Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Oracle sues Google over Android
- Thread starter crees!
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oracle sells a fleet of Hardware. It's call Sun Servers:
http://www.oracle.com/us/products/servers-storage/servers/index.html
Did not realize there where so many Google fan boys in a APPLE! forum..
FYI, Oracle has a LEGAL OBLIGATION to defend its patents...as does ANY patent holder! I am glad to see they are going after Google and protecting the patents that they have recently acquired.
Note to those who think Oracle are trolling!!...do you people even read or go outside your own little worlds?, Oracle is a HUGE corporation with a bank account to match, they do not need Google`s money and will gain very little from this, but are doing this to send the message out that unlike SUN we WILL defend our patents whoever you are, which is a positive thing.
FYI, Oracle has a LEGAL OBLIGATION to defend its patents...as does ANY patent holder! I am glad to see they are going after Google and protecting the patents that they have recently acquired.
Note to those who think Oracle are trolling!!...do you people even read or go outside your own little worlds?, Oracle is a HUGE corporation with a bank account to match, they do not need Google`s money and will gain very little from this, but are doing this to send the message out that unlike SUN we WILL defend our patents whoever you are, which is a positive thing.
That they certainly do, but I was constraining my realm there to software, of which Oracle and Google have in common. Google doesn't deal with hardware in the same sense; they've already failed there.
Java
Oracle sued Google because they changed the java compiler, not because Google used Java, Java went open source, but you just can't change code as much as a normal java program won't run on java compiler, and that was Google done. Google done similar step as Apple done to control the OS, but Google just rip off from Sun.
Oracle sued Google because they changed the java compiler, not because Google used Java, Java went open source, but you just can't change code as much as a normal java program won't run on java compiler, and that was Google done. Google done similar step as Apple done to control the OS, but Google just rip off from Sun.
To people saying the Harmony License is restrictive ... eh?
The Apache is, alongside the BSD License, one of the freest licenses there is: http://harmony.apache.org/license.html
You just need to include some shout-outs in the code and in a readme, and bob's your uncle. You can use and modify Apache code however you want and you get copyright and IP rights for anything you produce.
And this suit is nothing to do with a forking of the Java standard - Google have written their own VM that Oracle says has illegally reverse engineered the JVM, and violated those patents. Google wouldn't have got a license anyway if their JVM breaks the standard I don't think, which is why they made their own.
Using Java is also free BTW - you don't have to pay anyone anything for compiling and running Java on a JVM, or even for distributing a JRE with your applications.
The Apache is, alongside the BSD License, one of the freest licenses there is: http://harmony.apache.org/license.html
You just need to include some shout-outs in the code and in a readme, and bob's your uncle. You can use and modify Apache code however you want and you get copyright and IP rights for anything you produce.
And this suit is nothing to do with a forking of the Java standard - Google have written their own VM that Oracle says has illegally reverse engineered the JVM, and violated those patents. Google wouldn't have got a license anyway if their JVM breaks the standard I don't think, which is why they made their own.
Using Java is also free BTW - you don't have to pay anyone anything for compiling and running Java on a JVM, or even for distributing a JRE with your applications.
Sounds like someone is looking for some more money via licensing or dodgy lawsuit. What a surprise
You know Btrfs is developed by Oracle and is GPL'd, right?
If Sun didn't blabber just before Leopard Server was released, we probably would've seen ZFS as the default FS on OSX and Apple would've bought Sun, not Oracle.
Nevermind...
If Sun didn't blabber just before Leopard Server was released, we probably would've seen ZFS as the default FS on OSX and Apple would've bought Sun, not Oracle.
Nevermind...
There is a major patent fight going on about ZFS for years. In that situation, it would have been total madness for Apple to use ZFS as the default file system in MacOS X. And now a reality check: What do you think would be the total cost for Apple switching over to ZFS, and what do you think how many Macintoshes more would Apple sell with it? If you add buying Sun to the cost (Sun had lots of stuff that Apple isn't interested in one bit), I think the cost would be around $1,000,000 per additional Macintosh sold.
That's trademarks. Patents can go submarine for a few years. You can even overlook infringements. Next time check before posting.
