 13th Aug 2010 07:41 UTC
Praxis
Member since:
2009-09-17

Now I could be wrong but here is what appears to be happening. Google's Dalvik VM accepts very java like code, but since it uses different (though similar) class libraries and has other differences, its not actually compatible with Java at all. Google's argument is that Dalvik is actually a separate platform from Java whose code just happens to use java syntax (and you can't patent syntax right?). Oracle argument is that the Dalvik VM infringes on patents it holds that relate to Java(and who are we kidding, its very similar to Java) and thus they are entitled to bags of money. If Google can prove that its Dalvik VM does thing sufficiently different to be immune from the patents, or that the patents held are invalid they win, if they can't they are boned.
So does this interpretation seem to match up with reality?

Edited 2010-08-13 07:46 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Eh...
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 13th Aug 2010 07:46 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

So this is basically The Netherlands suing South-Africa over Afrikaans, right?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Eh...
by werterr on Fri 13th Aug 2010 09:48 UTC in reply to "Eh..."
werterr Member since:
2006-10-03

Hear Hear!

Nice comparison ;)

If you read the patents in question then it really seems as silly. Again a good example why software patents are silly.

You get stuff like; Interpreting functions utilizing a hybrid of virtual and native machine instructions, Method and system for performing static initialization, Controlling access to a resource.

"Controlling access to a resource" ?? now that's a sweet patent! ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Eh...
by TheGZeus on Fri 13th Aug 2010 16:08 UTC in reply to "Eh..."
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Ja brah, Oracle is die poes!

Reply Score: 1

oracle, sun?
by _xmv on Fri 13th Aug 2010 09:33 UTC
_xmv
Member since:
2008-12-09

I'm using C and postgresql, never heard of mysql and java.

Certainly that doesn't help for java based phones like android:P

Reply Score: 2

Java is bad, use C/C++/Python !
by boulabiar on Fri 13th Aug 2010 10:06 UTC
boulabiar
Member since:
2009-04-18

Guys,
C and C++ are the most used languages, why people not just use them ? most of libraries are written in these languages.
Look at Qt what you need more ?
(now use can use javascript, QML, CSS with Qt C++ code!)

You can also use Python and all dynamic languages. Using a language made by a still existent company is always bad.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Java is bad, use C/C++/Python !
by ndrw on Fri 13th Aug 2010 14:56 UTC in reply to "Java is bad, use C/C++/Python !"
ndrw Member since:
2009-06-30

There is one big reason for using Java instead of C/C++ or Python: code reuse.

In Java you can write a library that (contrary to C/C++) with an API that can use fairly complex data structures and (contrary to Python) is fast and (contrary to all of above) can be distributed in a binary form.

Capability of using complex data structures come from the unified class library and the built-in garbage collector (so you can juggle e.g. a hashmap back and forth without worrying about its deallocation). Speed and portability come from the VM.

Notice that it's not the language that matters, it's the whole environment. Java language itself is not the greatest programming language in the world but it's good enough for many applications. The effect of Java's code reuse capabilities is that no other platform (except perhaps plain C) has as many mutually compatible libraries as it.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Java is bad, use C/C++/Python !
by ndrw on Fri 13th Aug 2010 15:32 UTC in reply to "Java is bad, use C/C++/Python !"
ndrw Member since:
2009-06-30

More comments about Python, C and C++.

IMO the biggest problem with Python is its execution speed (due to the lack of an optimized VM). Python is a great language for "gluing" "bricks" together (where speed doesn't matter) but not for implementing them. Since in many cases "bricks" are just thin wrappers around C code their interfaces are very low level and, at least as far as API is concerned, Python's capabilities are almost unused.

C is still very successful because of its low level orientation. It simply became a modern-age "portable assembler", its features being mapped fairly closely to the typical CPU. It shouldn't really be used for anything except very low level libraries but since there are no better alternatives (or rather because of a total mess among them) C became a necessary evil. Interestingly, its killer feature is also "code reuse", although at entirely different level than it is in Java.

C++, in turn, suffers from fragmentation. For compatibility reasons most libraries have to stick to an API that is built around a common lowest denominator (i.e. not much higher than C). You can of course use one of very good frameworks (e.g. Qt or Boost) but (a) you're imposing this framework on users of your code, (b) your code is then incompatible with other libraries using a different toolkit. The effect is similar to that of Python - toolkits are being used in the "glue code", whereas libraries often have to be implemented using low level semantics.

