Imagine if, at the end of the day, someone could claim exclusive rights to strings like "int fork();". Would one have to look up a list of method signatures to avoid every time one writes a library? Would projects like the BSDs or GNU/Linux be in trouble for appropriating the unix API, much of which originated with AT&T's unix implementation?
The appeal is a bit of a hop, skip and jump, with Oracle trying to assert that APIs are copyrightable entities, then if they prevail asking the court to rule on fair use, and then hoping the end result leads to some form of royalty stream. Nothing to do with Chrome Apps of course, which is the red herring in the base article.
In the final analysis, my personal guess is that Oracle will waste money on lawyers and see no related income at the end of this process. And that Mueller will get it wrong, as he did last time. Time will tell.
I tend to agree that you have to take what is said with a grain of salt especially when someone have a business relationship with either side of a discussion.
Mueller is not a lawyer, but he was doing as many business people were doing when watching these cases which was interrupting what was being said and presented and trying to draw conclusions, right or wrong. He also was providing an expert opinion base on all your years of experience dealing with similar things. I would say he was more right than wrong and the thing he could not predict and no one can ahead of time is how a judge or jury will rule until it happens. Unless your talking about the judge in the Apple Anti-trust case where they make their opinion known up front.
Now I did look at groklaw website, and they are lawyers and they were attacking Mueller base on their understanding of the law. They was basically saying that he was wrong for various legal reason not because he had no idea what he was talking about or that he was being paid for by Oracle or M$. By the way he consults for them, and they hire him for a reason, and most likely it was not because they knew he would be following this case and he would then spread miss information. In this case it make no sense to Mueller to side with Oracle and put out statements with make Google look bad and Oracle look good. There is no financial incentive on either side in the public's eye on the outcome of this case.
If you think otherwise I would like to hear how you think Oracle is some how benefiting from Mueller statement about the case. I give you that Mueller may benefit from making comments which is then linked all over the place. His name become well know thus you could make money from that fact. But that is no different than any person out there who choose to talk about a hot topic. he could as well choosing to focus on why Google/Android was in their rights and still achieved the same end result. But you seem to think that Oracle/M$ are paying him to be a month piece for them so they can benefit somehow from the outcome of this case.
Just because groklaw said Mueller was wrong on various specific points does not mean for a second they are correct either. As it may turn out Google could loose in the end and Sun/Oracle could prevail, if that happens who was right and wrong. Also, they made their comments after the fact, his were in real time as it was happening so his opinions were base on what was known at that point in time. Groklaw, made analysis after the fact with knowledge after Mueller made his statements, you also would see that Mueller change his tune a few times as more information came public. It the risk you take for making your opinion known before all the fact are out in the open.
I have some experience in both legal matters as well as IP issues and Mueller did a pretty good job of breaking it down all the technical and legal issues. I would also say most lawyers I met do not understand the technical/technology issues. Unless they came from a technical background and many IP lawyer do, but still do not fully understand the technical issue around these kinds of cases. I tend to lean toward a layman interpretation over a lawyer since lawyer tend to look at case like this one dimensional.
This is some of the most biased and uninformed journalism I've seen in a long time. What you have here is someone taking two completely separate topics and sensationalizing them into something deceptive.
ART is the solution to the issues with Oracle. It's already in place on the new Nexus devices. It's a native solution that solves the Java VM issues and will cause Android apps to run much more smoothly.
The Chrome packaged apps are something that Google has been working on for a long time. It was only a matter of time before they showed up on the mobile versions of Chrome as well. They are not in any way some sort of last ditch effort to save the platform from patent trolls as this article has suggested.
Daniel Dilger should be ashamed to have his name associated with a misleading article like this. I get that this is a website for Apple news, but deceptive and biased articles like this seriously damage its credibility.
ART is the solution to the issues with Oracle. It's already in place on the new Nexus devices. It's a native solution that solves the Java VM issues and will cause Android apps to run much more smoothly.
You sir are mistaken. ART offer is the same VM runtime and run the same Java based apps targeted for Dalvik, the only difference is instead of compiling the apps at runtime, it pre-interprets the bytecode at installation, but it doesn't neglect VM performances taxes on I/O found on those kind of solution.
