or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Oracle seeking an injunction against Android as an "incompatible clone of Java"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Oracle seeking an injunction against Android as an "incompatible clone of Java" - Page 3

post #81 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

So Oracle would be ok with an incompatible version of Java polluting their write once run everywhere mantra as long as they pay the license?

If Google licensed the "real" version, they could move to that. This seems to be the opinion of some pretty smart people.
post #82 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by boby_k View Post

I wonder if you have been reading forian muller's useless writing and whole press that write his throw up.

The trial has not started yet and it is not good at this point to mention this for Google or Oracle. For Google, it will look like immediate changing of the header to Gpl free to Apache free. For Oracle, it will be a hard one one saying they are giving it all these free under GPL in the first place and encouraging everyone to "hack" (exact words from Oracle site) the code.

At this point Oracle wants more money. Google wants the extra freedom in Apache license. It is very likely this gets settled before trial. That is the only way both can be satisfied. Otherwise, both lose.

Very insightful and clearly stated posts. Well done and easily understood.
Good to have you here!
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #83 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by boby_k View Post

Oracle conveniently removed GPL v2 headers from the source files submitted to the judge. Google asked Oracle to add it back.

Now the discussion is mostly about damage amount (in case of an infringement found). The real game is not yet started, players just warming up now.

What?
post #84 of 202
Let this be a lesson to everyone thinking of using a proprietary programming language (e.g. Java, C#) as a core part of your product.
Unless you got the approval of the vendor, you can get sued anytime - hell you might get sued even if you got approval; you never know.

And just because it's open-sourced doesn't mean it isn't proprietary. *cough*patents*cough*

The only safe languages are the "old" ones, C, C++, maybe Pascal ...

PS: and for those wondering why no one is paying Stroustrup,

See: http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html under "Do you own C++?"

He designed C++ to be truly royalty-free and patent unencumbered.
post #85 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

If Google licensed the "real" version, they could move to that. This seems to be the opinion of some pretty smart people.

As per GPL v2, you do not need another license from Oracle to create a clone of Java. But that clone should also be under GPL v2.

Motorola is a licensee of Java. Google can handover Android to Motorola (Page already mentioned Motorola will be run as a separate entity), but I do not think that is necessary.
post #86 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

No, they don't need to use Android, but it's not like WP7 is exactly wowing consumers over. Symbian is dead, webOS is dead, RIM is treading water.

That pretty much leaves the iPhone which doesn't exactly cater to all audiences.

If Google had not given this stolen (according to Oracle), free, OS away to hardware companies, we wouldn't be saying that Android is necessary to choice. We would be talking about the competition provided by WebOS, Symbian, Bada, Windows Phone, and whatever other mobile OS that a company had been creative enough to produce. If Google had had different leadership, maybe they would have bought Java so that they could legally make a competing platform. Android is in no way necessary to the existence of choice or competition.
post #87 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by NaCl View Post

Let this be a lesson to everyone thinking of using a proprietary programming language (e.g. Java, C#) as a core part of your product.
Unless you got the approval of the vendor, you can get sued anytime - hell you might get sued even if you got approval; you never know.

And just because it's open-sourced doesn't mean it isn't proprietary. *cough*patents*cough*

The only safe languages are the "old" ones, C, C++, maybe Pascal ...

PS: and for those wondering why no one is paying Stroustrup,

See: http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html under "Do you own C++?"

He designed C++ to be truly royalty-free and patent unencumbered.

OK, maybe I need to review everything I've read about this case, but I thought the problem wasn't using java as a language. I thought the issues were: 1) the Dalvik VM. Google claims that it was created in a clean room environment and Oracle claims that is not true. 2) the terms of the license requires complete compatibility with java which Android is not

Definitely correct me if I'm wrong though
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #88 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post

To buy a company doesn't mean you have to own them in their entirety. You simply have to own enough, or controlling interest. Bill Gates has controlling interest in MS and his ownership is something in the league of 30%. Many times, controlling interest is much less than that, depending on other factors, such as Ford's former stake in Mazda, where much of Mazda's parts and platforms were derived from Ford's worldwide operations. With that in mind, Google would simply need to purchase "enough" of Oracle to nullify this mess. What number would you think that could be? 15%? 20%? Some of that could even be borrowed money... Then that would also allow Google to benefit from Oracle's operations, as well.

Well, it would be more likely that Oracle would control Google. But it wouldn't happen either way. It's almost impossible to buy that much of a very valuable public company, ESP. If the founder owns a large part.

