Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 31st May 2012 21:41 UTC
Legal And thus, it ends. Despite a never-ending stream of doom and gloom from Oracle/Microsoft-funded 'pundits' regarding Google and Android (six hundred billion trillion gazillion eurodollars in damages!!1!), judge Alsup has just squashed all of Oracle's chances with a ruling that is good news for those of us who truly care about this wonderful industry: APIs are not copyrightable. Alsup: "To accept Oracle's claim would be to allow anyone to copyright one version of code to carry out a system of commands and thereby bar all others from writing their own different versions to carry out all or part of the same commands. No holding has ever endorsed such a sweeping proposition." Supreme Court, Ellison?
Thread beginning with comment 520276
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by kwan_e on Fri 1st Jun 2012 02:37 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

"Right to fork" is good as a right, but in practice forking (or in general creating incompatible implementations) is not always a positive thing.


Depending on your point of view. From the point of view of someone/organization that wants to avoid adapting to change, or wants to maintain complete control, forking is not a good thing.

To those people, I say tough cookies.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Fri 1st Jun 2012 03:10 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

What I mean is, that if forking can be avoided by collaboration on one project - it's better than spreading efforts on incompatible implementations. (Well, in this case it isn't even forking, just incompatible implementation).

Edited 2012-06-01 03:11 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by shmerl
by kwan_e on Fri 1st Jun 2012 05:49 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by shmerl"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

What I mean is, that if forking can be avoided by collaboration on one project - it's better than spreading efforts on incompatible implementations. (Well, in this case it isn't even forking, just incompatible implementation).


Aside from what I already posted about Dalvik converting bytecode, thereby not making it an incompatible implementation...

If forking can be avoided, probably yes. But in this case, can forking be avoided? I don't think so. Not if you want to have a register-based VM over a stack-based VM (as explained in the Wikipedia Dalvik article).

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by Alfman on Fri 1st Jun 2012 03:31 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

I think Oracle are absolutely right in claiming that android's API fork has caused java platform fragmentation. However I think this fragmentation argument shows just how desperate Oracle are here. API's are not copyrightable, and yet a clone of the APIs are in violation of copyright law because they fragment the market? Seriously?

I'd like to try that one myself: Your honour, the defended have not violated our copyrights per say, but their clone has fragmented our market you see? Here we have some charts to prove it too. Here we have a laptop running defrag to demonstrate just how bad fragmentation is...

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[8]: Comment by shmerl
by phoenix on Fri 1st Jun 2012 16:30 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by shmerl"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Except that Java *itself* is fragmented, and is not interoperable with itself. Afterall, the APIs available to a J2ME developer are not the same APIs available to a J2SE developer, which are not the same APIs available to a J2EE developer. And that is all Oracle's (originally Sun's) doing!

The problem with Oracle's entire case against Google/Android is that they keep changing their demands/arguments. They don't actually have a case, which is why they keep changing their demands/arguments.

Reading through the Groklaw coverage of the case, it's amazing it even made it to court, let alone made it through the complete trial. There was never any possibility of Oracle winning. Their lawyers and arguments were specious at best, and downright wrong most of the time.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[8]: Comment by shmerl
by cdude on Sat 2nd Jun 2012 00:04 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by shmerl"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

I think Oracle is not right on that. If people write an Android application they write an Android application using the Android API's which are not available in Oracle JVM nor outside of Android. As such such applications are 100% Android and 0% Oracle Java.

The language is irrelevant. It could have been C++, Javascript or C#. It's irrelevant cause both languages are *NOT* compatible cause of the different API's and packages. You just cannot run an Android application with Oracle Java.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by shmerl
by cdude on Sat 2nd Jun 2012 00:18 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by shmerl"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

removed cause double-post

Edited 2012-06-02 00:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by FunkyELF on Fri 1st Jun 2012 13:35 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
FunkyELF Member since:
2006-07-26

XBMC which was forked from XBMP sucked at first and then got considerably better.
Not sure about the MATE fork of Gnome... haven't used it yet... only time will tell.

Reply Parent Score: 3