|
Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 02:51 PM EDT |
Please mention the mistake in the title of your post. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 02:52 PM EDT |
For All posts that are not on topic. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 02:53 PM EDT |
Please mention the news story's name in the title of the top
post.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 02:54 PM EDT |
Please leave all transcriptions of Comes exhibits here for
PJ. Please post them as HTML in plain text for easy copying.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 03:08 PM EDT |
Who decides if API's are copyrightable?
What happens to the statements
from Oracle and
Google Debate: Can You
Copyright Computer Languages, APIs?
I don't
really understand why this question (are API's
copyrightable) isn't answered
first. Anything until now was
(more or less) useless if they weren't.
Or am I
missing something?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: The Cornishman on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 03:19 PM EDT |
Q: Nobody owns the Java language? A: I'm not
sure.
Trick question. I imagine Mr Ellison is confident
that his company owns the relevant copyrights in the Java softwares; as we've
said a hundred times, the GPL depends on copyright. "Nobody owns" seems to me to
be a fuzzy sort of definition of 'public domain', which the Java software
clearly is not. That ownership, though, isn't equivalent to owning the
language, which the jury might think meant having a right to control anything
and everything expressed in that language. In the case of that
interpretation, Mr Ellison indeed mightn't be sure (but wishes Oracle
did). --- (c) assigned to PJ
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 03:22 PM EDT |
When Larry said:
"Ellison says writing APis is 'arguably one of the most
difficult things we do at Oracle".
Being difficult does not make it special. A farmer plows
many acres of farmland, harvest many bales of hay (often
having to move the bales by hand), gets up
early in the AM to milk cows... all difficult, and most
likely more difficult than Larry's APIs.
So, He deserves protection just because it is hard to do?
Or, because he his who he is, and needs protection because
he want's it (as life is understood in one's alternate
universe).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Larry - Ellison says writing APis is 'arguably one of the most difficult things we do at Oracle. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 03:29 PM EDT
- Larry - Ellison says writing APis is 'arguably one of the most difficult things we do at Oracle. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 03:46 PM EDT
- Larry - Ellison says writing APis is 'arguably one of the most difficult things we do at Oracle. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 03:49 PM EDT
- Larry - Ellison says writing APis is 'arguably one of the most difficult things we do at Oracle. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 03:50 PM EDT
- Writing APIs is a cakewalk - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 03:54 PM EDT
- Larry - Ellison says writing APis is 'arguably one of the most difficult things we do at Oracle. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 04:27 PM EDT
- The JCP writes the API's, not Oracle. (n/t) - Authored by: hAckz0r on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 04:37 PM EDT
- He is a liar - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 04:56 PM EDT
- making something functional is hard - Authored by: xtifr on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 06:24 PM EDT
- Larry - Ellison says writing APis is 'arguably one of the most difficult things we do at Oracle. - Authored by: calris74 on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 10:56 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 03:50 PM EDT |
Are these mostly used in the appeal process, or should this have been done
during the original proceedings? And do courts care about implications of their
rulings, or do they leave that problem to the legislature? One would hope that
when making new law (such as whether API "arrangement" is
protectable), that the effect it has on industry would be relevant.
Whichever way this case is decided, there will be 3rd parties who disagree with
the findings, and will hope to get the appeal decided in their direction.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tknarr on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 03:59 PM EDT |
I think Oracle's trying to confuse the jury. In Sun's (and Oracle's) Java,
there's a sun.* namespace. That's the vendor-private API namespace for
all the Sun-specific functions that Sun's implementation of the java.*
API uses. It isn't neccesary to use the sun.* APIs to run Java, in fact
it was assume that other vendors would place their own implementations in their
own namespaces (to the point that the Java language spec defines how to create
your own namespace: take your DNS domain name and reverse the order of elements,
so that Groklaw could use the net.groklaw.* namespace and know it
wouldn't conflict with anything or anyone else). But that doesn't change the
fact that it's necessary to use Sun's java.* APIs to run Java.