And Gates has a small part of MS these days. Something on the order of 6+%.
post #89 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

What difference does that make? So you think it's impossible for some other company to develop something new? I mean according to some people, everything Apple has done with iOS is completely "obvious."

You beat me.
post #90 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Is that what they dealt with Microsoft's infringement? I forget the details now.

I hate to admit this, but I'm not sure what you're referring to.
post #91 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnviroG View Post

Litigations between these tech firms just seems to be getting more & more murky. I've got a headache just reading this article.

I'll give you the short version: Infringe, Litigate, Delay, Settle. Worked for Microsoft, Intel, etc. etc. etc.
post #92 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryb View Post

If Google had not given this stolen (according to Oracle), free, OS away to hardware companies, we wouldn't be saying that Android is necessary to choice. We would be talking about the competition provided by WebOS, Symbian, Bada, Windows Phone, and whatever other mobile OS that a company had been creative enough to produce. If Google had had different leadership, maybe they would have bought Java so that they could legally make a competing platform. Android is in no way necessary to the existence of choice or competition.

Larry Ellison runs a litigation business. Please dont trust its lawyers word as it is. Can you steal what is offered free?
post #93 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by boby_k View Post

I have to admit I am. Here is what I am thinking: At this point Oracle wants more money. Google wants the extra freedom in Apache license. It is very likely this gets settled before trial. That is the only way both can be satisfied. Otherwise, both lose.

One exception is Oracle's claim of 5 patents or so. Two of them got invalidated by patent office currently. So, there is this 3 patents in question. Not sure about the timings, but Google bought 2000+ patents from IBM plus 17000 + 7500(pending) will be added via Motorola. Some of the patents from IBM target parallel database features in Oracle databases. Maybe, Google is preparing to strike against Oracle's patent claims.

I hope AI reports either way.
post #94 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I hate to admit this, but I'm not sure what you're referring to.

I think he is referring to the Sun vs. Microsoft case where Microsoft licensed java but violated the terms by making it completely incompatible.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #95 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

OK, maybe I need to review everything I've read about this case, but I thought the problem wasn't using java as a language. I thought the issues were: 1) the Dalvik VM. Google claims that it was created in a clean room environment and Oracle claims that is not true. 2) the terms of the license requires complete compatibility with java which Android is not

Definitely correct me if I'm wrong though

You can take java code from openjdk.net and create your own version which is not compatible with Oracle Java. Only thing is that you have to make that code available to other under GPL v2.

In addition, Oracle claims 5 patents ( 2 invalidated so far) hidden in the code and since GPL v2 does not explicitly state patents, you will need some bogus patents to conter attack Oracle. It is a trap, but as long as you have 1 patent and money to counter attack Oracle, you will be ok.
post #96 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by boby_k View Post

As per GPL v2, you do not need another license from Oracle to create a clone of Java. But that clone should also be under GPL v2.

Motorola is a licensee of Java. Google can handover Android to Motorola (Page already mentioned Motorola will be run as a separate entity), but I do not think that is necessary.

That's possible about Java, except not really. If Google did that, they would have to release all of their work to the public. Google has already shown they won't do that. One problem for them is the code they already stole from Linux. Why should they want to act differently here?

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...ous-linux.html
post #97 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by boby_k View Post

Larry Ellison runs a litigation business. Please dont trust its lawyers word as it is. Can you steal what is offered free?

What exactly does that mean?
post #98 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by boby_k View Post

I have to admit I am. Here is what I am thinking: ...

Here's what I'm thinking: You either have not the slightest idea what you are talking about but have gotten pumped up on BS from Android and open source fan sites and came to spew it here, or, you know it's BS but have some ridiculously mistaken notion that "putting it out there" will somehow make a difference in the outcome.
post #99 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

I think he is referring to the Sun vs. Microsoft case where Microsoft licensed java but violated the terms by making it completely incompatible.

Oh yes. That was a good one. But MS simply stopped using it. And they were trying to take Java proprietary. Their idea wasn't just to use some part if it the way Google is doing it. They were attempting to kill the cross platform use of it by tying Java to Windows.
post #100 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by boby_k View Post

Larry Ellison runs a litigation business. Please dont trust its lawyers word as it is. Can you steal what is offered free?

