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?
Thread beginning with comment 436522
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Good news for .net?
by ndrw on Fri 13th Aug 2010 04:56 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Good news for .net?
by kelvin on Fri 13th Aug 2010 08:45 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 Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Good news for .net?
by pgeorgi on Fri 13th Aug 2010 11:10 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Good news for .net?
by Alex Forster on Fri 13th Aug 2010 15:12 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 Parent Score: 2