decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Oracle America's complaint against Google, as text - Updated 3Xs
Monday, August 16 2010 @ 06:56 AM EDT

Here's the Oracle complaint [PDF] against Google, as text. More accurately, it's Oracle America v. Google. That is what Oracle has named Sun Microsystems now that it's a subsidiary, Oracle America, the company formerly known as Sun. So it's Sun that is being made to be the plaintiff. It's Sun's patents and copyrights, so that makes sense, but it gives me an icky feeling. All the Sun people who'd never do this in a million years either wouldn't go to work for Oracle or left promptly, so here we are, Oracle America.

Doing documents as text is very helpful, because it forces me to notice such details. Here is what else I'm noticing so far.

There are eight claims, seven on patents, one for copyright infringement. Let's break this down a bit. First the patents, which you can find here. The key to the patent claims would have to be this sentence in each:

Google's acts of infringement have been and continue to be willful, deliberate, and in reckless disregard of Oracle America's patent rights.
If you compare that strong language with IBM's counterclaims for patent infringement against SCO Group in 2003, for example, claims it later dropped for fear it would be stuck in that stupid litigation forever with a party that had no money to pay in the end for any infringement anyway, you'll see that IBM didn't use that language. My point is that it's language that indicates Oracle is going for treble damages. And sure enough, at the end, in the relief section, Oracle America does ask for that. And it also means they likely have something quite fact-based and specific in mind that they think can be pinned on Google. I wonder if any of the patents are necessarily going to survive post-Bilski, but the language used does indicate that Oracle thinks it has a case beyond just a simple goof on Google's part. It isn't just Dalvik, either. More than once, they mention "Dalvik VM and the Android software development kit" as being implicated in the patent infringement. Here's the Android page for developers and here's the What Is Android? page in that developers section.

I notice that James Gosling is quoted as saying that talks have been going on between the two companies for a while, since 2009:

James Gosling, the creator of Java, told Reuters in an interview that Oracle's lawsuit was filed only after the failure of protracted technology licensing negotiations with Google that began long before Sun sold itself to Oracle for $5.6 billion in January.
That's informative too, in that it could indicate Google thinks, after listening to all that Oracle had to say, that it's not liable for any infringement or that Oracle can't prove any or that Oracle was demanding more than Google could accept. Otherwise, if it entered talks, would it not have just paid for a license? It would have been cheaper than litigation. At some point, Google decided to take its chances, I gather. If Google thought Oracle could prevail, it likely wouldn't be putting on its armor now, ready to step onto the field of battle.

On the why of it, Carlo Daffara says that Oracle doesn't care a bit about anger from the community. He suggests two possible motives for Oracle bringing this action:

Why oracle sued? The blogosphere is exploding with possible answers; my own two hypothesis are:

* Oracle found a substantial technology it acquired (Java) losing value in what is the hottest tech market today, namely mobile systems. Sun had no credible plan to update JavaME, no credible alternative, and thus Android (that is loosely java based) is at the same time a threat to an acquired asset and (from their point of view) a stolen technology. Since anyone can follow the same path, Oracle wants to make sure that no one else would try to leverage Java to create an unlicensed (and uncontrolled) copy.

* Oracle wants a piece of the mobile enterprise market, and the alternatives are unavailable (Apple does not want anything to do with Java, Blackberry is a JavaME licensee, Windows Mobile is backed by arch-rival Microsoft). Android is working well, grows incredibly fast, and Oracle wants a piece of it; Google probably rebuffed initial contacts, and now Oracle is showing the guns to make Google obey. I am skeptical, however, that Google would back down on what is becoming its most important growth path. The lawsuit itself is quite weak, and Google would risk too much by licensing the TCK from Oracle; they would basically destroy their opportunity for independent development. It is never a good idea to corner someone – if you leave no alternative, fight is the only answer.

He thinks the first is the more likely. But the truly interesting question isn't why Oracle sued Google. It's why Google let themselves be sued, and in that context, the second makes the most sense. Java is a control freaky thing, and it always was, because it was made in Sun's image. But from Google's perspective, if you can't independently develop the way you want to, it's worth going through litigation to establish your right to do so. And knowing Google, by the time the litigation is finally resolved, they'll have invented some new way to do everything that's needed and they will leave Java behind, choking on their dust.