Sure. I was pointing at the idea of Android being so good for choice and competition that it would be bad if the legal system determined that it should be removed from use to satisfy The wrong done to Oracle. IF. I think the right thing to do is what the law allows as remedy to Oracle.

Forgive me if I'm not being clear enough. I admire the ability of some of the participants here to state their ideas succinctly and clearly.
post #101 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by boby_k View Post

You can take java code from openjdk.net and create your own version which is not compatible with Oracle Java. Only thing is that you have to make that code available to other under GPL v2.

In addition, Oracle claims 5 patents ( 2 invalidated so far) hidden in the code and since GPL v2 does not explicitly state patents, you will need some bogus patents to conter attack Oracle. It is a trap, but as long as you have 1 patent and money to counter attack Oracle, you will be ok.

You are making things up here.Google has given up the lie that they haven't violated Oracle's patents by sitting down with them. The Judge has stated several times that Google would lose this in a court. The memo's from Google pretty much lock in the fact of their guilt.

But it's not even just Java, Google stole code from Linux as well, and are claiming it as their own.

These guys are hopeless.
post #102 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

That's possible about Java, except not really. If Google did that, they would have to release all of their work to the public. Google has already shown they won't do that. One problem for them is the code they already stole from Linux. Why should they want to act differently here?

Steal from Linux? Uhm, isnt that supposed to be free and open source leader supposed to beat Microsoft etc?

In that case, Apple created OS X stealing core from BSD. wikipedia: Darwin is an open source POSIX-compliant computer operating system released by Apple Inc. in 2000. It is composed of code developed by Apple, as well as code derived from NeXTSTEP, BSD, and other free software projects.

Google needs to publish only derivative work, not the apps that are running on top of it. They do it anyway. It will be a problem for Amazon which forked Android and keeps code secret.
post #103 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

OK, maybe I need to review everything I've read about this case, but I thought the problem wasn't using java as a language. I thought the issues were: 1) the Dalvik VM. Google claims that it was created in a clean room environment and Oracle claims that is not true. 2) the terms of the license requires complete compatibility with java which Android is not

Definitely correct me if I'm wrong though

Oh don't quote me on this case. LOL. I didn't analyze it much.

All I know is Java is used in Google's Android, as a very "core" part, and Google got sued. Over what (patents and copyrights) I'm not sure, but the result is they got sued.

No one has ever gotten sued for using C or C++ to my knowledge - none that were big news, with billions of dollars at stake anyway.

One IMO should be very careful when integrating proprietary languages like Java and C# into one's product. You better have every "t" cross and every "i" dotted, as you never know what language related patents/copyrights the language vendor has hidden away.
post #104 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Here's what I'm thinking: You either have not the slightest idea what you are talking about but have gotten pumped up on BS from Android and open source fan sites and came to spew it here, or, you know it's BS but have some ridiculously mistaken notion that "putting it out there" will somehow make a difference in the outcome.

Sorry, if I upset you. But, I did not write anything here without giving links or references to facts. Bye
post #105 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryb View Post

Sure. I was pointing at the idea of Android being so good for choice and competition that it would be bad if the legal system determined that it should be removed from use to satisfy The wrong done to Oracle. IF. I think the right thing to do is what the law allows as remedy to Oracle.

Forgive me if I'm not being clear enough. I admire the ability of some of the participants here to state their ideas succinctly and clearly.

It seems to me that if Google just did this one time, we might just write it off as a bunch of guys who are incompetent at this. But they knew they were violating Sun's IP.

They also violated Microsoft's, as we can see by how easy it's been for MS to wrest license fees from so many Android OEM's so far.

They violated Apple's.

They violated the Linux Foundation's code as well.

They helped Canadian companies illegally sell drugs here in the US for a number of years. They just paid the largest fine ever for that, $500 million.

They are under investigation both here, in Europe, and possibly in S. Korea for antitrust violations. Their attempts to put other companies out of business by stealing their business plans, is widespread.

Then we have their hard to believe excuse of "an error by one engineer" in placing software that steals passwords, e-mails, etc. from people's systems while taking photo's of the front of houses. This by the way, is software that Google developed specifically to do just that. They even patented it!

Then you could read all of the funky things Eric Schmitt has said over the years.

I don't trust these guys at all.
post #106 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by boby_k View Post

Steal from Linux? Uhm, isnt that supposed to be free and open source leader supposed to beat Microsoft etc?