"Sun Develops A Licensing Regime To Foster A Community AndEnsure Compatibility Although Oracle owns the copyright on Java SE and thecorresponding packages, Oracle encourages their use by others%u2014both avast community of programmers writing clever apps and businesses developing proprietary and competing products. To accommodate allcomers, Sun/Oracle offers three different licenses:(1)The General Public License (%u201CGPL%u201D) is free of charge, butsubject to a strict%u2014and legally binding%u2014obligation..."
It's truly astonishing and bizarre. I guess Google just really likes the Apache Software License but has some grudge against the GPL. They did the same thing with Linux, some of the important parts of Android aren't under the GPL as they are in Linux...
"Sun Develops A Licensing Regime To Foster A Community AndEnsure Compatibility
Although Oracle owns the copyright on Java SE and thecorresponding packages, Oracle encourages their use by others%u2014both avast community of programmers writing clever apps and businesses
developing proprietary and competing products. To accommodate allcomers, Sun/Oracle offers three different licenses:(1)The General Public License (%u201CGPL%u201D) is free of charge, butsubject to a strict%u2014and legally binding%u2014obligation..."
It's truly astonishing and bizarre. I guess Google just really likes the Apache Software License but has some grudge against the GPL. They did the same thing with Linux, some of the important parts of Android aren't under the GPL as they are in Linux...
Anyhow.
What Google don't like about the GPL is that it would make all of Android truly open, thus exposing their hypocritical, marketing lies.
It would loosen their iron grip over the Open Handset Alliance, they would lose control.
What Google don't like about the GPL is that it would make all of Android truly open, thus exposing their hypocritical, marketing lies.
It would loosen their iron grip over the Open Handset Alliance, they would lose control.
Well, now we're splitting hairs, though. This is treading into Stallman type extremism, isn't it? What do you mean by "truly open"? The source code for Dalvik is open source, it's under the ASL. The libraries for Android development are, I'm sure, under the ASL. Meaning you can fork the Android API, I'm guessing.
What's the real problem here? It's not like Google isn't releasing the source code. I dunno where I stand on this.
Everything important is open source, it's the licensing specifics. Anything not open sourced could be, I'm sure. This has gotta rank as the stupidest lawsuit ever, becuause they're BOTH open source licenses. Is it possible that Google didn't know about the GPL option or something? Why did they pass right over that and go right to "re-implementing" Java? I don't get the downside you mention about the OHA.
Personally, I like to code in Java, and the best outcome here would be for Google to pay Oracle x number of dollars per, err, something. Dalvik is open source, so I guess per handset or something...? However, it shouldn't be a cash cow for Oracle, but, I guess that FRAND business -- something reasonable. I don't think Dalvik itself is in legal jeopardy..? Even if it, and Google withdrew the source code, I'm sure someone would just re-implement it. Kinda weird situation, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Must leave the handset manufacturers in a pickle.
Whatever's best for Java is what I want. This puts me, unfortunately, completely opposed to what Google has done
A one-time payout might be good for Oracle but bad for Java.
Well, now we're splitting hairs, though. This is treading into Stallman type extremism, isn't it? What do you mean by "truly open"? The source code for Dalvik is open source, it's under the ASL. The libraries for Android development are, I'm sure, under the ASL. Meaning you can fork the Android API, I'm guessing.
What's the real problem here? It's not like Google isn't releasing the source code. I dunno where I stand on this.
Everything important is open source, it's the licensing specifics. Anything not open sourced could be, I'm sure. This has gotta rank as the stupidest lawsuit ever, becuause they're BOTH open source licenses. Is it possible that Google didn't know about the GPL option or something? Why did they pass right over that and go right to "re-implementing" Java? I don't get the downside you mention about the OHA.