I
can see setting up a shell game here, talking about the sun.* namespace
and then switching to talking about all the APIs Sun defined for Java without
clarifying that you're talking about two different things. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 04:06 PM EDT |
I'm interested to hear of this Springboard platform that
apparently proves it isn't necessary to use Java APIs to
"run the java... whatever"
I think the badly phrased question was probably intentional,
not to confuse the Jury, but to allow Ellison to say it is
possible without lying. If the question were phrased in a
straightforward way, I think the answer would have had to be
different.
I'm familiar with Java, Android, and some web frameworks
using different languages, but am not familiar with
Springboard at all. Googling it suggests it's a web
framework, in which case perhaps it dodges the "output"
problem by handing it off to a webserver & browser. Whether
they coded around all the APIs, including java.lang /
object etc is another issue, and frankly I doubt it.
If anyone has specialist knowledge about this framework,
perhaps insight may be had.
It is absurd to claim that Java can be used for anything
meaningful with no APIs, and the fact that APIs are used
even in a "Hello World" app means that there is clearly no
bright line between the language and APIs.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 04:26 PM EDT |
All,
Back in the day, taking a picture with a camera was only
the first step.
Next came developing and then printing.
Both developing and printing could be done different ways,
different solutions, different time lapses, etc. that could
materially affect the picture.
In those cases, the camera did a minimal amount of work --
it opened a shutter for a time period and exposed a piece
of film. Focusing, lighting, etc. were all done by the
photographer (or assistants).
Just Saying.
jcjodoin ... not logged in ...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 04:28 PM EDT |
Link
On cross-examination, Google came out firing and the
room got tense quickly. "Do you understand that no one owns the Java programming
language?" lead counsel Robert Van Nest asked.
Ellison began a longer
answer, but Judge William Alsup interrupted him and said it was a "yes or no"
question. Finally Ellison said, "I’m not sure."
"And anyone can use
it without royalty?" Van Nest followed up.
"I’m not sure," Ellison
said again.
Then Van Nest showed a video of Ellison receiving the same
question on a deposition video and answering "That’s correct" to
both.
And the Footgun keeps on working.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 05:06 PM EDT |
I would just love to see Mr Van Nest demonstrating the relationship
between language, APIs and application source code, using his
metal filing cabinet, like an old fashioned chemistry professor...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mossc on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 05:15 PM EDT |
I was just pondering Oracle's Unbreakable Linux (OUL) and thought of
something that had not occurred to me before. Perhaps Oracle is in the same
boat as Caldera/The SCO Group was in their case as far as distributing what they
claim is being infringed under the GPL.
As a company they have distributed a
recompiled version of RHEL for a while. I think there have been various java
options in the distribution since they launched OUL. Currently I show libgcj
and java-1.4.2-gcj-compat-javadoc packages available for RHEL 5. I would bet
they are on OUL as well.
From the gnu website
http://gcc.gnu.org/java/
GCJ is a portable, optimizing,
ahead-of-time compiler for the Java Programming Language. It can compile Java
source code to Java bytecode (class files) or directly to native machine code,
and Java bytecode to native machine code.
Compiled applications are linked with
the GCJ runtime, libgcj, which provides the core class libraries, a garbage
collector, and a bytecode interpreter. libgcj can dynamically load and interpret
class files, resulting in mixed compiled/interpreted applications. It has been
merged with GNU Classpath and supports most of the 1.4 libraries plus some 1.5
additions.
interesting quote from the FAQ
2.8
What features of the Java language are/aren't supported.
GCJ supports all
Java language constructs as per the Java language Specification. Recent GCJ
snapshots have added support for most JDK1.1 (and beyond) language features,
including inner classes.
I would think this includes
APIs and is licensed under the GPL
A few questions for Larry
Ellison:
1. Was Oracle in violation of Sun's copyrights before they were
acquired?
2. What license did they rely on to distribute libgcj and
gcj?
3. Did that include the APIs?
Chuck
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 05:51 PM EDT |
To further pj's argument I would add that the Supreme Court has already
addressed the issue of hard work and copyrights.
In particular, the ruling in which they addressed the matter related to an item
in the public domain. The item had been digitized through a significant amount
of work and copyright was claimed on the digital copy.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that the digital copy was still that... a
copy... and not a creative work.