The copyright claim is a little weird to me. It seems vague. There is a claim for infringement, as well as accusing Google of inducing copyright infringement. It doesn't say what copyrights are being infringed in the complaint, although it does say it has attached an Exhibit H, which we don't yet have. PACER doesn't have this case in its list yet, so we'll have to wait and see what copyrights are involved. I did check the Copyright Office database, and Sun, as opposed to Oracle America, has multiple copyrights listed, not just on Java but on books about Java. If you look at the IBM document again, you'll see it lists the registration number of each copyright it claims is infringed by SCO, the registration date, and the title of each registered copyrighted work. That's in IBM's Eighth Counterclaim. Presumably that will turn up in Exhibit H, but so far all we know is what Oracle America says here:

38. The Java platform contains a substantial amount of original material (including without limitation code, specifications, documentation and other materials) that is copyrightable subject matter under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
One Gartner analyst says Google used clean room development:
When Google developed Android, it included a Java compatible technology called Dalvik with the phone OS. Dalvik was developed as a "clean room" version of Java, meaning Google built it from the ground up without using any Sun technology or intellectual property, said Gartner analyst Ken Dulaney.
I expect Google would say Dalvik was an alternative to Java, not a version of it. If indeed none of the Sun employees that ended up at Google worked on this, and it's built from the ground up without any Sun technology or IP, on what basis can Oracle prevail? Perhaps Oracle figures no room at Google is clean enough. And of course clean room means nothing when it comes to patents.

Oracle America asks as part of its relief for an injunction and seizing all infringing materials, including advertising materials. Say, what? Yes:

45. Oracle America is entitled to an injunction restraining Google from engaging in any further such acts in violation of the United States copyright laws. Unless Google is enjoined and prohibited from infringing Oracle America's copyrights, inducing others to infringe Oracle America's copyrights, and unless all infringing products and advertising materials are seized, Google will continue to intentionally infringe and induce infringement of Oracle America's registered copyrights.
How in the world can ads infringe Oracle's copyrights? They ask that all copies be impounded or otherwise disposed of. Ads? Impounded ads?

All right. Who has kidnapped Michael A. Jacobs and what have you done with him? Actually, it's signed by another Morrison & Foerster lawyer, so he probably wrote it, despite Jacobs and David Boies being listed also.

Again, more seriously, this probably should tell us that Oracle has something specific in mind. Unless that language was a mistake, copied and pasted in from another document. But if not, then there must be advertising that Oracle has seen.

Or it might mean the lawyers were told to throw the book at Google with all their might. When I see this kind of language, I'm thinking, "They want a quick settlement. As big as possible." As in, "Or I'll blow your house down".

They are asking for statutory damages on the copyright infringement but then add: "and damages subject to proof resulting from Google's infringement of the patents and copyrights at issue". Here's what the Copyright Office says about damages:

§ 504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits

(a) In General. — Except as otherwise provided by this title, an infringer of copyright is liable for either —

(1) the copyright owner's actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or

(2) statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c).

(b) Actual Damages and Profits. — The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing the infringer's profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer's gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.

(c) Statutory Damages. —

(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.

(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200.

When you consider the popularity of Android, we're talking real money. Here's the essence of the copyright claim:
39. Without consent, authorization, approval, or license, Google knowingly, willingly, and unlawfully copied, prepared, published, and distributed Oracle America's copyrighted work, portions thereof, or derivative works and continues to do so. Google's Android infringes Oracle America's copyrights in Java and Google is not licensed to do so.

40. On information and belief, users of Android, including device manufacturers, must obtain and use copyrightable portions of the Java platform or works derived therefrom to manufacture and use functioning Android devices. Such use is not licensed. Google has thus induced, caused, and materially contributed to the infringing acts of others by encouraging, inducing, allowing and assisting others to use, copy, and distribute Oracle America's copyrightable works, and works derived therefrom.

I guess it depends on what they mean by derivative works. I get it that they view anyone using an Android as a copyright infringer. But contrast that claim with what this longtime Java developer, Charles Nutter, explains about what Google did and why he thinks it did it and what might result:
Third, the Java language and environment has stagnated. Given years of declining fortunes at Sun Microsystems, disagreement among JCP members about the direction the platform should go, and a year of uncertainty triggered by Sun's collapse and rescue at the hands of Oracle, it's surprising anything's managed to get done at all. Java 7 is now many years overdue; they were talking about it when I joined Sun in 2006, and hoped to have preview releases within a year. For both technical and political reasons, it's taken a long time to bring the platform to the next level, and as a result many of the truly excellent improvements have remained on the shelf (much to my dismay...we really could use them in JRuby). For fast-moving technology hipsters, that's as good as dying on the vine; you need to shift paradigms on a regular schedule or you're yesterday's news.