Personally, I like to code in Java, and the best outcome here would be for Google to pay Oracle x number of dollars per, err, something. Dalvik is open source, so I guess per handset or something...? However, it shouldn't be a cash cow for Oracle, but, I guess that FRAND business -- something reasonable. I don't think Dalvik itself is in legal jeopardy..? Even if it, and Google withdrew the source code, I'm sure someone would just re-implement it. Kinda weird situation, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Must leave the handset manufacturers in a pickle.
Whatever's best for Java is what I want. This puts me, unfortunately, completely opposed to what Google has done
A one-time payout might be good for Oracle but bad for Java.
Under a GPL all of Android would become open, all the proprietary, closed parts that Google, Samsung, HTC and other members of the "open" handset alliance have added and will become available to roll into Java.
?Oracle don't care about the money, this is about bending Google over their own hypocrisy and ripping out Android's proprietary heart by enforcing a gpl licence.
Since when did Oracle care about GPL? Oracle is suing precisely over the parts of Java that are not under GPL.
"Sun Develops A Licensing Regime To Foster A Community And Ensure Compatibility
Although Oracle owns the copyright on Java SE and the corresponding packages, Oracle encourages their use by others%u2014both a vast community ofprogrammers writing clever apps and businesses developing proprietary and competing products. To accommodate all comers, Sun/Oracle offers three different licenses:
(1) The General Public License (%u201CGPL%u201D) is free of charge..."
Now there's something to talk about other than Beats.
The Appeals Court ruled a couple hours ago that Java would in fact be eligible for copyright. As such the Oracle/Google case has been remanded for a trial on whether Google had "fair use", which would be my personal guess. The Appeals Court declined to rule on that.
Comments
Imagine if, at the end of the day, someone could claim exclusive rights to strings like "int fork();". Would one have to look up a list of method signatures to avoid every time one writes a library? Would projects like the BSDs or GNU/Linux be in trouble for appropriating the unix API, much of which originated with AT&T's unix implementation?
Of course they will. They have been forking it up on tablets all the time!
Good thing we don't worry about things like facts around here eh?
Prove your point, then.
Sure. Have a gander at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120724125504129, which runs through a whole laundry list of his assertions and 32 specific citations along the way. And more at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120724125504129. There's a further 18 articles relating to the case cited at the end of http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=OracleGoogle - the top of which documents all the components submitted to the case by both parties.
The appeal is a bit of a hop, skip and jump, with Oracle trying to assert that APIs are copyrightable entities, then if they prevail asking the court to rule on fair use, and then hoping the end result leads to some form of royalty stream. Nothing to do with Chrome Apps of course, which is the red herring in the base article.
In the final analysis, my personal guess is that Oracle will waste money on lawyers and see no related income at the end of this process. And that Mueller will get it wrong, as he did last time. Time will tell.
I tend to agree that you have to take what is said with a grain of salt especially when someone have a business relationship with either side of a discussion.
Mueller is not a lawyer, but he was doing as many business people were doing when watching these cases which was interrupting what was being said and presented and trying to draw conclusions, right or wrong. He also was providing an expert opinion base on all your years of experience dealing with similar things. I would say he was more right than wrong and the thing he could not predict and no one can ahead of time is how a judge or jury will rule until it happens. Unless your talking about the judge in the Apple Anti-trust case where they make their opinion known up front.
Now I did look at groklaw website, and they are lawyers and they were attacking Mueller base on their understanding of the law. They was basically saying that he was wrong for various legal reason not because he had no idea what he was talking about or that he was being paid for by Oracle or M$. By the way he consults for them, and they hire him for a reason, and most likely it was not because they knew he would be following this case and he would then spread miss information. In this case it make no sense to Mueller to side with Oracle and put out statements with make Google look bad and Oracle look good. There is no financial incentive on either side in the public's eye on the outcome of this case.
If you think otherwise I would like to hear how you think Oracle is some how benefiting from Mueller statement about the case. I give you that Mueller may benefit from making comments which is then linked all over the place. His name become well know thus you could make money from that fact. But that is no different than any person out there who choose to talk about a hot topic. he could as well choosing to focus on why Google/Android was in their rights and still achieved the same end result. But you seem to think that Oracle/M$ are paying him to be a month piece for them so they can benefit somehow from the outcome of this case.