In the ruling they acknowledged the difficultly involved in digitization, but
very clearly stated that level of effort had absolutely nothing to do with
copyrights.
As a result, they ruled that the digital copy of a public domain item remains in
the public domain.
--- nyarlathotep[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 06:22 PM EDT |
Like Rambus ?
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sproggit on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 06:34 PM EDT |
I find myself particularly annoyed at the specious mis-representation, by
Oracle, of the value JAVA in their transaction to purchase Sun Microsystems.
This is a blatant attempt to wow the jury with big numbers in the hope of a
substantial damages award.
It is extremely frustrating to see the
difference between what the jury are being told and what was reported by
Oracle at the time of the purchase.
For example, if you
look hereyou will
see a press release from April 2009. In this article, you will find comments
such as,
“The acquisition of Sun transforms the IT
industry, combining best-in-class enterprise software and mission-critical
computing systems,” said Oracle CEO Larry Ellison. “Oracle will be the only
company that can engineer an integrated system – applications to disk – where
all the pieces fit and work together so customers do not have to do it
themselves. Our customers benefit as their systems integration costs go down
while system performance, reliability and security go up.”
Well, he's wrong, of course. IBM have been doing that
for years... So did Honeywell-Bull for that matter.
In fairness, that
same article then goes on to describe Solaris and JAVA as Sun's most important
assets, but the truth is that they were not the reason that Oracle made the
purchase. The reason, quite simply, was that Sun was at risk of going bankrupt,
and if that happened Oracle would have taken a big hit. Whilst Oracle is
available on many OS platforms, it sells more licenses on Solaris than all the
others combined. The failure of Sun would have seriously hurt Oracle's bottom
line. In that sense the purchase was protective/defensive rather than a
traditional "growth through opposition" deal.
There is lots of
evidence to suggest that Oracle really didn't understand what they were getting
into, especially with the loss of many of their best hardware people shortly
thereafter.
There is also evidence to support my statement that Sun
were in a bad way. Witness their 10Q filing for Q1, 2009, which includes news of
the proposed Oracle deal, but adds:
"Other key financial
metrics for the quarter ended March 29, 2009, as compared to the quarter ended
March 30, 2008, include the following:
•
Total revenue decreased
by $652 million, or 20.0%.
•
North American revenue
decreased by $211 million, or 16.8%.
•
European revenue
decreased by $265 million, or 23.8%.
•
Gross margin as a
percentage of net revenue decreased by 2.2 percentage points.
•
Research and development expenses decreased by $64 million, or 14.0%.
•
Selling, general, and administrative expenses decreased by $146
million, or 14.8%. "
Does anyone see any good news in
those 10Q statements? Other than the reduction in R&D expenses [which were
cut because they simply could not afford to spend money they weren't earning,
not when revenues were down 20%] everything was on the slide.
At the
time, Sun probably had 2 more quarters, at best, before they tanked. IBM had
looked and decided that there was nothing of value there and had walked away.
Ellison did the deal in order to get Sun hardware and MySQL.
I went
hunting the 10Q because I was interested to see if the revenue split out that
generated for JAVA. Whilst it doesn't do that, exactly, here's what it does
say:-
Net Revenues and Gross Margins(dollars in
millions)
Server Products: $1,094
Storage Products:
425
Systems Net: $1,519
Support Services: $
853
Professional Svcs: 242
Services Net:
$1,095
Total Net: $2,614
Obvious question:
can anyone show me, in here, where it lists out all the vast sums of money that
Sun were making from JAVA? No. Because they weren't making vast sums from it,
plain and simple.
If you look at the total numbers, the only place that JAVA
licenses could be accounted for in the above 10Q statement would be in the
detail line, "Support Services". That's an amount of $853 Million in a Gross
revenue of $2.6 Billion.
The problem is, of course, that Sun
licenses lots of other things in addition to JAVA. Every Sun Server sold ships
with the Solaris Operating System, for which Sun charged a license. In addition
to the license, Sun charged a maintenance and support charge for the software
that covered things like bug fixes, second and third tier support and so on.
This would have been included in "Support Services". They would also, of course,
charged hardware maintenance fees on all their servers.
