Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 13th Aug 2010 13:57 UTC
Legal The entire complaint Oracle lobbed at Google has been available online for a while now, and after reading it through with my total lack of any knowledge of the inner workings of the American legal system, a few things did stand out to me as peculiar. We'll have to wait for a more detailed analysis by someone qualified to do so. Also, a few other notes about this case I've picked up online.
Order by: Score:
Remember SCO
by silviucc on Fri 13th Aug 2010 14:22 UTC
silviucc
Member since:
2009-12-05

There was once a company named SCO...

Reply Score: 5

RE: Remember SCO
by pgeorgi on Fri 13th Aug 2010 14:52 UTC in reply to "Remember SCO"
pgeorgi Member since:
2010-02-18

SCO had no healthy primary business anymore when they started that never-ending story. Oracle does.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Remember SCO
by vivainio on Fri 13th Aug 2010 15:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Remember SCO"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

SCO had no healthy primary business anymore when they started that never-ending story. Oracle does.


Also note how quickly after Sun acquisition this happened. Might this (rights to Java, and especially right to sue over it) be one of the reasons Oracle acquired Sun in the first place?

They didn't need Sun to buy sun to write Java code themselves.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Remember SCO
by Lunitik on Fri 13th Aug 2010 21:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Remember SCO"
Lunitik Member since:
2005-08-07

This looks like they're suing over Davlik, not Java itself. They want one Java platform, similar to when Sun sued Microsoft for a vastly modified Java.

Personally, I'm hoping this just gets resolved with Google getting a larger role within JCP, and any genuine improvements are moved back to JVM proper.

Java is in a lot of phones, and this has been one of the major reasons pick java as their language of choice. Google doesn't even make much money from Android directly, they're just the lead developers of the project.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Remember SCO
by TemporalBeing on Fri 13th Aug 2010 22:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Remember SCO"
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

This looks like they're suing over Davlik, not Java itself. They want one Java platform, similar to when Sun sued Microsoft for a vastly modified Java.


But Davlik isn't marketed Java, while M$'s JVM was. That's a bit difference. Improvements to Davlik VM won't likely mean anything to the larger JVM or J2ME communities.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Remember SCO
by pns.sri on Sat 14th Aug 2010 05:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Remember SCO"
pns.sri Member since:
2009-06-20

"This looks like they're suing over Davlik, not Java itself. They want one Java platform, similar to when Sun sued Microsoft for a vastly modified Java.


But Davlik isn't marketed Java, while M$'s JVM was. That's a bit difference. Improvements to Davlik VM won't likely mean anything to the larger JVM or J2ME communities.
"

Yes. Thats the reason why there suing for patents. Problem is technology created by SUN is getting used by Google. Google is making money. If someone says Andriod is free and Google is not making money out of it, think again. They made it to make sure they get Ad revenue from it. Will the open source their Ad technology? If they ever do it, will they allow someone to change it and get money out of it and they not getting much from it?
SUN, an amazing company who invested lot of money in R&D wouldnt exist if Oracle didnt buy it. SUN would go bankrupt in a few years. before it got bought, it was trading for exact value of money it has in cash. I would even say companies like Google killed one of the best research company, SUN.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Remember SCO
by Neolander on Mon 16th Aug 2010 11:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Remember SCO"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

"SCO had no healthy primary business anymore when they started that never-ending story. Oracle does.


Also note how quickly after Sun acquisition this happened. Might this (rights to Java, and especially right to sue over it) be one of the reasons Oracle acquired Sun in the first place?

They didn't need Sun to buy sun to write Java code themselves.
"
Things like this will happen as long as patents...
-Are owned and can be used by a company and not only by their inventors
-Can be vague
-Can last a very long time before reaching public domain

Reply Score: 3

Comment by targetnovember
by targetnovember on Fri 13th Aug 2010 14:25 UTC
targetnovember
Member since:
2010-04-27

I don't know if you can really just say "no one but lawyers will profit from this." Either way the lawsuit goes, there will be a precedent set that can either benefit Oracle or Google down the road. Yeah, the lawyers will earn a lot of money, and may get paid more than they should, but really . . . no one but lawyers will benefit no matter what? There's some deserved cynicism over US legal system, but the companies don't make lawsuits to pay lawyers out of charity.

