Comments on: Oracle vs Google: tech pundits weigh in

By: Agnt Duke

Agnt Duke — Thu, 03 May 2012 23:02:00 +0000

I think you missed the whole point of this lawsuit. Oracle is hardly the egg that spawned the Android chicken. More like the straw that *maybe* gave nest to some of the eggs – but hardly the yolk. Google did this work on their own, Oracle supported that (with no license agreements in place, using the publicity to their own advantage), and then tried to rob the bank of Google success when their own efforts tanked.

This just screams of desparation rather than true IP protection. They had plenty of opportunity to raise IP issues years ago if that was really their concern. Truth is, they already got all the publicity benefit they are going to get for Java out of this already…

By: Agnt Duke

Agnt Duke — Thu, 03 May 2012 22:58:00 +0000

Oracle is becoming irrelevant. The tech society does not reward companies who try to remain relevant through court cases – as opposed to innovation – in the marketplace. Oracle can only ride the coattails of their previous success for only so long before they go the way of Yahoo and other previous pioneers, who stopped innovating and went purely into maintenance mode / damage control (same thing).

By: V_fitz90

V_fitz90 — Wed, 02 May 2012 07:14:00 +0000

What you are talking about here is the that google copied linux, which is a different case entirely. The article is talking about the google copying java. And the jury has been asked only about the following copyright claims and none of what you have described

A) The rangeCheck method in TimSort.java and ComparableTimSort.Java
B) Source code in seven “Impl.java” files and the one “ACL” file
C) The English-language comments in CodeSourceTest.java and CollectionCertStoreParameters Test.java

By: bglick4

bglick4 — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:00:00 +0000

I googled Oracle and the first link that came up enlightened me to the fact that Oracle made tanks for the Nazis.

By: Ritesh

Ritesh — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:06:00 +0000

I’m sorry, but the moment you quoted Mueller, your argument lost all credibility. End of.

By: Ritesh

Ritesh — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:03:00 +0000

Eh?

By: Benjamin Norton

Benjamin Norton — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:02:00 +0000

Try reading sometime

By: Benjamin Norton

Benjamin Norton — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:01:00 +0000

copyright means someone has rights to the material. Do no distribute means that anyone getting the material DOES NOT HAVE ANY RIGHTS TO DISTRIBUTE. i.e. Oracle has the rights, Android does not have the right to distribute. which they did. ergo Oracle has a right to demand royalties. If they were pricks they would seek to have Android blocked, they don’t want Android blocked they just want their due. Anyone who characterizes Oracle as a bully or dishonest is someone who is just not interested in what is right and wrong. If you love Android you should be very glad for Oracle (Sun Microsystems) and be hopeful for what Oracle will do in the future as is is developing a platform which influences and provides software that Google makes use of in developing Android. More and better Java from Oracle means more and better Java to be used in Android.

By: Benjamin Norton

Benjamin Norton — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:52:00 +0000

It never hurts to read the whole story, not just the headlines. You’ll find these paragraphs if you follow the link at the top of the page Under “timeline” if you click on “Android code copying lends weight to Oracle suite” these statements are made by experts:

Evidence that Google directly copied Sun Microsystems code – now owned by Oracle – has been found in multiple Android files, suggesting the Oracle’s patent infringement case against the search giant does indeed hold water. IP expert Florian Mueller dug through the evidence and discovered 37 files in Android 2.2 Froyo and 2.3 Gingerbread which were labeled “PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL” by Sun, and had a copyright notice file saying “DO NOT DISTRIBUTE!”

Meanwhile Mueller has also found several files in Android which appear to have been decompiled from Sun’s original java code. Google had originally argued that Oracle omitted copyright headers from certain contentious Java files; now it’s alleged the company actually replaced the original proprietary license with a GPL 2 header, even though Oracle may not have given permission.

“Google said in its formal response that Oracle had omitted “copyright headers”. That is correct, but now that I have seen two versions of the original file, I don’t think that the missing parts are favorable to Google. Actually, the opposite is true. Whether under a proprietary license or the GPL, the related code could not be legally relicensed under the Apache license by anyone other than the right holder (Oracle/Sun)” Florian Mueller

The full versions of the forty-three files in question are available for review, but right now it’s not looking good for Google – or, indeed, their carrier partners using Android.

By: Benjamin Norton

Benjamin Norton — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 21:07:00 +0000

You hit the bullseye with the “rogue unlicensed”… Most people enjoy being ignorant so they don’t want to know if Oracle is right… Even open source, free software is Licensed and Android (Google) did not agree to a license… all of us know every time you install a piece of software you have to agree to a license… even a GNU General Purpose License which specifically states you have to right to use and modify the software as you will, still requires you to accept the license.

By: Benjamin Norton

Benjamin Norton — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 20:59:00 +0000

#1 There is nothing mean about it… #2 They are not “going after” Android (this is not about trying to shut down or terminate Android… #3 Java is open source as well… #4 How do you know that Amazon and Barnes & Noble do not pay royalties? #5 How can you say “No matter what the legal findings are? That is to say “No matter what the legal findings are” Android should not have to pay royalties? You mean if Android IS legally responsible to pay royalties to Oracle that Oracle is still wrong for asking for what they are legally entitled to? Sounds to me like you read a headline and out of ignorance decided to forgo reading the story…

Geez, I love that “No matter what the legal findings are” God help us.