All of those
things appear to have been bundled in this one number for 10Q purposes.
I haven't followed discovery closely enough to see if Google discovery
questions went to the topic of "JAVA Revenues", but I'll go out on a limb here
and suggest that it's probably significantly less than 5% of the annual revenues
being realised by the company.
Quite how Larry Ellison can turn around
and try and claim that JAVA is the reason that Oracle bought Sun is beyond me.
Especially when surveys at the time were suggesting that JAVA development was on
the *decline* in the big development shops...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 07:34 PM EDT |
Ellison
Flustered as Google and Oracle Argue Over Java.
Anyone else think
that Larry would make a great
Lex Luthor?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 07:42 PM EDT |
Where is the list of these 7 APIs that Oracle says Google
stole? I've not seen them listen anywhere. Inquiring minds
want to know.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 08:59 PM EDT |
Ellison, Page both take the stand as Google argues "Java language is free
and open" --- RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 08:59 PM EDT |
Does anybody else get the feeling that David Boies grew up watching "Perry
Mason", but idolized DA Hamilton Burger? I can just hear him telling his
mom "When I grow up I'm going to be an attorney who only takes cases where
I lose and end up looking like a fool!".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 10:02 PM EDT |
PJ (in the first(?) update):And Google's lawyer Robert Van Nest did
explain to the jury about the emails, that they were in a context, from back in
2005 and 2006, when the two companies were trying to work out a work partnership
to co-develop Android, which fell apart when Sun insisted on charging for
Android, which Google wasn't interested in doing.
That was also
mentioned in the Guardian article, immediately after the paragraphs PJ quoted
from it.
It is certainly true that Van Nest "tried to persuade the jury."
No one should read that as just "spinning a tale" as PJ put it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 10:37 PM EDT |
http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/Interviews/gosling_os1_qa.html [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 10:39 PM EDT |
Re the ogg file that you wanted to get your hands on, is this
the one you meant?
http://web.archive.org/web/20090319020102/http://mediacast.sun
.com/users/~tmarble/media/Sun_Opens_Java.ogg[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mcinsand on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 10:50 PM EDT |
If I was a juror, how BSA/Oracle handles certain elephants
in the room would be critical to me, with one key example
being Project Harmony. Harmony is a lynchpin to this case,
particularly since Google is arguing that they used Harmony
as a source, rather than Java. If I were a juror, the way
Oracle handled the opening slides would be a very bad start.
Oracle's slides seem very clear, to say that there is Java,
Google copied Java, and that is that. When Harmony comes
into the discussion, I don't see how a juror could help but
notice the omission.
When there is an elephant in the room, how it's handled is
very important. In a case like this, the handling makes a
huge difference when it comes to credibility, and Team
Oracle's behavior isn't helping. The topic may be
important, but, by not taking the time to explain their
position of it not being relevant, they made a mistake.
Whether it is relevant in their view or not, I would view it
as lying by omission. If they honestly see Harmony as
irrelevant, then they blew a key opportunity for presenting
their side... in addition to sacrificing credibility.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 11:30 PM EDT |
I have to wonder how much of the exhibit "confusion" was to purposely
confuse witnesses who had been prepared for different exhibits..
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mjscud on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 11:42 PM EDT |
The difference between Java ME, Java SE, and Java EE is exactly what APIs they
include! And the 37 APIs at issue are in the Java SE package.
If you open source the API implementation then you have open sourced the API!
It is exactly what the good judge warned against, Oracle which succeeded Sun is
trying to take back what Sun gave away.
---
Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise. Proverbs 17:28[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 11:49 PM EDT |
No, seriously. Thank you!. The reports coming out from Groklaw are the
best out there. Very detailed and cover the whole thing in a way the others
don't quite reach. I love the near word for word transcript and how the breaks
are included as well!
Notice how Ellison gets caught off guard
repeatedly? I counted at least 3 statements of his that google was able to
practically "impeach".
Also amusing how Oracle's lawyers had a hard
time with case numbering. Why would they mess that up, incompetence? Sure
annoyed the judge (reading between the lines). No mention of this in other news
on the case. A fine example of the quality here!