Just because groklaw said Mueller was wrong on various specific points does not mean for a second they are correct either. As it may turn out Google could loose in the end and Sun/Oracle could prevail, if that happens who was right and wrong. Also, they made their comments after the fact, his were in real time as it was happening so his opinions were base on what was known at that point in time. Groklaw, made analysis after the fact with knowledge after Mueller made his statements, you also would see that Mueller change his tune a few times as more information came public. It the risk you take for making your opinion known before all the fact are out in the open.
I have some experience in both legal matters as well as IP issues and Mueller did a pretty good job of breaking it down all the technical and legal issues. I would also say most lawyers I met do not understand the technical/technology issues. Unless they came from a technical background and many IP lawyer do, but still do not fully understand the technical issue around these kinds of cases. I tend to lean toward a layman interpretation over a lawyer since lawyer tend to look at case like this one dimensional.
This is some of the most biased and uninformed journalism I've seen in a long time. What you have here is someone taking two completely separate topics and sensationalizing them into something deceptive.
ART is the solution to the issues with Oracle. It's already in place on the new Nexus devices. It's a native solution that solves the Java VM issues and will cause Android apps to run much more smoothly.
The Chrome packaged apps are something that Google has been working on for a long time. It was only a matter of time before they showed up on the mobile versions of Chrome as well. They are not in any way some sort of last ditch effort to save the platform from patent trolls as this article has suggested.
Daniel Dilger should be ashamed to have his name associated with a misleading article like this. I get that this is a website for Apple news, but deceptive and biased articles like this seriously damage its credibility.
ART is the solution to the issues with Oracle. It's already in place on the new Nexus devices. It's a native solution that solves the Java VM issues and will cause Android apps to run much more smoothly.
You sir are mistaken. ART offer is the same VM runtime and run the same Java based apps targeted for Dalvik, the only difference is instead of compiling the apps at runtime, it pre-interprets the bytecode at installation, but it doesn't neglect VM performances taxes on I/O found on those kind of solution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openjdk
In fact, Oracle, quite literally, suggested this:
"Sun Develops A Licensing Regime To Foster A Community AndEnsure Compatibility
Although Oracle owns the copyright on Java SE and thecorresponding packages, Oracle encourages their use by others%u2014both avast community of programmers writing clever apps and businesses
developing proprietary and competing products. To accommodate allcomers, Sun/Oracle offers three different licenses:(1)The General Public License (%u201CGPL%u201D) is free of charge, butsubject to a strict%u2014and legally binding%u2014obligation..."
Case: 13-1021 Document: 43 Page: 2 Filed: 02/11/2013
It's truly astonishing and bizarre. I guess Google just really likes the Apache Software License but has some grudge against the GPL. They did the same thing with Linux, some of the important parts of Android aren't under the GPL as they are in Linux...
Anyhow.
What they could do, what they should've done, is to just fork OpenJDK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openjdk
In fact, Oracle, quite literally, suggested this:
"Sun Develops A Licensing Regime To Foster A Community AndEnsure Compatibility
Although Oracle owns the copyright on Java SE and thecorresponding packages, Oracle encourages their use by others%u2014both avast community of programmers writing clever apps and businesses
developing proprietary and competing products. To accommodate allcomers, Sun/Oracle offers three different licenses:(1)The General Public License (%u201CGPL%u201D) is free of charge, butsubject to a strict%u2014and legally binding%u2014obligation..."
Case: 13-1021 Document: 43 Page: 2 Filed: 02/11/2013
It's truly astonishing and bizarre. I guess Google just really likes the Apache Software License but has some grudge against the GPL. They did the same thing with Linux, some of the important parts of Android aren't under the GPL as they are in Linux...
Anyhow.
What Google don't like about the GPL is that it would make all of Android truly open, thus exposing their hypocritical, marketing lies.
It would loosen their iron grip over the Open Handset Alliance, they would lose control.
What Google don't like about the GPL is that it would make all of Android truly open, thus exposing their hypocritical, marketing lies.
It would loosen their iron grip over the Open Handset Alliance, they would lose control.