Reply Score: 1

Google has incompatible Java
by Kebabbert on Fri 13th Aug 2010 10:30 UTC
Kebabbert
Member since:
2007-07-27

Google has not a compatible Java. That is a problem.

Earlier, MS made their own Java extensions and released it as J++. Sun sued MS and MS lost. One year later MS released the "revolutionzing" new language C#, which many thought was a copy of Java.

Now, Oracle is doing the same thing with Google. It would not be fair to sue MS but not to sue Google? Google is using an incompatible Java. The java customers will be confused.

Maybe Google should withdraw their incompatible Java version and one year later release a new language called G#++. Oracle is making sure the "Java" trademark runs Java programs. Java is compatible with Java. That is a GOOD thing. Google is disrupting that - which is a BAD thing.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Google has incompatible Java
by Rahul on Fri 13th Aug 2010 10:40 UTC in reply to "Google has incompatible Java"
Rahul Member since:
2005-07-06

There is a very significant difference between these lawsuits. The one against MS was because MS created a incompatible implementation and tried to pass it off as Java. Google does not call it's implementation Java. It has been very careful not to do so.

Reply Score: 5

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

You sure about that?

The Android SDK provides the tools and APIs necessary to begin developing applications on the Android platform using the Java programming language.
http://developer.android.com/guide/basics/what-is-android.html

Reply Score: 3

Rahul Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, I am sure about that. The same page talks about .dex format which is incompatible with Java bytecode format although a tool is provided for conversion from Java classes. All Java VM's are stack based while Dalvik is register based. Dalvik does not align to Java SE nor Java ME Class Library profiles (e.g., Java ME classes, AWT or Swing are not supported). Instead it uses its own library built on a subset of the Apache Harmony Java implementation.

Reply Score: 1

java.
by graigsmith on Fri 13th Aug 2010 10:58 UTC
graigsmith
Member since:
2006-04-05

it's probably a good thing the iphone doesn't use java at all.

Reply Score: 1

RE: java.
by emilsedgh on Fri 13th Aug 2010 11:24 UTC in reply to "java."
emilsedgh Member since:
2007-06-21

Its a good thing? Come on! Imagine the title of this item if iphone was using java:

"Oracle sues Google and Apple over Java in Android and iOS"

It would've been much more fun.

Reply Score: 1

RE: java.
by organgtool on Fri 13th Aug 2010 14:13 UTC in reply to "java."
organgtool Member since:
2010-02-25

Absolutely! It's not like Java is the currently the most popular language, already familiar to millions of software developers, provides thousands of well-documented libraries, and would allow for developing iPhone applications from any desktop with a JVM.

Reply Score: 1

Mono
by mootant on Fri 13th Aug 2010 12:03 UTC
mootant
Member since:
2006-11-04

Where are the people who said that Java is perfectly safe and Mono users can be sued over patents?

I don't know how Sun managed to do this but they couldn't make real money from Java for a long time and this seems to be last desperate attempt (from Oracle this time).

Reply Score: 1

RE: Mono
by Rahul on Fri 13th Aug 2010 12:24 UTC in reply to "Mono"
Rahul Member since:
2005-07-06

Android is not using Java. They have their own VM which shares some similarities. Totally different ball game.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Mono
by mootant on Fri 13th Aug 2010 15:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Mono"
mootant Member since:
2006-11-04

Android uses a clone of Java/JVM the same way Mono uses a clone of .NET/C# (where clone is a new implementation from scratch).

The argument was that Mono (Android) users will be sued by Microsft (Oracle) if they don't use official .NET (JVM) and pay Windows (J2ME) fees. Tell me where this analogy falls apart except that Microsoft allows you to reimplement .NET (http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2010/Aug-13.html).

Oracle doesn't give you patent "license" for the part of Java "market" that still can give them money. They Open Sourced every other thing and it's only way to earn any money from Java copyright and patents.

This whole discussion is absurd because US patent system is absurd.

Edited 2010-08-13 15:47 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Mono
by Rahul on Fri 13th Aug 2010 16:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mono"
Rahul Member since:
2005-07-06

Sorry but no. Android VM is explicitly incompatible with the Java VM. It is not a clone. It is a independent implementation with some similarities. Mono aims to be compatible and Android VM does not.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Mono
by mootant on Sat 14th Aug 2010 21:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Mono"
mootant Member since:
2006-11-04

Which is isomorphic to JVM bytecode. ;)

There's no reason to use such outdated design as JVM's for anything else than compatibilty.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Mono
by intangible on Sat 14th Aug 2010 05:17 UTC in reply to "Mono"
intangible Member since:
2005-07-06

To me, the patents appear to be applicable to just about any modernish programming language, including C#... Gotta love software patents.