Thank you!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kds on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 11:54 PM EDT |
If you listen to the highlights of his January 27, 2010 talk
about Sun and Oracle being one company, it is interesting to hear where Java is
placed amoungst the list of things they got from Sun:
- That huge
patent portfolio
- Fabulous Sparc chip
- High-end Unix Operating
System Solaris
- Java - the industry standard middleware
- A very
popular database - MySql
- ZFS / Sun 7000
Later during the
highlights the only other mention about Java is:
The Java business
is gonna grow.
Doesn't sound to me like he thinks Java was worth
the entire $7.4 billion, but that may just be me.
I haven't had time to
listen to the entire 59 minute webcast so feel free to
post any other tidbits. My main point is if Java was what they bought Sun for,
why is it only 4th on the list of 6 items mentioned and why do they only give a
footnote of one sentence about it in the "Highlights" video?
(I'm still
trying to locate the .ogg clip mentioned in the update but found this instead.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Rubberman on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 12:09 AM EDT |
Great recap - wish there was a video of it! As for the
Wayback postings of the Java open-sourcing event, from the
links I found, the Wayback Machine didn't save/cache the
videos... :-( There's no there, there it seems.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 12:18 AM EDT |
How much are these guys getting paid?
This made them look bad..
Not as bad as Ellison did but, still :-O
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 01:07 AM EDT |
But (in the doc) you (Oracle) had problems… you didn't have the
internal expertise to be able to make smart decisions.
If this
is a correct quote, I vote for this as the Barb Of The Day... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 02:37 AM EDT |
Video of Larry Ellison and Scott McNealy where they talk
about Java being
free - giving Java to the world.
http://www.youtube.co
m/watch?v=_Dtqe1e0tXg&feature=youtu.be&t=6m15s
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 02:49 AM EDT |
The analogy of an API comparing to nouns may be helpful for a non-tech juror.
This is in a way correct. But it lacks a critical point. No one, even Oracle,
can successfully launch a programming language that doesn't offer a broad help
to programmers to deal with their tasks.
It would be like baking bread by starting to invent a new well, mill and stove.
In fact, a programming language is successful if there is a good environment for
programming, to ease the repetitive tasks of a programmer. And this environment
has to offer a library, where the programmer can use predefined functions and
procedure. No one, even at Oracle, starts from scratch. Everyone starts from a
base that was build by a myriad of programmers and mathematics that done basic
and hard stuff before. In research and development. Without anyone paying for
it. Like using an algorithm for sorting. This isn't astounding, it is business
as usual. If R&D has to guaranty to be cost effective, it is production, not
R&D.
The success of a programming environment depends on the library. That has to
offer all that basic stuff that other programming environments already offer.
And some things that go further. That doesn't mean they copy it. You can get
coffee everywhere, but all is different, it isn't the same at all. You don't
steal from Starbucks when you make your own coffee at home.
If Oracle succeeds, doesn't that imply that every author needs to define and use
his own set of figure of speech?
Wolves and Lamas moisten your face. Because I'm not allowed to use "It's
raining cats and dogs." I invent my new and set of figures of speech. Get
used to it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 03:09 AM EDT |
Google: Issue with trial exhibit TX431. It has proprietary Google
information.
Judge Alsup: I will allow it to be used. This is a public
trial.
Google: But this has strategic information to 2013 in it.
Judge
Alsup: This is a public trial. Request denied.
Google is in this
situation as an involuntary defendant, certainly not by any choices they made.
Just because it is a public trial, it does not mean that any of their private
and confidential data can be exposed to the general public willy
nilly.
Whilst he seems very competent and in control, asking for
clarification where necessary, I find that occasionally some of the decisions
made by this judge to be abrupt and lacking in deeper analysis. It is like a hot
button has been pushed with him and he sometimes reacts automatically without
looking at the merits of the argument.
Does anyone else agree? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 03:11 AM EDT |
Using the Wayback link in Update 2 to the Sun opening announcment, on the live
page, follow the Open
JDK link in the right side box.
On that page, follow link Core Libraries link on lefthand side column.
On that page
you'll find lots of java library links, for example: java.lang [Described as
java.lang
Provides classes that are fundamental to the
design of the Java programming language such as String, Math, Enum, and the
wrapper classes for primitive types (e.g. Boolean, Float,
Character).]