It's because of these and similar reasons that folks like Google finally said "enough is enough," and opted to start doing their own things. ...

Google decided to take the hard route: they'd fund development of a new platform, building it entirely from open-source components, and leveraging two of the best platform technologies available: Linux, for the kernel, and Java, for the runtime environment. However there was a problem with Java: it was encumbered by all sorts of patents and copyrights and specifications and restrictions....even OpenJDK itself, the most complete and competitive OSS implementation of Java, could not be customized and shipped in binary-only form by hardware manufacturers and service providers due to it being GPL. So the answer was to build a new VM, use unencumbered versions of the core Java class libraries, and basically remake the world in a new, copyright and patent-free image. Android was born.

There's many parts to Android, several of which I'm not really qualified to talk about. But the application environment that runs atop the Dalvik VM needs some explanation.

First, there's the VM. Dalvik is *not* a JVM. It doesn't run JVM bytecode, and you can't ship JVM bytecode expecting it to work on Dalvik. You must recompile it to Dalvik's own bytecode using one of the provided translation tools. This is similar to how IKVM gets Java code to run on .NET: you're not actually running a JVM, you're transforming your code into a different form so it will run on someone else's VM. So it bears repeating, lest anyone get confused: Dalvik is not a JVM...it just plays one on TV.

Second, there's the core Java class libraries. Android supports a rough (but large) subset of the Java 1.5 class libraries. That subset is large enough that projects as complicated as JRuby can basically run unmodified on Android, with very few restrictions (a notable one is the fact that since we can't generate JVM bytecode, we can't reoptimize Ruby code at runtime right now). In order to do this without licensing Sun's class libraries (as most other mainstream Java runtimes like JRockit and J9 do), Google opted to go with the not-quite-complete-but-pretty-close Apache Harmony class libraries, which had for years been developed independent of Sun or OpenJDK but never really tested against the Java compatibility kits (and there's a long and storied history behind this situation).

So by building their own non-JVM VM and using translated versions of non-Sun, non-encumbered class libraries, Google hoped to avoid (or at least blunt) the possibility that their "unofficial", "unlicensed" mobile Java platform might face a legal test. In short, they hoped to build the open mobile Java platform developers wanted without the legal and financial encumbrances of Java ME....

As the Apache Harmony folks know all too well, it's really hard to build a clean-room implementation of Java and expect to get the "spec compliance patent grant" if you don't actually have the tools necessary to show spec compliance. Tossing the code over to Sun to run compliance testing is a nonstarter; the actual test kit is enormous and requires a huge time investment to set up and run (and Sun/Oracle have better things to do with their time than help out a competing OSS Java implementation). If the test kit had been open-sourced before Sun foundered, there would be no problem; everyone that wanted to make an open-source java would just aim for 100% compliance with the spec and all would be well. As it stands, independently implemented (i.e. non-OpenJDK) open-source Java is a really hard thing to create, especially if you have to clean-room implement all the class libraries yourself. Android has neatly dodged this issue by letting Android just be what it is: a subset of a Java-like platform that doesn't actually run Java bytecode and doesn't use any code from OpenJDK.

So just taking a license from Sun in no way gets Google where it wants to be. Not even technically. By the way, the GPL worries are inside their head. It's a bigco thing to imagine that secret code is the Holy Grail. But the problem is in the mobile space, even the GPL'd code isn't plain GPL. OpenJDK is GPL+CPE and not GPL only, as I understand it. Nutter goes on to take a look at the patents, and some of it made me laugh. Even if there were no Bilski, what is Oracle thinking?
I'll again reiterate that I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a Java developer with a logical mind and a penchant for debunking myths about the Java platform.

The collection of patents specified by the suit seems pretty laughable to me. If I were Google, I wouldn't be particularly worried about showing prior art for the patents in question or demonstrating how Android/Dalvik don't actually violate them. Some, like the "mixed mode" patent, don't actually seem to apply at all. It feels very much like a bunch of Sun engineers got together in a room with a bunch of lawyers and started digging for patents that Google might have violated without actually knowing much about Android or Dalvik to begin with.