Well, now we're splitting hairs, though. This is treading into Stallman type extremism, isn't it? What do you mean by "truly open"? The source code for Dalvik is open source, it's under the ASL. The libraries for Android development are, I'm sure, under the ASL. Meaning you can fork the Android API, I'm guessing.
so:
Dalvik is under the ASL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_software_development#Android_SDK ; is, presumably, under the ASL?
What's the real problem here? It's not like Google isn't releasing the source code. I dunno where I stand on this.
Everything important is open source, it's the licensing specifics. Anything not open sourced could be, I'm sure. This has gotta rank as the stupidest lawsuit ever, becuause they're BOTH open source licenses. Is it possible that Google didn't know about the GPL option or something? Why did they pass right over that and go right to "re-implementing" Java? I don't get the downside you mention about the OHA.
Personally, I like to code in Java, and the best outcome here would be for Google to pay Oracle x number of dollars per, err, something. Dalvik is open source, so I guess per handset or something...? However, it shouldn't be a cash cow for Oracle, but, I guess that FRAND business -- something reasonable. I don't think Dalvik itself is in legal jeopardy..? Even if it, and Google withdrew the source code, I'm sure someone would just re-implement it. Kinda weird situation, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Must leave the handset manufacturers in a pickle.
Whatever's best for Java is what I want. This puts me, unfortunately, completely opposed to what Google has done
A one-time payout might be good for Oracle but bad for Java.
Well, now we're splitting hairs, though. This is treading into Stallman type extremism, isn't it? What do you mean by "truly open"? The source code for Dalvik is open source, it's under the ASL. The libraries for Android development are, I'm sure, under the ASL. Meaning you can fork the Android API, I'm guessing.
so:
Dalvik is under the ASL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_software_development#Android_SDK ; is, presumably, under the ASL?
What's the real problem here? It's not like Google isn't releasing the source code. I dunno where I stand on this.
Everything important is open source, it's the licensing specifics. Anything not open sourced could be, I'm sure. This has gotta rank as the stupidest lawsuit ever, becuause they're BOTH open source licenses. Is it possible that Google didn't know about the GPL option or something? Why did they pass right over that and go right to "re-implementing" Java? I don't get the downside you mention about the OHA.
Personally, I like to code in Java, and the best outcome here would be for Google to pay Oracle x number of dollars per, err, something. Dalvik is open source, so I guess per handset or something...? However, it shouldn't be a cash cow for Oracle, but, I guess that FRAND business -- something reasonable. I don't think Dalvik itself is in legal jeopardy..? Even if it, and Google withdrew the source code, I'm sure someone would just re-implement it. Kinda weird situation, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Must leave the handset manufacturers in a pickle.
Whatever's best for Java is what I want. This puts me, unfortunately, completely opposed to what Google has done
A one-time payout might be good for Oracle but bad for Java.
Under a GPL all of Android would become open, all the proprietary, closed parts that Google, Samsung, HTC and other members of the "open" handset alliance have added and will become available to roll into Java.
"Welcomed back to the fold" in Oracle's words.
?Oracle don't care about the money, this is about bending Google over their own hypocrisy and ripping out Android's proprietary heart by enforcing a gpl licence.
Since when did Oracle care about GPL? Oracle is suing precisely over the parts of Java that are not under GPL.
"Sun Develops A Licensing Regime To Foster A Community And Ensure Compatibility
Although Oracle owns the copyright on Java SE and the corresponding packages, Oracle encourages their use by others%u2014both a vast community ofprogrammers writing clever apps and businesses developing proprietary and competing products. To accommodate all comers, Sun/Oracle offers three different licenses:
(1) The General Public License (%u201CGPL%u201D) is free of charge..."
OPENING BRIEF
Case: 13-1021 Document: 43 Filed: 02/11/2013
Google just made a business decision, that's all.
The Appeals Court ruled a couple hours ago that Java would in fact be eligible for copyright. As such the Oracle/Google case has been remanded for a trial on whether Google had "fair use", which would be my personal guess. The Appeals Court declined to rule on that.