Oracle sues Google over Android operating system


Recommended Posts

I wonder exactly what Oracle claim they own, since Sun open sourced the class library and compiler (the parts they haven't open sourced, were the parts they didn't own the copyright to)

Edit: It's funny to see the OpenJDK site with Oracle branding, showing the developer posts about Oracle trying to end it.

This shows exactly why software patents are an awful idea.

It boiled down to this, Google (and other's) wanted to use Java differently then suns "standards".

Sun caved in and created exceptions with a special java designation / name, but really didn't want to.

Open Souce means this - if Google alters the java code, they have to make the altered code available to anyone that wants has it.

Other people then can use your code without your permission any changes they do they have to give the code oit.

Well, Sun placed Java under the GNU GPL (with a classpath exception) but they explicitly retained all rights to the mobile version of Java. Google aren't using any of this though, they created their own non-compliant version of Java (Dalvik only supports a subset of the Java spec)

I haven't really kept up with Java but that's what I thought. Java is open source so how can they sue if the code is published (unless it violates something like the GNU license or whatever license Java runs under)?

Java (but not the mobile edition) is under the GNU GPL with a classpath exception - however Google didn't use this. They clean-room reverse-engineered Java and created their own register-based version (regular Java is stack-based) that allows them to license it under the Apache License, which is more permissive than the GPL.

While the GPL'd version would protect Google from Oracle's patents, they decided for one reason or another to not use OpenJDK and create Dalvik from scratch.

I wonder exactly what Oracle claim they own, since Sun open sourced the class library and compiler (the parts they haven't open sourced, were the parts they didn't own the copyright to)

Edit: It's funny to see the OpenJDK site with Oracle branding, showing the developer posts about Oracle trying to end it.

Patents, about 6 of them IIRC. Plus, Oracle aren't trying to end OpenJDK - it has nothing to do with Android/Dalvik. At least not intentionally. They've probably hastened Java's demise with this lawsuit though, and I'm sure they don't actually give a damn about Java, all they care about is the patents.

I hope Oracle does manage to kill java. It's been a curse on the web from day one.

Java is used for a lot more than the web...

...

Patents, about 6 of them IIRC. Plus, Oracle aren't trying to end OpenJDK - it has nothing to do with Android/Dalvik. At least not intentionally. They've probably hastened Java's demise with this lawsuit though, and I'm sure they don't actually give a damn about Java, all they care about is the patents.

...

Yeah, I read up on it more after making the comment.

Software patents are stupid.

Google responded to them.. They are saying this whole lawsuit is ridiculous and completely baseless.

Google's statement:

We are disappointed Oracle has chosen to attack both Google and the open-source Java community with this baseless lawsuit. The open-source Java community goes beyond any one corporation and works every day to make the web a better place. We will strongly defend open-source standards and will continue to work with the industry to develop the Android platform.
however Google didn't use this. They clean-room reverse-engineered Java and created their own register-based version (regular Java is stack-based) that allows them to license it under the Apache License, which is more permissive than the GPL.

While the GPL'd version would protect Google from Oracle's patents, they decided for one reason or another to not use OpenJDK and create Dalvik from scratch.

So does that means Google can win? If it's true what you said then Oracle does not have base in this lawsuit.

I suppose the difference is that others support actual (Oracle) Java platforms like J2ME. Android does not. Android does not implement any standard Java platform, and is not even capable of running Java bytecode.

It's essentially a custom platform that just happens to use the Java programming language (with support for some standard Java libraries.) Software written for Oracle's Java platforms can't run on Android, and vice versa. They are incompatible, both in source code and executable form.

Google makes plenty of money from it. Profit is the sole reason Android exists.

That is quite true but monkey13 is correct, Google make no money off Android itself (they give it away for free to manufacturers who are then free to customise it how they see fit). The $$$ are coming in from Google search referrals, ads and such within the Android system. As long as that remains profitable, Google will continue to support and further develop Android. Well that is how I understand it all works at any rate.