But does the suit have merit? It depends if you consider baseless or over-general patents to have merit. The most substantial patent listed here is the "mixed mode" patent, and unless I'm wrong that one doesn't apply. The others are all variations on prior art, usually specialized for a Java runtime environment (and therefore with some question as to whether they can apply to a non-Java runtime environment that happens to have a translator from Java code). Having read through the suit and scanned the patents, I have to say I'm not particularly worried. But then again, I don't know what sort of magic David Boies and company might be able to pull off.

Magic? He's worrying about the wrong law firm, I'd say, when it comes to patents. It's MOFO you need to worry about. Boies Schiller are more like the trainees when it comes to patents and IP law. Their specialties, as far as I can see, are more making the absurd sound at least not actionably frivolous and using administrative tricks to drag things out forever and a day, in that they never give up and never give in. And it's the meanest law firm I've ever seen in action. But then, some people want exactly that. It might be viewed as a compliment by them. By the way, you may find the comments on that article of interest too.

Over time, it will all become clearer, this litigation, and the claims. Here, in the meantime, is the section on impounding infringing articles from the Copyright Office, and here is Android.com. I've given up trying to figure out the copyright claim until we have Exhibit H to provide a map or at least a star to guide me.

I can't imagine anyone donating code to Oracle after this. Maybe they don't care about developers, developers, developers, but there are some valuable lessons to learn. And if this lawsuit helps people to see that software patents are a drag on innovation and the economy, and if it helps them to realize that open core is a trap, and that the license you use matters, good. This is the perfect answer to all the apologists who have insisted for years that we don't have to worry about patents. We do. Oracle has shut those mouths with a bang. And now, hopefully, when considering a license, people will be asking, what might happen down the road if a Neanderthal IP-oriented, flesh-eating, blood-sucking interloper company were to get ownership of this community code? Would the license protect the code from their predatory, old-fashioned proprietary ways? Ah! The GPL stars in this context, does it not?

If I were a shareholder, I'd be asking Google why it doesn't choose a license that provides more protection from lawsuits like this one, and I'd be wanting them to fight software patents mightily to the death. But then, that's me. My cross to bear is that I can't invest in any tech companies I write about, which is hard, in that I know a lot about them and could probably do really well, so I'm not a shareholder and I can't tell Google or anybody what to do. It feels, though, like years ago when a boyfriend took me to the track, and I was kind of bored so I was asking an old guy sitting next to us how he picked horses. So he showed me the stats in the paper and explained about mud and age of horse, that sort of thing, and which category the horse was in. So I sat there and spent time figuring out who would win the big race that day. And it did, to everyone's surprise. I picked an obscure horse that I was sure was going to win. It did. But I didn't, and don't, believe in gambling, so I hadn't placed a bet. If I had, I'd have won a ton of money. My boyfriend and our elderly neighbor hadn't trusted my judgment, natch, being "just a girl" and all, so he was furious, and we broke up eventually. Anyway, to me money isn't the most important thing. Which is the difference between me and Oracle, I deduce.

Actually, Java is worse than open core, now that I think of it. Oracle America seems to believe you can't even clean room a Java replacement, and you can't fork it. You are tethered to Oracle, no matter which way you try to twist or turn. Now we know, without footnotes, that Java is, in the mobile space particularly, proprietary, according to its new owner. So the lesson here is: If you want to develop FOSS, it turns out you need to use FOSS tools and FOSS languages. Google will either need to win, hands down, or lose developers who care about FOSS. Because if they just pay Oracle off, everyone will be watching.

What does that leave? Pay Oracle or use something else entirely. If those are the only two choices, guess what will happen with FOSS developers? Who will work on it voluntarily now? Companies can strap their own programmers to the oars and make them row, of course, but no one who is watching this play out will want to volunteer on these terms or can miss the message.

Update: Lamlaw now reminds us of what litigation between two companies is always about:

Oracle can change the old SUN policies. But, Google can use a number of possible defenses against Oracle based upon SUN conduct. So we really have to wait and see before jumping in on the details of the patents themselves.