In that case, Apple created OS X stealing core from BSD. wikipedia: Darwin is an open source POSIX-compliant computer operating system released by Apple Inc. in 2000. It is composed of code developed by Apple, as well as code derived from NeXTSTEP, BSD, and other free software projects.

Google needs to publish only derivative work, not the apps that are running on top of it. They do it anyway. It will be a problem for Amazon which forked Android and keeps code secret.

It's free, but covered by the GPL 2 license. That means that the work, or any work derived from it, or any programs that runs on it must be documented, and released for everyone else to use without payment.

What Google did, as I posted a link to some posts above, was to take about 2.5 MBs of Linux code, strip the copyrights out, and claim it as part of their own proprietary software. This is a violation of the license. It's serious stuff. I'll post it again.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...ous-linux.html
post #107 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by boby_k View Post

I have to admit I am. Here is what I am thinking: At this point Oracle wants more money. Google wants the extra freedom in Apache license. It is very likely this gets settled before trial. That is the only way both can be satisfied. Otherwise, both lose.

One exception is Oracle's claim of 5 patents or so. Two of them got invalidated by patent office currently. So, there is this 3 patents in question. Not sure about the timings, but Google bought 2000+ patents from IBM plus 17000 + 7500(pending) will be added via Motorola. Some of the patents from IBM target parallel database features in Oracle databases. Maybe, Google is preparing to strike against Oracle's patent claims.

Whoa, total flashback! I could have sworn you copied half of that text from your own post above!

LAME!
post #108 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by boby_k View Post

Steal from Linux? Uhm, isnt that supposed to be free and open source leader supposed to beat Microsoft etc?

In that case, Apple created OS X stealing core from BSD. wikipedia: Darwin is an open source POSIX-compliant computer operating system released by Apple Inc. in 2000. It is composed of code developed by Apple, as well as code derived from NeXTSTEP, BSD, and other free software projects.

I wonder what would happen if you walked into a courtroom and tried to cite wikipedia as a reference. Wait... I wonder what would happen if you walked into a CLASSROOM and tried to cite wikipedia as a reference.
post #109 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by boby_k View Post

Sorry, if I upset you. But, I did not write anything here without giving links or references to facts. Bye

And just like that.... poof
post #110 of 202
That is a blind accusation on Google.

They also violated Microsoft's, as we can see by how easy it's been for MS to wrest license fees from so many Android OEM's so far.

A: name one true invention from Microsoft?

They violated Apple's.

A: Uhm, in that case, Apple violated Nokia's and 100 other companies that are using Apple.

They violated the Linux Foundation's code as well.

A: Linux is free

They helped Canadian companies illegally sell drugs here in the US for a number of years. They just paid the largest fine ever for that, $500 million.

A: How many Canadian's die taking those drugs? Canada can offer free healthcare to all its citizens. 60 million is US has no heath coverage. Healthcare costs will US destroy US economy over time. It bothers me - what is legally right is not always morally right? - maybe, some in Google made a mistake of ignoring the law to save some lives.

They are under investigation both here, in Europe, and possibly in S. Korea for antitrust violations. Their attempts to put other companies out of business by stealing their business plans, is widespread.

A: Did they find anything bad so far?

Then we have their hard to believe excuse of "an error by one engineer" in placing software that steals passwords, e-mails, etc. from people's systems while taking photo's of the front of houses. This by the way, is software that Google developed specifically to do just that. They even patented it!

A: You seem to be very concerned about Google capturing wifi information. Why would you not ask FCC to ban selling wifi devices with WEB encryption? All congressmen are concerned, they do nothing other than go after Google, while hackers make harvests.

Then you could read all of the funky things Eric Schmitt has said over the years.

I don't trust these guys at all.
post #111 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by boby_k View Post

That is a blind accusation on Google.

They also violated Microsoft's, as we can see by how easy it's been for MS to wrest license fees from so many Android OEM's so far.

A: name one true invention from Microsoft?

They violated Apple's.

A: Uhm, in that case, Apple violated Nokia's and 100 other companies that are using Apple.

They violated the Linux Foundation's code as well.

A: Linux is free

They helped Canadian companies illegally sell drugs here in the US for a number of years. They just paid the largest fine ever for that, $500 million.

A: How many Canadian's die taking those drugs? Canada can offer free healthcare to all its citizens. 60 million is US has no heath coverage. Healthcare costs will US destroy US economy over time. It bothers me - what is legally right is not always morally right? - maybe, some in Google made a mistake of ignoring the law to save some lives.

