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

1235711

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 203
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,321member
    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!
  • Reply 82 of 203
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,144member
    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?
  • Reply 83 of 203
    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.
  • Reply 84 of 203
    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.
  • Reply 85 of 203
    rybryb Posts: 56member
    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.
  • Reply 86 of 203
    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
  • Reply 87 of 203
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,144member
    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+%.
  • Reply 88 of 203
    rybryb Posts: 56member
    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.
  • Reply 89 of 203
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,144member
    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.
  • Reply 90 of 203
    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.
  • Reply 91 of 203
    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?
  • Reply 92 of 203
    rybryb Posts: 56member
    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.
  • Reply 93 of 203
    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.
  • Reply 94 of 203
    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.
  • Reply 95 of 203
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,144member
    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
  • Reply 96 of 203
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,144member
    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?
  • Reply 97 of 203
    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.
  • Reply 98 of 203
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,144member
    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.
  • Reply 99 of 203
    rybryb Posts: 56member
    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.
  • Reply 100 of 203
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,144member
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.