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 436807
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: People forget
by nt_jerkface on Sat 14th Aug 2010 13:08 UTC 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

RE[6]: People forget
by nt_jerkface on Sat 14th Aug 2010 18:40 in reply to "RE[5]: People forget"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

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


So what is your position again? Google isn't using Java even though they call it Java and use the Java language along with a Java-like VM that includes libraries that have the same names and methods as official Java libraries?


What matters is whether the clone violates patents and whether Google has been using code from Oracle without license.


This is what I have been saying from the beginning, it's the patents that really matter. You are the one that went on some strange "it isn't Java" tangent.

Given the obvious PR cost I'm sure Oracle's lawyers are confident that they have a case.

But I do like how people such as yourself are going to great lengths to defend Google over their non-standard Java that they designed to get around Sun's JME licensing fees. Only Google can go against cross-platform development standards and cut out a major funder of open source just to have continued free defense from people like you.
http://www.binplay.com/2010/08/oracle-sues-boyfriend-of-open-source...

Reply Parent Score: 0