While it may be true that JAVA does depend upon each of those patents (I make a simple assumption here), it is not true that only a JAVA implementation might do so. It would appear that one or more of those patents could be used against almost any compiler or development system JAVA-like or not. I think that is important to keep in mind.

This is a simple patent enforcement litigation. Albeit software patents. And maybe it will be a good test case to invalidate software patents altogether. Or, substantially change their validity.

But, you have to keep in mind that litigation is always about the money. And that means that a settlement is always on tap.

When I say litigation is always about the money that is true for litigation between companies. If the DOJ or a non profit is involved it might be about politics or sometimes about the principals. But, that is rarely the case between two companies. And most lawyers will argue any side to any case.

Sigh. Splash of cold water.

Update 2: I thought I'd mention a document that we can't find any more on Oracle's website. Perhaps they moved it, but Wayback can't even find it where it was. It's an Oracle white paper dated February of this year, titled "Berkeley DB Java Edition on Android," which was a PDF originally, but if you search for it now, instead of giving you the PDF, it directs you to an Oracle page that doesn't have that paper, not that I can find. But if you search for this:

http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/berkeley-db/pdf/bdb-je-android.pdf

you will find it, and click on Quick View to read it. Here's a snip from the white paper, whose purpose seems to be to extol the virtues of Java on Android:
Recently, Oracle certified JE on the Android platform for devices like the Motorola Droid and HTC Eris smartphones. Android breaks new ground in the device category because it is a Java 2 Standard Edition (J2SE) platform, whereas the previous generations of Java-based devices are predominantly Java Micro Edition (Java ME) based. There are significant differences between J2SE and Java ME in terms richness of libraries and APIs and this creates a big opportunity for improved application capabilities. Most notable are the full-featured Java 5 language support, libraries likejava.util.*and collections, and full multi-threaded support built on the Android Linux kernel.

This paper highlights some of the features and benefits JE offers to the Android application programmer, including performance, scalability, indexing, concurrency control, transactions, and a many- to-many transaction-to-thread model....

Conclusion

Android has created the next generation of mobile device technology by implementing a J2SE stack capable of supporting sophisticated multi- threaded database applications. In turn, Berkeley DB Java Edition and its Direct Persistence Layer provide scalable, transactional data management to the new breed of Android applications and services.

For more information, see:

Oracle Berkeley DB Java Edition
(http://www.oracle.com/database/berkeley-db/je/index.html)

Oracle Berkeley DB Product Family
(http://www.oracle.com/database/berkeley-db/index.html)

Oracle Berkeley DB Blog
(http://blogs.oracle.com/berkeleydb/)

Charles Lamb’s Blog
(http://blogs.oracle.com/charlesLamb/

I wanted to highlight it just in case it has any legal value. It's possible, as I say, that it's somewhere else on Oracle's web site, but I am used to SCO, where important documents kept disappearing.

Update 3: A reader has found it [PDF], on Oracle's website, so it just moved. If you recall, they did a web redesign not long ago, and a lot of things moved.

Here it is, as text then, the complaint, and when Google files its answer, we'll do a chart.

***********************

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (Bar No. 111664) [email] MARC DAVID PETERS (Bar No. 211725)[email] [address, phone, fax]

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
DAVID BOIES (Pro Hac Vice Pending)[email]
[address, phone, fax] STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (Bar No. 144177)[email]
[address, phone, fax]

ORACLE CORPORATION
DORIAN DALEY (Bar No. 129049)[email]
DEBORAH K. MILLER (Bar No. 95527)[email]
MATTHEW M. SARBORARIA (Bar No. 211600)[email]
[address, phone, fax]

Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

_____________________________

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.

Plaintiff,

v.

GOOGLE, INC.

Defendant.

___________________

Case No.

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT AND
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1 Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc., by and through its attorneys, alleges as follows:

PARTIES

1. Oracle America, Inc. ("Oracle America") is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood City, California 94065. Oracle America does business in the Northern District of California.

2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Google, Inc. ("Google") is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California 94043. Google does business in the Northern District of California.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This is an action for patent and copyright infringement arising under the patent and copyright laws of the United States, Titles 35 and 17, United States Code. Jurisdiction as to these claims is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).

4. Venue is proper in the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Google. Google has conducted and does conduct business within the State of California and within this judicial district.

6. Google, directly or through intermediaries, makes, distributes, offers for sale or license, sells or licenses, and advertises its products and services in the United States, the State of California, and the Northern District of California.

