Google's Oracle appeal denied

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by leebase

Google knew this when they came out with Android and simply took a chance rather than sign up for a license. I hope they get hammered.

And here I was stupid enough to think java was open source. Apparently not. Not when the greedy **cks at Oracle got hold of it anyhow.

This won't be so funny when patent trolls use this BS to sue just about every programmer in the world who has some money.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rcentros

This won't be so funny when patent trolls use this BS to sue just about every programmer in the world who has some money.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with patent law.

[murg]

Originally Posted by rcentros

And here I was stupid enough to think java was open source. Apparently not. Not when the greedy **cks at Oracle got hold of it anyhow.

Java has always been a proprietary language.

I'm really surprised that everyone seems to have forgotten this.

In fact, as things now stand, .Net is a much more open piece of software than Java.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by murg

Java has always been a proprietary language.

I'm really surprised that everyone seems to have forgotten this.

In fact, as things now stand, .Net is a much more open piece of software than Java.

And both are approaching the end of their useful life.
As web standards evolve and cloudify you can just about see where that road is headed: a true write once, period, world.
No more debug everywhere.

Still a bit out but it's taking shape.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

According to that logic...

/**
 * AddTwoPlusTwo.java
 *
 * A basic program to add 2 + 2.
 *
 * Copyright June 30 2015 by Eli Schwartz. All Rights Reserved.
 */

class AddTwoPlusTwo
{
    public static void main(String[] args)
    {
        int ans = 2 + 2;
        System.out.println("The answer is: "+ans);
    }
}

The mathematical equation "2 + 2 = 4" as expressed through the java programming language is now copyrighted by me. Profit!

Who owns the "tally?"

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by frahse

Who owns the "tally?"

Darn it, my scheme is foiled!

[leebase]

Originally Posted by rcentros

And here I was stupid enough to think java was open source. Apparently not. Not when the greedy **cks at Oracle got hold of it anyhow.

This won't be so funny when patent trolls use this BS to sue just about every programmer in the world who has some money.

It was never open source. It was developed and owned by Sun. Oracle bought Sun.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

According to that logic...

[CODE]

The mathematical equation "2 + 2 = 4" as expressed through the java programming language is now copyrighted by me. Profit!

It would be. Not the concept of adding two numbers, but your implementation. No different than saying "Why can't I write a story about Captain Kirk, the womanizer space hero".

Name your hero Captain Somebody Else. Just like you could say "Mathemizer(2,2,'Add)" and be different.

[kyteflyer]

Originally Posted by leebase

It was never open source. It was developed and owned by Sun. Oracle bought Sun.

Thats so. I wonder if that angry poster was getting confused over java vs javascript (which is an open standard but not open source).

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by leebase

It was never open source. It was developed and owned by Sun. Oracle bought Sun.

And Sun open-sourced it.

Note that just because Java is open source doesn't mean Oracle doesn't still hold the copyright. There's a difference between being open source and public domain. Oracle can, and I think does, release it under different licenses if it chooses. So there's a commercial version and an open source version.

Note also, that the Java name is a trademark and whilst you can always get a copy of the open source code and re-release it, you can't necessarily call it "Java" - which was the basis of the lawsuit against Microsoft back in the day.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by leebase

I can't write a book with the characters Captain Kirk, Mr Spock who explore the universe in a spaceship named the enterprise. Even if "the story" is my original implementation of the universe defined by Star Trek. Yes, people write fan fiction, but that too is copyright infringement that authors/publishers may ignore or promote or stop as is their choice.

Why anyone would think that you could just write your own implementation of another companies product in such a way that it's customers could switch to your implementation with no change whatsoever....that's copyright infringement.

Google knew this when they came out with Android and simply took a chance rather than sign up for a license. I hope they get hammered.

I don't think things are so simple when talking about a programming language or API for a library. If you can't copy it at all, then you can't use it to program stuff yourself. Just including the header files within your source code causes copying of copyrighted code. There has to be some kind of copying permitted, which makes things complicated if someone decides to clone the work.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by leebase

It would be. Not the concept of adding two numbers, but your implementation. No different than saying "Why can't I write a story about Captain Kirk, the womanizer space hero".

Name your hero Captain Somebody Else. Just like you could say "Mathemizer(2,2,'Add)" and be different.

FOUL!!!

In post #11 you claimed:

Originally Posted by leebase

Why anyone would think that you could just write your own implementation of another companies product in such a way that it's customers could switch to your implementation with no change whatsoever....that's copyright infringement.

And now you agree that re-implementations are OK?

Darn you to heck! Right after I copyrighted all those low-level utility algorithms!



As for products that re-implement another company's product, try OpenJDK on for size -- the open-source Java runtime that competes with Oracle Java.
How about LibreOffice, which re-implements the MS Office word-processor product, and is compatible with MS Office document formats?

And hundreds upon thousands of similar stories where people re-implement a conceptualized product using 100% original code. Except for the basic toolset, e.g. programming language specifications e.g. the Java schema.

[leebase]

I see no foul. I'm not saying that Oracle owns the notions of loops/if then decision/variables and the like. I'm saying Oracle owns the Java language....not just their implementation of the java language. You want to build your own computer language...go right ahead. But if your language just implements the one Oracle owns...then no, that's not ok.

