back to article CEO meeting fails to resolve Oracle-versus-Google java case

An epic six-hour meeting between Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai and Oracle CEO Safra Catz has failed to make a Big Red Java Chocolate Factory, so the two companies will head to court for their retrial. A docket from US magistrate, Judge Paul Grewal, revealed the failed talks, which took place on Friday. The two have …

  1. Denarius
    FAIL

    feeding the lawyers again

    a classic lose - lose situation. ie business as usual. Couldn't we all just agree to dump Java and close some security holes ?

    1. Mikel

      Re: feeding the lawyers again

      Google is working on that.

      I'm all for locking all the lawyers in a room until they sort it out using the Kilkenny Cats method.

      There once were two cats of Kilkenny

      Each thought there was one cat too many

      So they fought and they fit

      And they scratched and they bit

      Till (excepting their nails

      And the tips of their tails)

      Instead of two cats there weren't any!

    2. a_yank_lurker

      Re: feeding the lawyers again

      Only the shyster are getting rich. As Shakespeare said "Let's kill all the lawyers"

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: feeding the lawyers again

      @"dump Java and close some security holes"

      They don't use Java, never did, its a different VM (was Davlik now a different one of their own).

      Hence the game of "can we call this function ClearBitField(Boolean b) or does Oracle own the exclusive on that API name ClearBitField(Boolean b)".

      Not that ClearBitField code is the same, but rather the API definition itself cannot be copied.

      Everytime you write a method, there may be hundreds of copyright infringements you are doing. I think we need to find a unique prefix and prefix every API name with it. IvanaClearBitField(Boolean b), just to protect our companies from nuisance lawsuits.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Nuisance suite

    Java was GPL'd licensed. Sun put it under in 2006. That granted the right to copy it and make derivative works. Davlik VM implements Java and is a derivative work and was used by Google.

    We call it the JAVA API, but its not, stuff like Vector<Float> pairs, maps, hashmaps etc. actually came from the Standard Template Library and are just Java's implementation of those. Class, this etc. came from C++. i.e. Java itself is a collection of previous coding conventions it copied.

    So where you get the $9 billion from?... Oracle don't own the Android API, thats a bunch of GUI and phone stuff on Java. Java, is GPL'd and they can't revoke the GPL. The names of the APIs are not trademarkable.

    So what it comes down to, is some APIs (not code, the names of a tiny number of functions that represent the interface to the code, i.e. APIs) that were added after the GPL.

    And Oracle managed to fool a jury that its $5.6 billion purchase of Sun was somehow for Java, which is knew was open sourced at the time of the purchase. It's only because Android is successful, that Oracle launched this nuisance lawsuit.

    1. TJ1
      Stop

      Re: Nuisance suite

      You've got confused over the GNU GPLv2 issue and several of your statements are wrong.

      The Java library code the Android Inc. company (later acquired by Google) used was Apache Harmony [1] under an Apache License and Android was originally a derivative of Harmony after they ditched the idea of using Java Mobile Edition (ME).

      Dalivk was *not* a derivative of Java, it was a clean-room implementation of a virtual machine using a register-machine architecture and its own byte-code. Compiled Java class files have to be converted to the Dalvik DEX format.

      The disputed code in the Oracle vs Google case was code developed directly by Google [2], not from Apache Harmony, but the API dispute is in regard to the sub-set of the entire Java SE API from Apache Harmony that Android Inc., originally adopted.

      Android has now switched to the OpenJDK GNU GPLv2 licensed implementation.

      Regardless of where concepts originate, the copyright exists in the *implementation* itself.

      Oracle do *own* the Java API, by virtue of their purchase of Sun Microsystems. Copy-left licenses do not give away ownership, they give rights to distribute and receive source-code which otherwise would not exist.

      In the U.S.A. the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (the 'patent' circuit) has decided that APIs are subject to copyright and has remanded the issue back to the trial court for a new trial where Google's primary argument will presumably be that the Harmony/Android implementation was "Fair Use" [3].

      [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Harmony

      [2] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/01/oracle_hits_google_with_code_copying_claims/

      [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc.#Appeals_Court

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Oracle know they are being complete pricks about this but they are hoping a technology illiterate court will grant them all profits made by Google with respect of anything that Android has touched so that they can justify their purchase of Sun and have a slice of pie that they were not a part of.

    There is nothing that is morally or legally defensible about the actions of Oracle in this case and if it was just to extract some money out of Google then I wouldn't really care. However, as this could affect the entire software industry and end up creating a problem bigger than the "software patent" mess that exists in some regions then I do care.

    There'll be a lot of lawyers waiting in the shadows for the result of this case.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "a technology illiterate court "

      Really, that statement shows how little you know of the court system or the complexityu of issues with which it deals on a daily basis. This particular case is not even remotely tricky nor technology dependent compared to the cases that have been spoken to by the court.

      Grow up and put your childish petulance in the toy box where it long ago should have already been deposited.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "a technology illiterate court "

        "Really, that statement shows how little you know of the court system or the complexityu of issues with which it deals on a daily basis."

        Firstly, I know how to spell complexity

        Secondly, I have been following this case since the beginning on Groklaw and know most of the detail involved in it. It was never a case about copyright of APIs, it was a case about patents, then about copyright of code and finally copyright of APIs. Oracle were hoping for a technologically illiterate court, but instead they got Judge Alsup who had some good knowledge of the subject.

        The final last fling was the copyright on an API which is being treated as a standard copyright instrument. Oracle know full well that APIs are re-used by convention across the industry, hell look at their base product - SQL!

        If you read through the court transcripts you can see clear examples of where Oracle tried to play to a technologically illiterate court (Range Check FFS).

        Oracle's claim of all profits of Android because an API was used is farcical. If you go back further to when Sun owned Java you can see how ridiculous this whole saga is and where Oracle's true motives lie.

        However your reply is a condescending, ad hominem attack rather than an argument which lacks any real understanding of the issue presented, so I can only conclude that you agree with the argument but have an incentive to dismiss it or you lack the capacity to create a counter argument.

  4. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

    This case..

    ..is the new IBM/SCO.

    I just hope that Oracle == SCO.

    Actually - I hope they both == SCO.. (although I'd rather like that the court confirms that APIs are *not* copyrightable!)

  5. Philip Lewis

    Big Red Java Chocolate Factory

    To me, as an Australian of advancing years, this sounds like a recipe for a confection that has been missing from my life all these years.

    The "Coffee Jaffa"!

    It would be a massive hit!

    (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffas)

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like