As for this and people saying things like "Java sucks!" Or "Google did like MS!", you all need to educate yourselves a bit about Java first before commenting. The most important thing to know about Java is that it doesn't refer to a single entity. Java is actually 3 things :
1- The Java VM or JVM. This is the executable that's written for your platform that takes Java compiled bytecode and executes it. It contains a default set of libraries (referred to as platform, see #2) which when paired together (the VM and libraries) are referred to as the runtime. On Android, they don't use the Sun runtime. They use Davlik as the VM as their own libraries, nothing is called Java because it isn't Java or Sun stuff.
Microsoft partly infringed on this by calling their VM MS JVM when it wasn't a Sun compatible runtime. Part of the judgement in Sun vs MS was that Microsoft could not use the Java name. Google does not.
2- The Java platform. These are the libraries bundled in the runtime and the SDK by default. There are 3 platforms currently shipped by Sun/Oracle : J2SE (Standard Edition), J2EE (Enterprise Edition), and J2ME (Mobility Edition). These are standard function calls, an API if you will. Again, you can't name your stack a Java platform if you don't fully implement these APIs.
Microsoft's platform contained a lot of extensions but failed to implement many that were found in the normal J2SE at the time. Google calls their platform Android. They don't pretend to be using Java and they don't call what they use Java, so again, not a naming issue.
3- Java the language. This is basically the standard for type definitions, namespaces, syntax, heritage, object definitions, etc.. Boring stuff if you've ever read a language specification. It gets compiled to bytecode which a VM can then execute. This is what Google uses. And you know what ? Their Java language is 100% compatible with Java the language.
So when you go and say things like "Java is a nightmare, it's slow and buggy", you're just showing your ignorance of Java in general. What is slow and buggy ? Is it the VM which is running slowly and not correctly interpreting your bytecode ? Is it the platform in your runtime that contains bug in certain API calls ? It can't be the language per say... (looking at you Warbrain).
As for the lawsuit, notice it is a patent lawsuit, not a copyright/trademark lawsuit. This means while Google decided to go with a VM/Platform/Language model that includes Java for the language part, Oracle doesn't really have an issue with that. They have an issue in the fact that Google might have used Oracle patented technology in their implementation of a VM/Platform that is not called Java.
This is not what Sun feared and Google respected Sun by not calling their stuff Java.
And btw, guys, let's drop the Apple mentality here. Oracle makes great products, their database software is best of breed bar none. Larry as always been a bit of an edge case, but that doesn't affect the merits of their product. Stop thinking that everytime a company does something negative it means they 100% suck. Real life isn't black and white.
I work with Oracle databases all day long, we would never replace them with other products. They are fast, reliable and resources for troubleshooting are vast.
Never in a million years. Apart from there being a great deal of turbulent history between the two companies (Sun were a whisker away from buying Apple before Jobs came back, and almost merged another twice), the vast majority of Sun's business would have been of no interest to Apple. A huge server business, Solaris, Java, OpenOffice, Glassfish, MySQL, VirtualBox... how much of that would Apple have wanted to pay for just to get ZFS, which is open source anyway?
Then how do you propose software R&D be accomplished? Is it not true that software R&D happens in the private sector under the assumption that the work will be a protected IP that can be protected against theft in the court system?
Will Oracle Kill Java?
I am afraid Oracle will end up killing Java and any valuable asset at Sun Microsystems. I see no benefit in Oracle having acquired Sun, they should stick to their databases.
I am afraid Oracle will end up killing Java and any valuable asset at Sun Microsystems. I see no benefit in Oracle having acquired Sun, they should stick to their databases.
No, you're right: Java, or at least most parts of it, were made Open Source.
What nobody seems to understand, however, is the fact that making something Open Source does not invalidate patents. And what people usually also fail to understand is that patents don't protect specific implementations or products (that's what copyright laws do), but that they protect ideas and concepts - and that is what makes them such a powerful and innovation-destroying weapon.
The most funny thing for me is that all the Open Source trolls that have been warning people to use Mono C# (which is an Open Source implementation of Microsoft .NET) because Microsoft could some day use their patent portfolio to axe Mono -- and that people should go with Java instead. Ha. Hahaha. But in all fairness, that was -before- Oracle bought Sun Microsystems.
