Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 13th Aug 2010 22:58 UTC, submitted by Alex Forster
Legal We're far from done with the Oracle v. Google lawsuit. The search giant has responded to the lawsuit, and Miguel De Icaza has provided a very interesting insight into the case. His report has been confirmed by James Gosling, known as the father of Java who left Sun right after the merger. Icaza speculates that the potential to monetise on Java by suing Google was pitched by Jonathan Schwartz during Sun's sales talks with Oracle. Oh boy.
Thread beginning with comment 436748
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: People forget
by dylansmrjones on Sat 14th Aug 2010 00:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: People forget"
dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

The two cases are not even remotely similar. The MS-case was centered around Microsoft calling its Java-clone/implementation for Java without actually meeting the specs. The implementation was incomplete and therefore Microsoft wasn't allowed to call it Java.
The copyrights and trademarks violation were merely results of the incomplete and incorrect implementation.

The Google-case is completely different. It is not Java, it is not called Java, and it is not directly compatible with Java. I wonder who is next. Kaffe?

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[4]: People forget
by j-kidd on Sat 14th Aug 2010 01:51 in reply to "RE[3]: People forget"
j-kidd Member since:
2005-07-06

Read this:

http://androidsamples.blogspot.com/2009/04/how-to-display-remote-im...

and then tell me it's not Java.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: People forget
by dylansmrjones on Sat 14th Aug 2010 03:33 in reply to "RE[4]: People forget"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

It is not Java. Comal-80 is not Pascal. Object Pascal is not Pascal no matter how similar to old Pascal it is. mono is not .Net. Kaffe is not Java, despite being more compatible than Googles offering.

Besides that you are missing the point. Google does not claim it is Java. Microsoft did claim their implementation was Java. Therefore the two cases are quite different.

But of course this case is obviously about Java and somewhat compatible environments. The case is simply not similar to the MS-Sun debacle.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: People forget
by flanque on Sat 14th Aug 2010 02:15 in reply to "RE[3]: People forget"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

That sounds a bit like claiming the original xbox is not really a PC.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: People forget
by dylansmrjones on Sat 14th Aug 2010 03:34 in reply to "RE[4]: People forget"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well, it is a PC to the same extend an Amiga 1000 is an Atari ST ;)

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: People forget
by nt_jerkface on Sat 14th Aug 2010 13:08 in reply to "RE[3]: People forget"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


The Google-case is completely different. It is not Java, it is not called Java, and it is not directly compatible with Java. I wonder who is next. Kaffe?


It is not completely different, the lawsuit was about more than copyrights. You need to read about the Microsoft Virtual Machine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Java_Virtual_Machine

You do realize that Android not only uses the Java language but there are core Java libraries running in the virtual machine, right?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: People forget
by dylansmrjones on Sat 14th Aug 2010 14:57 in reply to "RE[4]: People forget"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

There are no Java libraries in Dalvik. There are libraries with the same names (and to some extend same method names), but that's also the case in Kaffe.

A programming language is not protected against copying. The implementation of interpreter/compiler is protected by copyright and documentation can be protected by copyright, but the programming language itself is not protected. So it is irrelevant that the language closely resembles Java. What matters is whether the clone violates patents and whether Google has been using code from Oracle without license. The latter is not the case, unless Apache Harmony is in violation too. Trademarks are irrelevant here, since Google isn't claiming Dalvik is Java. Neither is the developers of Kaffe. Dalvik isn't even compatible, and contains none of the Java libraries. It contains some libraries with some of the same names and some of the same method names, implemented without any code owned by Oracle.

The only thing left is violation of software patents. That remains to be seen.

Reply Parent Score: 3