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

7. This is an Intellectual Property Action to be assigned on a district-wide basis pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-2(c).

BACKGROUND

8. Oracle Corporation ("Oracle") is one of the world's leading technology companies, providing complete, open, and integrated business software and hardware systems. On January 27, 2010, Oracle acquired Sun Microsystems, Inc. ("Sun"). Sun is now Oracle America, a

1

subsidiary of Oracle. Oracle America continues to hold all of Sun's interest, rights, and title to the patents and copyrights at issue in this litigation.

9. One of the most important technologies Oracle acquired with Sun was the Java platform. The Java platform, which includes code and other documentation and materials, was developed by Sun and first released in 1995. The Java platform is a bundle of related programs, specifications, reference implementations, and developer tools and resources that allow a user to deploy applications written in the Java programming language on servers, desktops, mobile devices, and other devices. The Java platform is especially useful in that it insulates applications from dependencies on particular processors or operating systems. To date, the Java platform has attracted more than 6.5 million software developers. It is used in every major industry segment and has a ubiquitous presence in a wide range of computers, networks, and devices, including cellular telephones and other mobile devices. Sun's development of the Java platform resulted in many computing innovations and the issuance to Sun of a substantial number of important patents.

10. Oracle America is the owner by assignment of United States Patents 16 Nos. 6,125,447; 6,192,476; 5,966,702; 7,426,720; RE38,104; 6,910,205; and 6,061,520, originally issued to Sun. True and correct copies of the patents at issue in this litigation are included as Exhibits A-G.

11. Oracle America owns copyrights in the code, documentation, specifications, libraries, and other materials that comprise the Java platform. Oracle America's Java-related copyrights are registered with the United States Copyright Office, including those attached as Exhibit H.

12. Google's Android competes with Oracle America's Java as an operating system software platform for cellular telephones and other mobile devices. The Android operating system software "stack" consists of Java applications running on a Java-based object-oriented application framework, and core libraries running on a "Dalvik" virtual machine (VM) that features just-in-time (JIT) compilation. Google actively distributes Android (including without

2

limitation the Dalvik VM and the Android software development kit) and promotes its use by manufacturers of products and applications.

13. Android (including without limitation the Dalvik VM and the Android software development kit) and devices that operate Android infringe one or more claims of each of United States Patents Nos. 6,125,447; 6,192,476; 5,966,702; 7,426,720; RE38,104; 6,910,205; and 6,061,520.

14. On information and belief, Google has been aware of Sun's patent portfolio, including the patents at issue, since the middle of this decade, when Google hired certain former Sun Java engineers.

15. On information and belief, Google has purposefully, actively, and voluntarily distributed Android and related applications, devices, platforms, and services with the expectation that they will be purchased, used, or licensed by consumers in the Northern District of California. Android has been and continues to be purchased, used, and licensed by consumers in the Northern District of California. Google has thus committed acts of patent infringement within the State of California and, particularly, within the Northern District of California. By purposefully and voluntarily distributing one or more of its infringing products and services, Google has injured Oracle America and is thus liable to Oracle America for infringement of the patents at issue in this litigation pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.

COUNT I

(Infringement of the '447 Patent)

16. Oracle America hereby restates and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 15 above and incorporates them by reference.

17. On September, 26, 2000, United States Patent No. 6,125,447, ("the '447 patent") entitled "Protection Domains To Provide Security In A Computer System" was duly and legally issued to Sun by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Oracle America is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the '447 patent. A true and correct copy of the '447 patent is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint.

3

18. Google actively and knowingly has infringed and is infringing the '447 patent with knowledge of Oracle America's patent rights and without reasonable basis for believing that Google's conduct is lawful. Google has also induced and contributed to the infringement of the '447 patent by purchasers, licensees, and users of Android, and is continuing to induce and contribute to the infringement of the '447 patent by purchasers, licensees, and users of Android. Google's acts of infringement have been and continue to be willful, deliberate, and in reckless disregard of Oracle America's patent rights. Google is thus liable to Oracle America for infringement of the '447 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.

COUNT II

(Infringement of the '476 Patent)

19. Oracle America hereby restates and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 15 above and incorporates them by reference.