Eventually, I can see something decided like Google using "Java" to describe something that's not really Java, and changing some code to make it all ok like how BSD got rid of a few files to separate itself from AT&T copyrights. But that's a naive, uninformed guess.

Edited 2010-08-13 14:25 UTC

Reply Score: 1

I love these patent case "announcements"
by Zifre on Fri 13th Aug 2010 14:28 UTC
Zifre
Member since:
2009-10-04

I don't get why every company that sues someone for patents has to act all proud and make the other company sound like scum.

Without consent, authorization, approval, or license, Google knowingly, willingly, and unlawfully copied, prepared, published, and distributed Oracle America's copyrighted work, portions thereof, or derivative works and continues to do so.

Seriously? Do they really even believe what they are saying? Don't they realize that they are the scum who ought to be sued for making false claims?

And asking for all copies of Android to be destroyed? They must have gone completely and utterly insane to suggest something like that...

Edited 2010-08-13 14:28 UTC

Reply Score: 10

pgeorgi Member since:
2010-02-18

Seriously? Do they really even believe what they are saying? Don't they realize that they are the scum who ought to be sued for making false claims?

And asking for all copies of Android to be destroyed? They must have gone completely and utterly insane to suggest something like that...

Neither is the case. It's just that you can't complain when the judges take your claims, drop some of them (because they're ridiculous) and then base the verdict on what's left over.

So you better start with as many claims as legally possible to maximize the result.

Throwing shit at the wall, and hoping that something sticks and all that...

Reply Score: 2

vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

Seriously? Do they really even believe what they are saying?

Of course not. It's just legalese for saying how shocked, SHOCKED they are about Google's deeds.

One interesting aspect of this lawsuit is that Dalvik is indeed a bit of a "hostile" implementation of Java, done to circumvent licensing feeds from Sun. I rememeber chuckling about this clever legal hack Google were doing back when Android was made public. They were essentially saying "screw you Sun" by going their own way. Some bad blood must be left among the Sun employees.

Reply Score: 4

broken_symlink Member since:
2005-07-06

Realistically I don't think they expect every Android copy to be destroyed. They are probably hoping to make Google pay royalties for each copy sold.

Reply Score: 4

bfr99 Member since:
2007-03-15

Duh... Corporate lawsuits are just about money. Open source advocates seem to think think their software is synonymous with Freedom but I don't mind paying for the goods and services I use. In fact those whose primary goal in life is to spend as little as possible are similar to those whose goals are the accumulation of as much wealth as possible. Sadly many Americans worship the dollar -- a form of idolatry.

Reply Score: 4

ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Again. Free software isn't about zero price, it's about liberty. From the horse's mouth: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

I agree that many Americans^H^H^H^H^H humans worship the dollar^H^H^H^H local currency, and it's a form of idolatry, and it's sad. But compare the lifestyle of Bill Gates to that of rms, and it's just weird for you to effectively claim that the latter is all about "the accumulation of as much wealth as possible".

Reply Score: 2

Zifre Member since:
2009-10-04

Realistically I don't think they expect every Android copy to be destroyed. They are probably hoping to make Google pay royalties for each copy sold.

Then why not say what they think is realistic? All that they are doing with such crazy suggestions is making everyone hate them.

Reply Score: 2

arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

They don't care if you hate them, as long as you pay them.

Reply Score: 2

Priest Member since:
2006-05-12

Companies can rarely be bothered to plan past the next quarterly numbers.

Oracle will still have more money than god with or without people liking them for the foreseeable future, but it would be naive to believe that they didn't make themselves onto the shit list of some useful people.