They are under investigation both here, in Europe, and possibly in S. Korea for antitrust violations. Their attempts to put other companies out of business by stealing their business plans, is widespread.

A: Did they find anything bad so far?

Then we have their hard to believe excuse of "an error by one engineer" in placing software that steals passwords, e-mails, etc. from people's systems while taking photo's of the front of houses. This by the way, is software that Google developed specifically to do just that. They even patented it!

A: You seem to be very concerned about Google capturing wifi information. Why would you not ask FCC to ban selling wifi devices with WEB encryption? All congressmen are concerned, they do nothing other than go after Google, while hackers make harvests.

Then you could read all of the funky things Eric Schmitt has said over the years.

I don't trust these guys at all.

You haven't said anything here that disproves anything I stated. You haven't actually said anything!
post #112 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by boby_k View Post

Sorry, if I upset you. But, I did not write anything here without giving links or references to facts. Bye

The problem with all your, Google just has to release code under GPL V2 talk and they are home free talk is that Google has not done that.

If Google wanted to claim the GPL defense they could not keep Andriod 3.0 and 3.1 as CLOSED SOURCE software, as they are doing.

Google DOES NOT want to GPL Andriod. The reason for this is simple, the WHOLE POINT of Andriod is for Google to be able to control OEMs and ensure that Google's customers (advertisers) can gain access to Google product (Andrioid users).

By releasing Andriod under GPL they can not control search and advertising channels to their customers (advertisers) through their product (Andriod users).

For Google multi-billion investment in Andriod to be financially viable they need a product to sell to their customers. They need Andriod users to sell eye balls to the advertisers.

If ever Andrioid was made truly "FREE" software they lose control and no longer have a product to sell to their customers.
MacPro Dual 3GHz Quad-Core
MacBook Air
MacBook Pro 17"
iMac 24"
iPhone v1 / iTouch v1
AppleTV
Apple IIe (Go Castle Wolfenstein! - Halt! - Kommen Sie!)
Reply
MacPro Dual 3GHz Quad-Core
MacBook Air
MacBook Pro 17"
iMac 24"
iPhone v1 / iTouch v1
AppleTV
Apple IIe (Go Castle Wolfenstein! - Halt! - Kommen Sie!)
Reply
post #113 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwirob View Post

The problem with all your, Google just has to release code under GPL V2 talk and they are home free talk is that Google has not done that.

If Google wanted to claim the GPL defense they could not keep Andriod 3.0 and 3.1 as CLOSED SOURCE software, as they are doing.

Google DOES NOT want to GPL Andriod. The reason for this is simple, the WHOLE POINT of Andriod is for Google to be able to control OEMs and ensure that Google's customers (advertisers) can gain access to Google product (Andrioid users).

By releasing Andriod under GPL they can not control search and advertising channels to their customers (advertisers) through their product (Andriod users).

For Google multi-billion investment in Andriod to be financially viable they need a product to sell to their customers. They need Andriod users to sell eye balls to the advertisers.

If ever Andrioid was made truly "FREE" software they lose control and no longer have a product to sell to their customers.

I agree with you that Apache license will be better for Google, but not for the same reasons.
post #114 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's free, but covered by the GPL 2 license. That mean....

What Google did, as I posted a link to some posts above, was to take about 2.5 MBs of Linux code, strip the copyrights out, and claim....
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...ous-linux.html

Thanks, that was kind of my understanding, but with all the white noise going on here, I wasn't sure.
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
post #115 of 202
deleted
post #116 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by boby_k View Post

I agree with you that Apache license will be better for Google, but not for the same reasons.

All of you guys really should read the analysis of this at Fosspatents. This is a very complex situation, and isn't subject to a simple resolution.
post #117 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

When did Oracle sue Microsoft?

Sun sued them. And won.
post #118 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

All of you guys really should read the analysis of this at Fosspatents. This is a very complex situation, and isn't subject to a simple resolution.

I suggest never read Fosspatents. It is biased useless material. Take a look at it yourself.
post #119 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

When did Oracle sue Microsoft?

I was referring to previous and quite famous Java suit against MS which was back pre Sun purchase. Sorry I thought it was well know. MS was forced to give up its Java knock off. Or outdated incompatible version to be more accurate.
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news...+Over+Java.htm

You must be a youngster.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #120 of 202
deleted
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Oracle seeking an injunction against Android as an "incompatible clone of Java"
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Oracle seeking an injunction against Android as an "incompatible clone of Java"