If you click the java.lang link, you'll
get into all the definitions of what it does, and deeper links that describe the
interfaces/APIs, and what they all do down to excruciating detail.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jimbob0i0 on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 03:30 AM EDT |
This reminds me so much of the SCO/Novell trial....
Staying up late to catch the first reports... waking up in the morning and
hurrying over to groklaw to read the later reports on the train to the
office....
Thank you reporters for providing the view into the court room....
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 03:53 AM EDT |
Oracle touts their nine/thirteen lines of code found in
java/util/Arrays.java rangeCheck() as proof positive that
Google misappropriated their code.
Leaving aside the fact that that's a rather small proportion
of the Java classes (and that there's not that many ways to
write it efficiently), the top of that file in the OpenJDK
(as released by Oracle) states that it's covered by GPL2.
Why do they then think that Google is not allowed to use
that file?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: s65_sean on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 07:41 AM EDT |
I'm sorry if someone has already noticed this and posted a comment, but I didn't
see it in the comments section and when I read it in the article it just blew me
away:
Google: [Moving onto the meeting with Eric Schmidt, CEO of
Google at the time.] What was the business proposal to Google?
Ellison:
Google would take (a license for) Java from Oracle and put Java into
Android.
Emphasis added.
Oracle wanted to PUT JAVA
INTO ANDROID!
Doesn't this imply that Oracle was admitting to Google
that up to that point that they felt that JAVA WAS NOT IN
ANDROID?????
Why would they need to put java into Android if java was
already in Android? And if java was not already in Android, then why are they
suing Google?
Why didn't Mr. Van Ness jump all over that one? Can they
recall Mr. Ellison and wipe the floor with him over this?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 09:37 AM EDT |
Why doesn't Google just rewrite Android apps in Ruby?
Look, morally I think Google's right. But if the Google looses at trial, can't
they switch languages?
The cost is large but Google has plenty of financial resources. It seems to me
that they could port the entire ecosystem to something else with $2 to $3
billion -- 10,000 developers for two years.
In fact, it seems to me that Google should already have two competing hidden
projects to do just this.
I've heard that Ruby is the best 5th generation language.
-Anon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hAckz0r on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 10:37 AM EDT |
The Legal Docs are here, such as
the GPLV2 with classpath
exception and the assembly
exception.
GNU General Public License, version 2,
with the
Classpath Exception
[...]
To protect your rights, we need to make
restrictions that forbid anyone to deny
you these rights or to ask you to
surrender the rights. These restrictions
translate to certain responsibilities
for you if you distribute copies of the
software, or if you modify
it.
[...]
OpenJDK Assembly
Exception
The OpenJDK source code made available by Sun at openjdk.java.net
and
openjdk.dev.java.net ("OpenJDK Code") is distributed under the terms of
the
GNU General Public License version 2
only ("GPL2"), with the following
clarification and special exception.
Linking this OpenJDK Code
statically or dynamically with other code
is making a combined work based on
this library. Thus, the terms
and conditions of GPL2 cover the whole
combination.
As a special exception, Sun gives you permission to link this
OpenJDK Code with certain code licensed by Sun as indicated at
http://openjdk.java.net/legal/exception-modules-2007-05-08.html
("Designated
Exception Modules") to produce an executable,
regardless of the license
terms of the Designated Exception Modules,
and to copy and distribute the
resulting executable under GPL2,
provided that the Designated Exception
Modules continue to be
governed by the licenses under which they were
offered by Sun.
As such, it allows licensees and sublicensees of Sun's GPL2
OpenJDK Code to
build an executable that includes those portions of necessary
code that Sun
could not provide under GPL2 (or that Sun has provided under GPL2
with the
Classpath exception). If you modify or add to the OpenJDK code, that
new
GPL2 code may still be combined with Designated Exception Modules if the
new
code is made subject to this exception by its copyright
holder.