Oracle enjoys a ridiculous profit margin because they are lacking competition at their level.

If I had the technical talent available to me to complete with them I'd say its an opportunity to enter a market that isn't already saturated.

Reply Score: 2

avih Member since:
2006-03-16

> "If I had the technical talent available to me to complete with them I'd say its an opportunity to enter a market that isn't already saturated."


I'd say it IS rather saturated, with patents. Actually, saturated is probably even an understatement in this regard... Packed and overflowing would be a better description.

Basically, these days, the chances of a good new idea to become successful without infringing on patents/copyrights is extremely slim. The only reason there still are some ideas that slip through is that they don't generate enough $$$ to attract the IP holders' attention. Yet. Once they do, it's a lawsuit and/or a buyout. The founders get to keep a small amount from the deal, and the world looses another potentially interesting innovation to the hands of the mega-IP corporations, and back to square 1.1

Reply Score: 1

spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

Competing with Oracle is not possible.
They are other databases, made by companies with very deep pockets but none can compete with Oracle. Oracle is to the database what Microsoft is to the desktop OS/office software. They just have too much momentum and nothing can stop them.

Reply Score: 2

wigry Member since:
2008-10-09

If Oracle would stick to DB, it would be fine, but now they want to enter into all possible software markets and thats where the problem is.

Reply Score: 1

ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

You're new around here, aren't you? ;-)

"Apple II Forever." "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." "Nobody can challenge DEC's Vax." "Windows will never replace Unix on the engineering desktop." "Nothing can stop the momentum of Windows Mobile." "Nothing can prevent the iPhone from dominating the smartphone market."

Heard it all before.

Although Windows is declining only slowly in desktop share right now (about 1.5% per year), that could easily change over the next decade. Their customer's expectations are changing due to more web apps, touch screens, HDTVs, embedded processing, and tablet and mobile computing. At some point, you have to wonder if they will look at a Windows desktop machine and ask, "Why do I need that again?" And if you don't need Windows apps, you don't need Windows on a desktop computer - any OS will do.

That's just one scenario, of course - many others have been discussed in forums where folks obsessed with market share statistics lurk (ahem). And in a sense, it doesn't matter, because desktops are declining in importance as those other categories grow.

But to claim that "nothing can stop them" on the desktop (Microsoft) - or in databases (Oracle) - is to miss the lessons of computing history, IMHO.

Reply Score: 4

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

other then ibm and microsoft, and sco, i can't think of another company that has been more hated then oracle.

Edited 2010-08-13 18:35 UTC

Reply Score: 2

jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

Possibly BP as of late...

Reply Score: 2

vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

other then ibm and microsoft, and sco, i can't think of another company that has been more hated then oracle.

Apple?

Who hates Oracle? It's irrelevant to most people, and "gets the job done" for those that need to deal with it.

Reply Score: 3

ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Those who've had to renegotiate pricing for an Oracle license? Just saying...

Reply Score: 2

kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Apple is actually the most admired company on the planet.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/mostadmired/2010/index.html

Reply Score: 1

vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

Apple is actually the most admired company on the planet.

Among the clueless, possibly.

Reply Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Apple is actually the most admired company on the planet.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/mostadmired/2010/index.html

I just *love* the eighth item of that list =p

Reply Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

other then ibm and microsoft, and sco, i can't think of another company that has been more hated then oracle.

Apple. But it's a bit complicated, because it has also been extremely loved. There's no cold-blooded way of talking about Apple.

Reply Score: 2

broken_symlink Member since:
2005-07-06

I think it might be more a threat for Google than anything else really. They are probably going to settle out of court for some such type of agreement.

