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 436834
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: People forget
by nt_jerkface on Sat 14th Aug 2010 18:40 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: People forget"
Member since:

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.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[7]: People forget
by dylansmrjones on Sat 14th Aug 2010 19:55 in reply to "RE[6]: People forget"
dylansmrjones Member since:

Hey jerkface!

Google is NOT calling it java. The dispute is about the VM and the framework and it is called Dalvik. The programming language is Java, but programming languages cannot be protected. A specific implementation of a VM, and specifications for such a VM in order to receive a license to use a trademark can be protected. However, Google is not calling Dalvik for Java. The programming language is not the issue here. The VM is. So stop claiming Google is calling Dalvik for Java.

Dalvik is a Java-like VM but is not Java. Just like Amiga OS 4 is not Unix despite having AmiCygnix. Dalvik is less compatible with Java than Wine is with Windows. Do you call Wine for Windows - or GNUstep for NeXTSTEP? I'm looking forward to your answer.

There is no trademark violation since Google isn't calling Dalvik for Java. It is called Dalvik and is only somewhat compatible at source code level (with Java SE - not Java ME) and not at all at bytecode level.

There is no copyright violation for none of the Sun/Oracle code can be found in Dalvik. It is a fork of Apache Harmony.

The only thing left is violation of software patents. We'll see about that.
I did not go at a tangent of Dalvik isn't Java. I merely corrected the OP. You tried to claim that Dalvik is Java, which it is not. Nor does Google claim it is, despite your repeated lies. So no, Dalvik is not a non-standard Java. It is not Java at all.

Your blog is irrelevant and only proves that you really are a jerkface. But that's what you wanted to prove, right?

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[8]: People forget
by nt_jerkface on Sat 14th Aug 2010 23:31 in reply to "RE[7]: People forget"
nt_jerkface Member since:

Google is NOT calling it java

Not calling what Java? Android? Yes they call it Android. And Dalvik they call Dalvik. Why not refer to each component by name? Oh that's right because you are using the scummy defense attorney tactic of resorting to semantics.

My client doesn't run. He is in too much pain.
He doesn't? We have a picture of him running.
No that is a jog. I said he doesn't run.

They didn't take any code from Java or label anything Java.
What about this page that says Android uses Java?
Oh I was talking about the entire stack. They don't call that Java.

Reply Parent Score: 1