--- DRM - As a "solution", it solves the wrong
problem; As a "technology" its only 'logically' infeasible. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 11:16 AM EDT |
A few weeks ago, someone anonymous posted
here stating,
From a programmer's perspective, syntax is
integral to a language, most APIs are not. A few are: it's hard to imagine C
without printf() and malloc(), [...]. I tend to think of those things as a
single API - "the standard library." In the case of Java, the trademark requires
a whole bunch of libraries, some of which I'd argue aren't crucial. I can't
remember my Java package names at the moment, but generally I'd say that the
system stuff is crucial [...] as are basic programming utilities (regular
expressions, sorting, data collections like vectors
An aside,
there certainly are situations where someone uses C without malloc() or
printf() ... Linux kernel development, 16-bit Windows development, Postgres
user-defined functions... although whatever the environment is, it generally
provides a memory-allocator and a varargs-based formatted-output function or
macro.
But as one answer the judge's question, look at java.util.logging
and java.util.regex, and compare them to Apache Log4j and Apache Jakarta Regex. Sun
probably did not use any third-party code for their logging implementation
(although there are adapters to run Log4j on top of JUL, or vice versa),
but they took the overall library design that Apache had already made popular
and defined an API for it in the java.util hierarchy.
Log4J is
still popular even after the introduction of JUL, and still runs just fine on
Java 1.7; it would probably run fine on Android, haven't tested it myself. If
Android couldn't use j.u.r for some reason, an Android app could probably
switch to Jakarta Regex without too much rewriting; but Jakarta Regex depends
on the following classes from two of the other 36 accused packages based only on
its own API
Javadocs:
- java.lang.Object
- java.lang.String
- <
tt>java.lang.StringBuffer (private field, perhaps that doesn't
count)
- java.lang.Throwable
- java.lang.Exception
- java.lang.RuntimeException
- java.io.Serializable
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 02:43 PM EDT |
Just a reminder, Sun contracted with JCP member, Harmony, to allow them to
create their own clean room implementation of the entire Java API Specification
and to allow them to run the TCK which, if passed, would allow Harmony to call
their implementation, Java.
Sun breached their contract term to allow Harmony to run the TCK.
As long as Sun remain in breach of contract by refusing to allow the running of
the TCK they are refusing to allow Apache to take a license. Only Sun are
preventing the Harmony project from being licensed.
How would you characterise Kurian's statement to the court and the jury that
'Sun was constantly trying to get Apache to take a license.'?
Yes, so would I.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 07:06 PM EDT |
Nice find in Update 8. Helpfully http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/articles/javas
e/gosling-os2-qa-136546.h
tml is still
available and includes the "They'll certainly be able to
mine
our source for stuff to incorporate into their projects"
line. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 08:09 PM EDT |
That Final Update - the one with the comment by James Gosling ¨Q: How do you
think this move will affect other open-source implementations of the Java
programming language -- for example, Apache Harmony or GNU Classpath? Gosling:
It's hard to know. They'll certainly be able to mine our source for stuff to
incorporate into their projects.¨ really drives home to me HOW SIMILAR this is
to the SCO case
New Management comes along and changes the rules and (tries to) rewrite history
with a wild dream for billions of dollars - and then slowly reality kicks in
SCO is now synonymous for many bad things in IT. DO ORACLE really want to keep
going down the same path and the thought of as kind of company as SCO ended up
as ??? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 20 2012 @ 08:04 AM EDT |
Did you type that with a straight face? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Rook on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 04:58 PM EDT |
Gosling: "They'll certainly be able to mine our source stuff
to incorporate into their projects."
PJ: "In other words, Gosling told the world that Apache
Harmony and GNU Classpath could "mine" the Java source code
and "incorporate" that code "into their projects"."
Gosling's "stuff" doesn't necessarily mean "code." What
else could it be? Ideas, functional methods, etc. --- all
that stuff that copyright does not cover (and Patents may or
may not; if it's something that others can incorporate, that
suggests that Gosling thinks that that "stuff" isn't patent
encumbered).
If Gosling generally understands the GPL (I'd guess yes),
then he'd know that GPL Java code released by Sun cannot be
incorporated into an Apache-licensed code base because of
the incompatibility of the licenses. For that reason, I'd
guess that he didn't mean copyrightable-code when he said
"stuff."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|