20. On February 20, 2000, United States Patent No. 6,192,476, ("the '476 patent") entitled "Controlling Access To A Resource" was duly and legally issued to Sun by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Oracle America is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the '476 patent. A true and correct copy of the '476 patent is attached as Exhibit B to this Complaint.

21. Google actively and knowingly has infringed and is infringing the '476 patent with knowledge of Oracle America's patent rights and without reasonable basis for believing that Google's conduct is lawful. Google has also induced and contributed to the infringement of the '476 patent by purchasers, licensees, and users of Android, and is continuing to induce and contribute to the infringement of the '476 patent by purchasers, licensees, and users of Android. Google's acts of infringement have been and continue to be willful, deliberate, and in reckless disregard of Oracle America's patent rights. Google is thus liable to Oracle America for infringement of the '476 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.

4

COUNT III

(Infringement of the '702 Patent)

22. Oracle America hereby restates and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 15 above and incorporates them by reference.

23. On October 12, 1999, United States Patent No. 5,966,702, ( ("the '702 patent") entitled "Method And Apparatus For Preprocessing And Packaging Class Files" was duly and legally issued to Sun by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Oracle America is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the '702 patent. A true and correct copy of the '702 patent is attached as Exhibit C to this Complaint.

24. Google actively and knowingly has infringed and is infringing the '702 patent with knowledge of Oracle America's patent rights and without reasonable basis for believing that Google's conduct is lawful. Google has also induced and contributed to the infringement of the '702 patent by purchasers, licensees, and users of Android, and is continuing to induce and contribute to the infringement of the '702 patent by purchasers, licensees, and users of Android. Google's acts of infringement have been and continue to be willful, deliberate, and in reckless disregard of Oracle America's patent rights. Google is thus liable to Oracle America for infringement of the '702 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.

COUNT IV

(Infringement of the '720 Patent)

25. Oracle America hereby restates and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 15 above and incorporates them by reference.

26. On September 16, 2008, United States Patent No. 7,426,720, ("the '720 patent") entitled "System And Method For Dynamic Preloading Of Classes Through Memory Space Cloning Of A Master Runtime System Process" was duly and legally issued to Sun by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Oracle America is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the '720 patent. A true and correct copy of the '720 patent is attached as Exhibit D to this Complaint.

5

27. Google actively and knowingly has infringed and is infringing the '720 patent with knowledge of Oracle America's patent rights and without reasonable basis for believing that Google's conduct is lawful. Google has also induced and contributed to the infringement of the '720 patent by purchasers, licensees, and users of Android, and is continuing to induce and contribute to the infringement of the '720 patent by purchasers, licensees, and users of Android. Google's acts of infringement have been and continue to be willful, deliberate, and in reckless disregard of Oracle America's patent rights. Google is thus liable to Oracle America for infringement of the '720 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.

COUNT V

(Infringement of the '104 Patent)

28. Oracle America hereby restates and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 15 above and incorporates them by reference.

29. On April 29, 2003, United States Patent No. RE38,104, ("the '104 patent") entitled "Method And Apparatus For Resolving Data References In Generate Code" was duly and legally issued to Sun by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Oracle America is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the '104 patent. A true and correct copy of the '104 patent is attached as Exhibit E to this Complaint.

30. Google actively and knowingly has infringed and is infringing the '104 patent with knowledge of Oracle America's patent rights and without reasonable basis for believing that Google's conduct is lawful. Google has also induced and contributed to the infringement of the '104 patent by purchasers, licensees, and users of Android, and is continuing to induce and contribute to the infringement of the '104 patent by purchasers, licensees, and users of Android. Google's acts of infringement have been and continue to be willful, deliberate, and in reckless disregard of Oracle America's patent rights. Google is thus liable to Oracle America for infringement of the '104 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C.§ 271.

6

COUNT VI

(Infringement of the '205 Patent)

31. Oracle America hereby restates and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 15 above and incorporates them by reference.

32. On June 21, 2005, United States Patent No. 6,910,205, ("the '205 patent") entitled "Interpreting Functions Utilizing A Hybrid Of Virtual And Native Machine Instructions" was duly and legally issued to Sun by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Oracle America is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the '205 patent. A true and correct copy of the '205 patent is attached as Exhibit F to this Complaint.