So does that means Google can win? If it's true what you said then Oracle does not have base in this lawsuit.

I sure hope so but patent lawsuits are complex beasts. Software patents especially so as it's basically a patent on a number.

That is quite true but monkey13 is correct, Google make no money off Android itself (they give it away for free to manufacturers who are then free to customise it how they see fit). The $$$ are coming in from Google search referrals, ads and such within the Android system. As long as that remains profitable, Google will continue to support and further develop Android. Well that is how I understand it all works at any rate.

The OS is free but Google charges the manufacturer for support and to put first party programs on it.

That is quite true but monkey13 is correct, Google make no money off Android itself (they give it away for free to manufacturers who are then free to customise it how they see fit). The $$$ are coming in from Google search referrals, ads and such within the Android system. As long as that remains profitable, Google will continue to support and further develop Android. Well that is how I understand it all works at any rate.

That doesn't actually make android free anyway though. the handset makers still need to pay several other companies like, MS and apple, and probably nokia and sony ericsson for technology and patents used in android.

From what I understand, this seems like the exact same reason Sun successfully sued Microsoft - for creating their own custom Java/JVM. If true, I don't think Oracle is doing anything different/wrong here? (It's taken some efforts to say that tongue.gif with my prejudice against Oracle)

I also read somewhere that GPLed java does not allow for supersetting the JVM and OpenJDK is not suitable for mobile JVMs. That is the reason Google had to create Dalvik which is akin to supersetting the JVM.

From what I understand, this seems like the exact same reason Sun successfully sued Microsoft - for creating their own custom Java/JVM. If true, I don't think Oracle is doing anything different/wrong here? (It's taken some efforts to say that tongue.gif with my prejudice against Oracle)

I also read somewhere that GPLed java does not allow for supersetting the JVM and OpenJDK is not suitable for mobile JVMs. That is the reason Google had to create Dalvik which is akin to supersetting the JVM.

Not really. Microsoft's was a case of trademark infringement and breach of contract.

Google hasn't infringed the trademark since it's only using java as reference to the programing language (which is perfectly fine) but not about the VM, nor are they claiming any sort of compatibility as MS did.

Regarding the breach of contract Google didn't sign such a thing, so no breach either.

Regardless of whether Oracle has a case or not (considering the sorry state of software patents in the US they might very well do) this whole thing is about patents, and as such it has nothing to do with Sun's past claims over MS.

I also read somewhere that GPLed java does not allow for supersetting the JVM and OpenJDK is not suitable for mobile JVMs. That is the reason Google had to create Dalvik which is akin to supersetting the JVM.

You can't impose any restrictions on GPL software. If you do, then it is no longer GPL. If Oracle has any GPL code, then you are free to do anything at all with it. Trademarks and patents are a separate matter though, and you need separate permission to use these.

Also, it is only the source code and executable binaries for a specific implementation that are covered by copyright. If you were to reimplement it from scratch without using any of the original code, then the owner of the original code has zero rights to your work.

from Ars

When Sun opened the Java technology and released the programming language under the terms of GNU's General Public License (GPL), it added a special exception to the license to ensure that applications which link against Java would not be roped in by the copyleft provisions. Such an exception was not made available, however, for J2ME?Sun's mobile variant of Java. Companies that want to use J2ME for commercial closed-sourced development have to pay licensing fees to Sun. Google avoided paying those licensing fees, because it built its own totally independent Java runtime, compilation mechanism, and bytecode format rather than using J2ME itself.

Regardless of whether or not Oracle has a case (even after reading up on some of this stuff I have no idea), Google has to deal with this quickly. They can't afford for this case to drag on and create a cloud of uncertainty over Android since some developers (and possibly OEMs) could bail as a result.

  • 3 weeks later...

Is it true that the lawsuit is because Google changed Java, and still called it Java? If so, the lawsuit is perfectly fine. Changing Java and not renaming it is exactly what Microsoft did, and it is as evil when Google does it as when Microsoft does it. If that is indeed the basis of this, of course.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!