[Macworld]

Post your comments for Google's Android did not infringe Oracle patents, jury finds here

[bastion]

Macworld, on 24 May 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

"Oracle presented overwhelming evidence at trial that Google knew it would fragment and damage Java. We plan to continue to defend and uphold Java's core write once run anywhere principle and ensure it is protected for the nine million Java developers and the community that depend on Java compatibility."

I suppose one could claim that was a "core principle" but it was never anything like a reality and Sun, at least, wasn't necessarily shy about breaking compatibility.

[JackNFranFarrell]

Huh

[JackNFranFarrell]

Does the Oracle result portend bad things for Apples legal onslaught vs Google. If history is any indication, yes!

[veggiedude]

The big winner could well be Amazon. They now have a green light to do to Android what Google did to Java.

[Steve_S]

I'd be curious to know if there was anyone on the jury that was technical enough to fully understand the issues that were presented. While I do understand that a "jury of your peers" shouldn't require experts in many other disciplines, it's not hard to imagine the average person being completely lost with regard to the nuances that are discussed in this case. When in doubt, more people use Google than Oracle products so Google wins I guess...

[klahanas]

JackNFranFarrell, on 24 May 2012 - 07:14 AM, said:

Does the Oracle result portend bad things for Apples legal onslaught vs Google. If history is any indication, yes!

You're right, but no one's complaining... Not even Google.

This post has been edited by klahanas: 24 May 2012 - 01:22 PM

[klahanas]

veggiedude, on 24 May 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

The big winner could well be Amazon. They now have a green light to do to Android what Google did to Java.

They already did. So what?

[klahanas]

bastion, on 24 May 2012 - 07:04 AM, said:

Macworld, on 24 May 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

"Oracle presented overwhelming evidence at trial that Google knew it would fragment and damage Java. We plan to continue to defend and uphold Java's core write once run anywhere principle and ensure it is protected for the nine million Java developers and the community that depend on Java compatibility."

I suppose one could claim that was a "core principle" but it was never anything like a reality and Sun, at least, wasn't necessarily shy about breaking compatibility.

So true. That Android is Linux and Java based, does not mean that it's either of them.
The real Oracle vision of the day, now realized, was the "network appliance". It has manifested as appliances tied to the cloud.

[whostolemyname]

Steve_S, on 24 May 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

I'd be curious to know if there was anyone on the jury that was technical enough to fully understand the issues that were presented. While I do understand that a "jury of your peers" shouldn't require experts in many other disciplines, it's not hard to imagine the average person being completely lost with regard to the nuances that are discussed in this case. When in doubt, more people use Google than Oracle products so Google wins I guess...

I agree.

Java was a managed standard--created and managed by Sun Microsystems. It could be used/licensed "freely" by others, but it's API and code base could not altered without Sun's testing and adopting it into the standard--and that caveat was presumably passed along to Oracle upon Oracle's purchase of Sun.

It was a smart setup to prevent fragmentation of a standard--to preserve "write once, run anywhere". Years ago, Microsoft tried to make their own variant and lost big time in court to Sun. I am surprised that precedent wasn't applied in this case, although it may have been the case that the jury that did not understand this concept.

Sun was criticized by some in the "Open" movement at times for not releasing Java to a standards body to become "purely" open, but absent adoption and curation by a standards body, it was the only way to preserve write once, run anywhere.

Sun may not have wanted to relinquish control to a standards body as Sun had a lot of research and development and wanted to be able to update Java on it's own timetable --rather than being slowed to a potential crawl by a standards body.

So the deal was, you couldn't use Java in a way that altered the code base and that jeopardized the "run anywhere" principle ("anywhere" meaning you had the Java runtime engine, which was deployed on many platforms.

You can't run Android on a Mac or a PC or Linux or any platform that has the Java runtime engine installed. Therefore the Java code is broken -- which is prohibited in the licensing of Java. I don't believe Google licensed Java from Sun/Oracle--and if they did, they most likely violated the license -- it's one or the other. So, I can't figure out how they got away with using Java code at all in the manner they did.