Reply Score: 2

Certainly not good for .NET
by diegocg on Fri 13th Aug 2010 14:35 UTC
diegocg
Member since:
2005-07-08

What all this tells to me is that opensource can't trust companies. Their patent promises are worthless, they always put some condition to convince you that you won't be sued. It would be much simpler to give away the patents to everybody for free without conditions but they never do that. So I'm not going to support Mono just because it's a "bit" safer. I want a 100% free development environment, not controlled by any company (like python). Why can't we, the opensource community, invent our own languages and standards and forget the patented "standards" that companies try to impose on us?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Certainly not good for .NET
by DataPath on Fri 13th Aug 2010 14:51 UTC in reply to "Certainly not good for .NET"
DataPath Member since:
2005-06-29

Just how sure are you that python doesn't infringe any patents?

I'm not saying that it does, I'm just saying that we can't know that it doesn't. For all intents and purposes, we can't know that for pretty much anything.

It would probably take a small army of patent lawyers several years just to get picture of most of the patents that python MIGHT infringe. Same is true for just about any software project.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Certainly not good for .NET
by Alex Forster on Fri 13th Aug 2010 15:33 UTC in reply to "Certainly not good for .NET"
Alex Forster Member since:
2005-08-12

I could argue that it's more safe to use a language with patent exemptions that's been vetted by paranoid lawyers than it is to use a language like Python or Scala or Lua that are completely community driven with developers who have absolutely know idea what timebomb language features to stay away from.

Also, Microsoft's patent exemptions are ironically more liberal than Sun/Oracle's - this lawsuit could not have happened if Google had implemented C# on top of a custom, non-CLI compatible runtime. Copying and pasting from my other comment-

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.

Edited 2010-08-13 15:36 UTC

Reply Score: 4

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Android and its non-standard Java gets the stench of IP infringement, more companies use WP7, more developers use .net.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Certainly not good for .NET
by google_ninja on Fri 13th Aug 2010 18:39 UTC in reply to "Certainly not good for .NET"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

open source does do that, so do companies. java is a platform built by a massive company specifically for other massive companies, and has been plagued by the politics inherant in that almost from day one.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Certainly not good for .NET
by jimmyspitz on Sat 14th Aug 2010 06:45 UTC in reply to "Certainly not good for .NET"
jimmyspitz Member since:
2010-08-14

Back to basics, back to C/C++

Reply Score: 1

Comment by kvarbanov
by kvarbanov on Fri 13th Aug 2010 14:49 UTC
kvarbanov
Member since:
2008-06-16

So, basically, Oracle wants Google to shut down remotely my HTC Legend ? No way, I paid for it ;) LOL. These guys are nut, do they really believe that Google people are SO intensely stupid to put themselves in the middle of a patient war ? I don't think so. But in these days the tech companies are suing each other for whatever they like. Personally I'm tired of reading that sort of news ...

Reply Score: 2

Foto-comment
by walec51 on Fri 13th Aug 2010 15:29 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 ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Foto-comment
by Tuishimi on Fri 13th Aug 2010 15:59 UTC in reply to "Foto-comment"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Love the eye brows.

Reply Score: 2

I've said it before...
by Tuishimi on Fri 13th Aug 2010 15:58 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

...and I'll say it again. I despise Oracle.

They take good things and screw them up.

Reply Score: 6

RE: I've said it before...
by shotsman on Fri 13th Aug 2010 17:04 UTC in reply to "I've said it before..."
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

spot on.
They did it with WebLogic (huge price hikes). Now more expensive than Websphere App Server ND.
MySQL (need I say anymore?) - Already forked.
Open Solaris - Forking here we come.
and now this.

Scum of the earth.
And their core DB costs far more than DB2 to run on the same H/W.
Take a gander at their prices for an 8-way/8 core Sparc server. Then don't ever talk about Apple charging a premium price again.