By: Benjamin Norton

Benjamin Norton — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 20:53:00 +0000

Don’t you think that a better statement to make would be: “I hope the truth comes out and what is right and just with be upheld”? Think about that for a second…

By: Benjamin Norton

Benjamin Norton — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 20:50:00 +0000

Do you know all the greediest people in the tech industry… Your statement clearly shows that you know almost nothing about what you are saying. There is an old welsh proverb that, transliterated, says “the empty vessel rattles loudest” It is a very telling statement. People who know almost nothing get the most angry… why is your heart bleeding so, for Android? They are doing alright! Don’t lose sleep over it, my friend. Be glad for them. What would you do if judges and lawyers all agree that royalties are due? Would you still cry foul? It would be silly to do so… you have to trust the real experts, so you might as well let them weigh in on it before you decide.

By: Benjamin Norton

Benjamin Norton — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 20:44:00 +0000

You should worry about the future of Java if Oracle loses. Oracle develops the Java platform and that takes money. Why should Android use Java for free and make money and not pay royalties to the company who is developing Java? The future of Java is continued development… and that takes Oracle having the financial resources to develop it to it’s fullest. You statement gives all credit to the chick but not the egg that the chick came from…

By: Lsnow

Lsnow — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 02:19:00 +0000

Oracle has a 100% chance of winning based on their consistent record of protecting their IP. Their record of auditing users of their illegal deployment of any code developed or from acquired companie’s code is the reason they exist for the benefit of all users. To allow the redistribution of value from a licensed company to a rogue unlicensed firm (Google) only makes the honest firm pay a disportionate amount.

By: thereasoner

thereasoner — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 21:28:00 +0000

Oracle was originally looking for billions of $’s. The judge had them lower it,more than once to somewhere around 100 million. I’m thinking this thing settles for something like 10-50 million, chump change for both companies.

By: Thomas Fox

Thomas Fox — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:57:00 +0000

Go Oracle woo hoo.

By: Benjamin Norton

Benjamin Norton — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:28:00 +0000

I think it comes down to whether or not this is just free use of java or free use of java to build a platform to sell commercial apps for that platform. There are licenses that must be agreed to even when using open source software. If the license states that using java to build another platform, that will be a money making venture, will be subject to royalties on the proceeds earned from using java as a base for another platform then they due deserve royalties. Open source software has many intricacies to licenses with regards to software being free to use, free to develop for, or free to make a separate platform and be free to make a profit from it without ever paying royalties to whom created the base of. Most people just take an opinion from a headline without ever reading the entire story. I doubt that anyone who posted on here is an open source specialist and a business lawyer as well. Also for whom propose that “oracle waited until Android was making money on it and then file a suit” if a company, organization, or entity wanted royalties wouldn’t they wait until profits were realized before looking for said royalties? Corporate greed, unfortunately is the same thing as corporations marketing themselves for sustainable profit. Again it is unlikely that anyone posting on here really knows enough about it to say for sure. SO PLEASE take a pill and don’t work yourselves into a frenzy. This suit is not proof that Oracle is the devil or should be hated for all existence. I love the free software movement but lets face it, there is no such thing as a free meal, or free beer for that matter. Sometimes organizations give free use of software, free to use, but not free to make money on without royalties. It seems totally plausible and probable that this would be the case.

By: Nome Saili

Nome Saili — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:53:00 +0000

I worry about the future of Java and other opensoruce projects built on it if Oracle wins.

This is just corporate greed. Oracle just want Android under java for control.

By: Tony NoName

Tony NoName — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:49:00 +0000

Java was fully declared Open Source by 2006 after initial talks with Sun for Android had fallen through. They did however reserve some conditions on Java ME’s code Open Sourcing. Now under that license lies the debate at the crux of Oracle’s lawsuit. Question; Is it possible to restrict a Free to use Open Source License in such a way that can still keep it NOT SO FREE to use afterall? ….and why didn’t Sun give notice to Google on any violations? Instead the congratulated Google for their Android Development!

Truth: Languages in general are not considered Copyrightable. How then… can the Java Programming language be Free to Use (as all languages are, including English, Spanish, C, C+, etc) and be Copyrightable at the same time? That’s impossible. It’s long been held that API’s are extensions of the Coding Language they are written in. You can’t separate the Free Open Java Language from the API’s it uses, when they are written in Java in the first place. Because they are not ever considered separate from the language in the first place! ….they are never considered creations or works of art that could be termed Copyrightable.

I hope Oracle gets the biggest FAT LIP in history in this lawsuit. As it would if they won, they’d be sorry when developers all over the World suddenly abandoned the Java programming language to make their own and then the entire world of technology innovation would die with it!

By: dalegg

dalegg — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:17:00 +0000

Ellison is probably the most greedy person in the tech business and the most self-centered. He is getting the attention he graves. In the end, he will look like a fool just like Steve Jobs did when he sued Microsoft over Windows even though he got it from Xerox.

By: Analysispros

Analysispros — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:03:00 +0000

I hope Oracle and Ellison will fail in this law suit – totally frivolous! I hope the courts can see through that Ellison and Oracle do not deserve a penny! If Google is made to pay something then every company that uses java in their program or system can be forced now to pay “Royalties” – where will this end…

By: SilentM

SilentM — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:46:00 +0000

Mr. Ellison runs the risk of looking like SCO and Novell in their waning days. No matter what the legal findings are, there is something mean about going after open source software (that is what Android is – Amazon paid zip to Google for building Kindle from Android, Barnes & Noble paid zip to Google for building Nook from Android, Boing is reportedly building a ‘secure tablet’ based on Android not to mention a zillion Chinese/Taiwanese firms doing the same thing).

By: Ritesh

Ritesh — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:42:00 +0000

This will fall so hard on Ellison’s frivolous tool, he’d never think of a similar lawsuit again!

By: Micky1000ito

Micky1000ito — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:41:00 +0000

Ufortunatley, Google.

By: Liam Lopez25

Liam Lopez25 — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:17:00 +0000

i think that google has full right because oracle is used in a whole lot of products and those other companys that have their devices w/ oracle dont have to give java or oracle half benefit