Can anyone involved with Java/Sun years ago offer some commentary to correct me or add to the discussion?

[klahanas]

whostolemyname, on 24 May 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

Steve_S, on 24 May 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

I'd be curious to know if there was anyone on the jury that was technical enough to fully understand the issues that were presented. While I do understand that a "jury of your peers" shouldn't require experts in many other disciplines, it's not hard to imagine the average person being completely lost with regard to the nuances that are discussed in this case. When in doubt, more people use Google than Oracle products so Google wins I guess...

I agree.

Java was a managed standard--created and managed by Sun Microsystems. It could be used/licensed "freely" by others, but it's API and code base could not altered without Sun's testing and adopting it into the standard--and that caveat was presumably passed along to Oracle upon Oracle's purchase of Sun.

It was a smart setup to prevent fragmentation of a standard--to preserve "write once, run anywhere". Years ago, Microsoft tried to make their own variant and lost big time in court to Sun. I am surprised that precedent wasn't applied in this case, although it may have been the case that the jury that did not understand this concept.

Sun was criticized by some in the "Open" movement at times for not releasing Java to a standards body to become "purely" open, but absent adoption and curation by a standards body, it was the only way to preserve write once, run anywhere.

Sun may not have wanted to relinquish control to a standards body as Sun had a lot of research and development and wanted to be able to update Java on it's own timetable --rather than being slowed to a potential crawl by a standards body.

So the deal was, you couldn't use Java in a way that altered the code base and that jeopardized the "run anywhere" principle ("anywhere" meaning you had the Java runtime engine, which was deployed on many platforms.

You can't run Android on a Mac or a PC or Linux or any platform that has the Java runtime engine installed. Therefore the Java code is broken -- which is prohibited in the licensing of Java. I don't believe Google licensed Java from Sun/Oracle--and if they did, they most likely violated the license -- it's one or the other. So, I can't figure out how they got away with using Java code at all in the manner they did.

Can anyone involved with Java/Sun years ago offer some commentary to correct me or add to the discussion?

Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful post. Very well said.
Here's the thing though... Android is a derivative work of Java (and Linux). Google doesn't claim that Android runs Java code. In fact, it says that it doesn't. You cannot run Java applications on an Android device. So it's not Java!

[klahanas]

klahanas, on 24 May 2012 - 01:18 PM, said:

JackNFranFarrell, on 24 May 2012 - 07:14 AM, said:

Does the Oracle result portend bad things for Apples legal onslaught vs Google. If history is any indication, yes!

You're right, but no one's complaining... Not even Google.

Ignore reply. Replied to the wrong post...

[whostolemyname]

oops - double posted -- removed by poster

This post has been edited by whostolemyname: 25 May 2012 - 08:21 AM

[whostolemyname]

klahanas, on 24 May 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

whostolemyname, on 24 May 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

Steve_S, on 24 May 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

.

Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful post. Very well said.
Here's the thing though... Android is a derivative work of Java (and Linux). Google doesn't claim that Android runs Java code. In fact, it says that it doesn't. You cannot run Java applications on an Android device. So it's not Java!

It was several years ago we learned that Android had Java code in it -- Java code strings intact. Not code inspired by Java, but actual copied code--and not trivial amounts. So if it's not Java in-the-whole, how do they get the right to use parts of the code--code that only gets licensed in its entirety, solely for full and proper Java implementation. That's another reason why Sun "kept the keys" and didn't turn them over to any standards body. I am kind of flabbergasted Oracle did not prevail. There may be more to the story that's not being reported and I'd like to hear it.

To another poster wondering how a judge can overrule a jury: There is plenty of precedent for this, but only in rare cases where the judge determines that the jury has ignored the law or ignores facts undisputed in the case--facts as presented in the lower court. Appeals to higher courts are almost never "de novo" (new - with new evidence)-- the appeals courts must recognize the facts presented in the first court that heard the case. Facts discovered in the original trial don't get changed or supplemented, but the interpretation and application of those facts has to be within the bounds of the law.