If the state of things doesn't change, most software innovation will be from outside the US and illegal here within 15 years (my own personal prediction).

Reply Score: 2

bad press for java
by bnolsen on Fri 13th Aug 2010 12:37 UTC
bnolsen
Member since:
2006-01-06

This headline is brutal but probably typical. Business folk will see that oracle who just acquired sun is suing over java. Regardless of the details this is really bad press. It will absolutely affect whether or not companies will select java tech for future use (call it a tie breaker). Really stupid move on oracle's part.

Reply Score: 2

Here is the document
by namakemono on Fri 13th Aug 2010 12:46 UTC
namakemono
Member since:
2009-07-01

I found in Scribd:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35811761/Oracle-s-complaint-against-Googl...

Had no time to read the content. It may clarify what exactly is being argued by Oracle.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Here is the document
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 13th Aug 2010 13:02 UTC in reply to "Here is the document"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Already studying that thing. Remarkably non-verbose for a legal document.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Here is the document
by l3v1 on Fri 13th Aug 2010 14:08 UTC in reply to "Here is the document"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

It says The Android operating system software "stack" consists of Java applications running on a Java-based object-oriented application framework, and core libraries running on a "Dalvik" virtual machine (VM) - I'm no Android expert, but I IIRC what it runs is not Java per se (although being similar), and the VM was not intended to be compatible with Sun/Oracle's, so that claim is false. And if so, then the rest which is based on this claim should be trash.

Edited 2010-08-13 14:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Here is the document
by gnufreex on Fri 13th Aug 2010 14:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Here is the document"
gnufreex Member since:
2010-05-06

Oracle is not suing because they think Google claimed Dalvik is Java.

They sue it because it is not Java, and because it is competitor to Java.

Reply Score: 1

Foto-comment x
by walec51 on Fri 13th Aug 2010 15:30 UTC
walec51
Member since:
2009-09-02

Best foto-comment to this issue:

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4305/javalarry.jpg

pass it around plz ;)
x

Reply Score: 1

Even Fiction cannot be this absurd
by imaginant on Fri 13th Aug 2010 19:14 UTC
imaginant
Member since:
2010-02-26

Now, why does this make me think of SCO and their attorneys, logic gone south, and stupidity raised to pinacle of absurdity. Well, let's wait 10 years and see how this turns out. Maybe Oracle will join SCO in a universe were good deeds, good will, and good sense, do not exists. We can observe them as they pursue there quest for money like gerbils on an exercise wheel. No rest for the weary.

Reply Score: 1

g5e8748
by famalegoods103 on Mon 16th Aug 2010 13:29 UTC
famalegoods103
Member since:
2010-08-16

sells clothing,footwear,handbags,Sunglasses
Online Store,Get Name Brand Fashion From 12USD Now!

Our Website: http://www.famalegoods.com

Our main product list is as follows:

1. Fashion Sports shoes: $35
Shox,Dunk,Jordan, Air max, Air force,Adidas, Puma,Prada,D&G, Chanel,Gucci, Lacoste,

LouisVuiton,Evisu,Timberland,ugg,boots,Burberry,Dior,Greedy

2. Fashion T-Shirt $14 & Jeans $30 & Jacket $37:
AF,BBC,Evsiu,Juicy,GGG,Burberry,ED-Hardy,Chanel,G-Star,Red monkey,Christian

Audigie,sinful,lacoste,POLO,Armani,Smet,Baby,Levis,Justcavalli,Versace ,True Religion,Artful Dodger,Rock,Coogi,Crown

Holder,RMC,etc.

3.Fashion Handbags:$$35
LV , Prada , Chanel ,D&G, Fendi , EDhardy, Burberry , MIUMIU ,Gucci ,Chloe , Juicy and Chole,Burse,etc.

4. brand watches(rolex,Longines…)$50
belt(d&g, gucci, prada, chanel, burberry…. )$14,
hats $12
sunglasses $12 (Police,rayban,gucci,prada,LV)

Deliever: Nearly 5 days arrive your home or your friends’ adress by EMS,DHL,UPs !!!!!!!!!!!

Looking forward your visit.asdsf @#$R$$
gre654878

Reply Score: 1