This is coming from someone who was once upon a time an Oracle DBA! (7.3.4 on Tru64/VMS)

Reply Score: 2

This was predicted
by aargh on Fri 13th Aug 2010 17:02 UTC
aargh
Member since:
2009-10-12

This was predicted a long time ago. This article is still worth reading and explains the situation:

http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/110/

Reply Score: 4

RE: This was predicted
by ricegf on Sat 14th Aug 2010 12:39 UTC in reply to "This was predicted"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Wow. 15 November 2007 according to archive.org. "Sun is under fire for IP issues related to ZFS and they claimed that it’s an “attack on free software”. I’m curious to see how they’re going to spin their own IP attack on Android (because I bet there’s going to be one)."

Spot on, Mr. Mazzocchi.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: This was predicted
by kristoph on Sun 15th Aug 2010 00:45 UTC in reply to "RE: This was predicted"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Oracle is attacking 'Free Software'. Sun is dead.

No need to spin anything.

Reply Score: 1

No Surprise
by segedunum on Fri 13th Aug 2010 17:07 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

It's no surprise. The Sun takeover is taking its tole on Oracle, which only came about because Ellison had an ego trip about going up against IBM.

Since Java never made any real money for Sun then trying to grab a slice of the mobile market without having actually entered it seems a decent thing to do. Rather desperate, but it's worth a shot.

Reply Score: 2

Reason to Push GO?
by fran on Fri 13th Aug 2010 17:32 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

Few months ago Google engineers critised the over-complexity of C++ and Java. This is why they are developed(ing) the Go programming language.
I think this lawsuit is playing into the hands of Google.
In the future the Go programming language might become the default programming language for android and Chrome operating system application developers. And lawsuits like this just might justify and fast track this.
If I remember correctly the whole Gmail application is written in Java. I had the impression that Google and Sun had a nice working relationship. Look like this is not the case with non FOSS Oracle.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Reason to Push GO?
by jgagnon on Fri 13th Aug 2010 19:33 UTC in reply to "Reason to Push GO?"
jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

What they REALLY need to do is get fully on board with LLVM and the Java byte code front end for it. Then make it an integral part of Android and their SDK's. No need for the JVM ever again.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Reason to Push GO?
by gnufreex on Sat 14th Aug 2010 13:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Reason to Push GO?"
gnufreex Member since:
2010-05-06

No need to waste trying to make LLVM support Java. GCC already supports that through gcj. It can compile Java source code to Java bytecode, or to native executable code. And it can even compile Java bytecode to native code.

They might need to modify it to enable compilation of Dalvik bytecode to native code. But they can go Java source to binary without any modification.

Reply Score: 1

SCOracle and George W. Bush
by fretinator on Fri 13th Aug 2010 17:32 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, GW, we've finally gone nucular.

Reply Score: 3

Dalvik may not be clean room
by nt_jerkface on Fri 13th Aug 2010 17:34 UTC
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

It was a Gartner analyst that made that claim based on the VM being incompatible with a standard Java application. Of course that doesn't mean that Dalvik did not copy components from the Java VM.

Remember that Android was developed when Sun was pushing itself as an open source loving company. Google was probably not worried about a lawsuit and didn't bother creating a VM entirely from scratch. The lawsuit is pretty overreaching in its demands which likely means there are violations.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Dalvik may not be clean room
by sprag on Fri 13th Aug 2010 19:40 UTC in reply to "Dalvik may not be clean room"
sprag Member since:
2010-08-13

Considering that Dalvik is register-based and the normal JVM is stack-based, and the binary format used for the classes is substantially different in Dalvik than the normal JVM, I'm going to guess there is very little code you could actually just grab and use.

Google has been very careful to say that you use a java-like language to write android apps. I doubt they were careless with the code when they were so careful in the PR/Documentation

Reply Score: 1

Oracle, give me the line numbers
by FunkyELF on Fri 13th Aug 2010 20:22 UTC
FunkyELF
Member since:
2006-07-26

Android is open sourced.... How do you make an accusation of theft without pointing to files / line numebrs?

Seriously... show me line numbers. I'm not talking about patent infringing.... Oracle used the word "copy".

Reply Score: 4

No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

I believe the attorney in charge of this is the same as the one SCO used against IBM or Novell. Boies. His definition of "copy" is something like "functions pretty much the same way".