An Oracle representative told us this over two months ago at an oracle conference. I sent a tip to TWIG and Macrumors but they chose to not publish it for some reason. Google basically violates the first paragraph of the first page of the java specification.
iOS and OS X both use Java and Apple pays royalties .. right? If so (I am assuming this to be true) why do companies like MS and Google try to get around this by ripping of Java and pretending they have created something new ...? Seems there is a corporate pattern here.
Oracle bought Sun to get their intellectual property and patent portfolio - and Java is of strategic importance for Oracle. Most of Oracles products are using Java or have been built with Java. It's important for them to OWN and CONTROL that technology. Java is a key technology in the enterprise business, and it gives Oracle leverage over one of their strongest competitors: IBM, which also happens to be a big Java shop.
Don't know, but this does not look like patent trolling. Given times frames, looks like they did their homework before filing suit. Patent trolls wait for years until the numbers are so high the settlements become huge.
Sun produced it's own OS and hardware similar to Apple. If Apple would have bought Sun then Applle would have finally gotten serious about the enterprise.
Solaris has a lot of features that Mac OS X lacks and Sun's engineering talent would have really helped Apple a lot. Joyent for example just snatched up Bryan Cantrill, he worked many years on the Solaris kernel and created Dtrace. Greg Lavender, James Gosling, Simon Phipps, Charles Nutter, Thomas Enebo, Nick Sieger etc... the list keeps growing.
Had Apple bought Sun, I'm pretty sure they would have stayed. So many projects that Sun was working on coincided with many at Apple.
Imagine all the great features from Sun/Solaris that could have been incorporated into Mac OS X. Zones/Containers, ZFS, lustrefs, Sun Grid Engine etc... MySQL wouldn't have needed to been forked, perhaps LLVM and the Java VM would have been integrated and Apple would finally have a JIT development platform to put Cocoa on. ZFS + Final Cut Server + MySQL(vs Postgres now) + Sun Storage would have been huge for production houses and the pro video market. Sun Grid Engine could have been merged with Xgrid.
Speaking of which, when was the last time you heard anything about Xgrid? It seems Apple is leaving projects to stagnate left and right or abandoning them all together as of late (Shake, QuickTime Streaming Server, QTSS Publisher, Xsan, xraid, etc...). Why is that? They need engineers! Sun would have been a GREAT buy. The had the engineering talent, all they needed was Apple's direction/leadership pointing them in the right direction. It's too bad Oracle snatched them up!
Solaris has a lot of features that Mac OS X lacks and Sun's engineering talent would have really helped Apple a lot. Joyent for example just snatched up Bryan Cantrill, he worked many years on the Solaris kernel and created Dtrace. Greg Lavender, James Gosling, Simon Phipps, Charles Nutter, Thomas Enebo, Nick Sieger etc... the list keeps growing.
Had Apple bought Sun, I'm pretty sure they would have stayed. So many projects that Sun was working on coincided with many at Apple.
Imagine all the great features from Sun/Solaris that could have been incorporated into Mac OS X. Zones/Containers, ZFS, lustrefs, Sun Grid Engine etc... MySQL wouldn't have needed to been forked, perhaps LLVM and the Java VM would have been integrated and Apple would finally have a JIT development platform to put Cocoa on. ZFS + Final Cut Server + MySQL(vs Postgres now) + Sun Storage would have been huge for production houses and the pro video market. Sun Grid Engine could have been merged with Xgrid.
Speaking of which, when was the last time you heard anything about Xgrid? It seems Apple is leaving projects to stagnate left and right or abandoning them all together as of late (Shake, QuickTime Streaming Server, QTSS Publisher, Xsan, xraid, etc...). Why is that? They need engineers! Sun would have been a GREAT buy. The had the engineering talent, all they needed was Apple's direction/leadership pointing them in the right direction. It's too bad Oracle snatched them up!
It's not stealing because it's...only intellectual property? Only...software?
Oracle owns methods for enforcing security rules via protection domains (patent 6,125,447), which Android products (allegedly) use without license; for increasing execution speed (#6,910,205), which Android products (allegedly) use without license; for reducing the amount of code executed (#6,061,520), which Android products (allegedly) use without license... etc.
If true, why is this not stealing?