And yes, it can be a bad think with Open Office depending on how far they take their copying of Word. Think back to Lotus vs Quarterdeck or dBase vs Foxpro. You can't build a clone of someone else product.

As to the OpenOffice supporting the Word file format. I wonder if Msft has simply not pursued litigation. I know that support for certain video and formats are indeed covered by patents/copyright. I'm not sure of the specific details that allow or disallow.

And yes....all of these issues end up needed to be judged in a court of law and, of course, IANAL.

But I do think the common sense comparison of a computer language to a book and it's characters is valid. Google creating a platform based on Oracle's Java without licensing from Oracle is the same as me writing Harry Potter books using the same names and universe details of the Harry Potter books.

It's not like Google had to use java...they could have used any language. They could have bought a license. But they wanted to be able to leverage the knowledge and support that Sun/Google had built up with java. Just as any author might desire to sell books to the millions of Harry Potter fans

[frahse]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

FOUL!!!

In post #11 you claimed:


And now you agree that re-implementations are OK?

Darn you to heck! Right after I copyrighted all those low-level utility algorithms!



As for products that re-implement another company's product, try OpenJDK on for size -- the open-source Java runtime that competes with Oracle Java.
How about LibreOffice, which re-implements the MS Office word-processor product, and is compatible with MS Office document formats?

And hundreds upon thousands of similar stories where people re-implement a conceptualized product using 100% original code. Except for the basic toolset, e.g. programming language specifications e.g. the Java schema.

How does all this bear on my new-concept computer which is operated by sliding beads on strings. Very inexpensive, easy to operate and even a beginner can replace the strings if they break?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by leebase

I see no foul. I'm not saying that Oracle owns the notions of loops/if then decision/variables and the like. I'm saying Oracle owns the Java language....not just their implementation of the java language. You want to build your own computer language...go right ahead. But if your language just implements the one Oracle owns...then no, that's not ok.

Has the fundamental purpose of programming languages completely eluded you?

And yes, it can be a bad think with Open Office depending on how far they take their copying of Word. Think back to Lotus vs Quarterdeck or dBase vs Foxpro. You can't build a clone of someone else product.

You actually can.

As to the OpenOffice supporting the Word file format. I wonder if Msft has simply not pursued litigation. I know that support for certain video and formats are indeed covered by patents/copyright. I'm not sure of the specific details that allow or disallow.

There is of course the famous GIF patent (on the LZW compression algorithm really) -- which resulted in the move to PNG.
Generally regarded as one of those tragic cases when the US Patent Office granted a patent for something fundamentally incapable of being patented.

In other words, exactly the kind of public disservice on top of illegal patent trolling attempt to extort money that Oracle just tried pulling on Google. Needless to say, the existence of one public outrage does not justify another -- although hopefully Java will die the same death that GIF did. I would like to see that happen to Oracle.

And needless to say, no one has ever attempted to say the schema validation for DOCX is copyrighted to MS (that I am aware).

And yes....all of these issues end up needed to be judged in a court of law and, of course, IANAL.

But I do think the common sense comparison of a computer language to a book and it's characters is valid. Google creating a platform based on Oracle's Java without licensing from Oracle is the same as me writing Harry Potter books using the same names and universe details of the Harry Potter books.

Wrong, it is comparable to me writing a book about "a boy who discovers he has magical powers and goes to school to learn how to use them".

That is the difference between an idea and an implementation.

Programming language APIs are the underlying concepts that are used to create implementations.

It's not like Google had to use java...they could have used any language. They could have bought a license. But they wanted to be able to leverage the knowledge and support that Sun/Google had built up with java. Just as any author might desire to sell books to the millions of Harry Potter fans

Yeah, maybe they could've used used C++. Then get sued by Bjarne Stroustrup. Or C, and get sued by Dennis Ritchie. (He's dead now, but that never stopped a patent troll...)

Oh, wait -- no. Those can't be copyrighted, any more than Java can.

The GNU Compiler Collection can be and is copyrighted (under the GPL, with a special exemption from the GPL for permitting object code compiled with but not linked to GCC.) GCC allows you to compile C/C++ source code into object code. So does Clang, Microsoft Visual C++ Runtime (MSVCRT), etc. As a general rule of thumb, all of these projects need to specifically grant you the right to resell compiled object code under whatever license you choose, even if incompatible with e.g. the GPL.
OpenJDK, an open-source implementation of a Java Virtual Machine (JVM = runtime that executes java binaries), can be and is licensed, under the GPL as well, with the ClassPath exception
Oracle Java can be, and is licensed, under the BCL, which means that Oracle reserves the right to charge you money.




Let's get something clear. Is OpenJDK a felonious software project that illegally infringes upon Oracle's IP?
Are GCC, Clang, MSVCRT software projects that infringe upon the IP of Bjarne Stroustrup, who himself infringed upon the IP of Dennis Ritchie. (I suppose I should point out that neither of those individuals claims or claimed to own the language(s), nor brought people to court for developing in those languages.)
And, for a thought... is Java a software project that infringes upon the IP of Bjarne Soustrup and Dennis Ritchie, as it is based upon C/C++?