Reply Score: 2

ABBA song title here....
by TomF on Fri 13th Aug 2010 21:59 UTC
TomF
Member since:
2010-01-22

You're correct on the Sun versus MS case... MS had agreed to implement Java to the spec... but instead on the one hand they did not comply to the spec and on the other hand extended it in a non-spec way. In a nutshell .. programs written to run on MS-Java were not (always) going to run on standard java (as required by the spec)

LPOD... just wants your money.

Let me curse the ponytail who led our once great company to the slaughterhouse...

(LPOD : Larry, Prince of Darkness)

Reply Score: 1

Apple
by OSGuy on Fri 13th Aug 2010 22:06 UTC
OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01

Apple must be loving this.

Reply Score: 2

Meego
by mojo-raisin on Fri 13th Aug 2010 23:13 UTC
mojo-raisin
Member since:
2010-07-30

As Meego is a non-Java platform that uses Qt and some Gtk, Nokia will receive a boost from this confusion.

Reply Score: 1

Speculating Oracle royalty earnings
by fran on Fri 13th Aug 2010 23:22 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

Let's do some wild speculation on what Oracle might earn from a backroom out of court settlement.
Let's speculate on five years into the future..after the legal dealings has ended.
Let's say Oracle negotiate a .50c fee on every Android handset sold. Paid by either Google or the handset maker.
Currently 200 000 Android handsets is sold daily after just two years of it's initial release.
In 2009 total cellphone sales was about 1 000 000 000 ie. one Billion. Smartphones has become cheaper and cheaper so let's guess in 5 year's time 50% of all phones will be "smartphones" and global cellphone sales has increased to 1.5 Billion.
That will be 50% x 50% x 1.5Billion x $0.5=$125 Million Dollar royalty revenue to Oracle yearly.
That is not counting the possibility of revenue that Oracle might earn on every Android app sold.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Aragorn992
by Aragorn992 on Sat 14th Aug 2010 13:18 UTC
Aragorn992
Member since:
2007-05-27

I'm a bit confused about what Google is doing wrong according to Oracle.

Is it because they compile to Java bytecode and then (after coverting he Java bytecode to their own VM bytecode) don't use the standard Java VM? If so, couldn't this be solved just by compiling the source to their VMs bytecode?

Or, would the use of the Java language itself, and some of the same names as Java's libraries also constitute some form of patent issue?

Honestly, I cannot see this affecting Google much. All they have to do, worst case, is modify the source code language so its sufficiently non-Java-like and then write a compiler to compile this source directly to their own VM. It would be shitty for the developer community, but if necessary not a major problem (considering that Android already has sufficient critical mass in market share to make developers take notice regardless of its development process).

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Fransexy
by Fransexy on Sat 14th Aug 2010 15:38 UTC
Fransexy
Member since:
2005-07-29

this will end with google buying oracle ;-)

Reply Score: 3

g5e8748
by famalegoods103 on Mon 16th Aug 2010 13:27 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$$
gfdshhyt77777

Reply Score: 1

Open Source JDK
by trenchsol on Tue 17th Aug 2010 19:29 UTC
trenchsol
Member since:
2006-12-07

Oracle allows any individual to download and use the copy of THEIR Java Development Kit. I am very much grateful for that. One can also download developers version of their database server, JDeveloper and other products.

I don't see why would Oracle allow everyone to make money from their own property. I write software myself and I always retain tight control over distribution of my work.

Considering open source Java, I think it never worked properly. I had problems with some applets written by other people. Also, some of my customers had problems with my applications, running them on IcedTea on Redora. I refused to look into that until they installed official JRE from Oracle. But, when they did that, the problems ceased to exist. IcedTea is, probably, linked against some local libraries, any of which might cause problems. As far as I am concerned open source JRE/JDK should have never existed at all, because it is only causing me problems.

Reply Score: 2