33. Google actively and knowingly has infringed and is infringing the '205 patent with knowledge of Oracle America's patent rights and without reasonable basis for believing that Google's conduct is lawful. Google has also induced and contributed to the infringement of the '205 patent by purchasers, licensees, and users of Android, and is continuing to induce and contribute to the infringement of the '205 patent by purchasers, licensees, and users of Android. Google's acts of infringement have been and continue to be willful, deliberate, and in reckless disregard of Oracle America's patent rights. Google is thus liable to Oracle America for infringement of the '205 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.

COUNT VII

(Infringement of the '520 Patent)

34. Oracle America hereby restates and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 15 above and incorporates them by reference.

35. On May 9, 2000, United States Patent No. 6,061,520, ("the '520 patent") entitled "Method And System for Performing Static Initialization" was duly and legally issued to Sun by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Oracle America is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the '520 patent. A true and correct copy of the '520 patent is attached as Exhibit G to this Complaint.

36. Google actively and knowingly has infringed and is infringing the '520 patent with knowledge of Oracle America's patent rights and without reasonable basis for believing that

7

Google's conduct is lawful. Google has also induced and contributed to the infringement of the '520 patent by purchasers, licensees, and users of Android, and is continuing to induce and contribute to the infringement of the '520 patent by purchasers, licensees, and users of Android. Google's acts of infringement have been and continue to be willful, deliberate, and in reckless disregard of Oracle America's patent rights. Google is thus liable to Oracle America for infringement of the '520 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.

COUNT VIII

(Copyright Infringement)

37. Oracle America hereby restates and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 15 above and incorporates them by reference.

38. The Java platform contains a substantial amount of original material (including without limitation code, specifications, documentation and other materials) that is copyrightable subject matter under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.

39. Without consent, authorization, approval, or license, Google knowingly, willingly, and unlawfully copied, prepared, published, and distributed Oracle America's copyrighted work, portions thereof, or derivative works and continues to do so. Google's Android infringes Oracle America's copyrights in Java and Google is not licensed to do so.

40. On information and belief, users of Android, including device manufacturers, must obtain and use copyrightable portions of the Java platform or works derived therefrom to manufacture and use functioning Android devices. Such use is not licensed. Google has thus induced, caused, and materially contributed to the infringing acts of others by encouraging, inducing, allowing and assisting others to use, copy, and distribute Oracle America's copyrightable works, and works derived therefrom.

41. On information and belief, Google's direct and induced infringements are and have been knowing and willful.

42. By this unlawful copying, use, and distribution, Google has violated Oracle America's exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106.

8

43. Google has realized unjust profits, gains and advantages as a proximate result of its infringement.

44. Google will continue to realize unjust profits, gains and advantages as a proximate result of its infringement as long as such infringement is permitted to continue.

45. Oracle America is entitled to an injunction restraining Google from engaging in any further such acts in violation of the United States copyright laws. Unless Google is enjoined and prohibited from infringing Oracle America's copyrights, inducing others to infringe Oracle America's copyrights, and unless all infringing products and advertising materials are seized, Google will continue to intentionally infringe and induce infringement of Oracle America's registered copyrights.

46. As a direct and proximate result of Google's direct and indirect willful copyright infringement, Oracle America has suffered, and will continue to suffer, monetary loss to its business, reputation, and goodwill. Oracle America is entitled to recover from Google, in amounts to be determined at trial, the damages sustained and will sustain, and any gains, profits, and advantages obtained by Google as a result of Google's acts of infringement and Google's use and publication of the copied materials.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Oracle America prays for judgment as follows:

A. Entry of judgment holding Google liable for infringement of the patents and copyrights at issue in this litigation;

B. An order permanently enjoining Google, its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and affiliated companies, its assigns and successors in interest, and those persons in active concert or participation with it, from continued acts of infringement of the patents and copyrights at issue in this litigation;

C. An order that all copies made or used in violation of Oracle America's copyrights, and all means by which such copies may be reproduced, be impounded and destroyed or otherwise reasonably disposed of;

D. An order awarding Oracle America statutory damages and damages according to

9

proof resulting from Google's infringement of the patents and copyrights at issue in this litigation, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest;

E. Trebling of damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 in view of the willful and deliberate nature of Google's infringement of the patents at issue in this litigation;

F. An order awarding Oracle America its costs and attorney's fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and 17 U.S.C. § 505; and

G. Any and all other legal and equitable relief as may be available under law and which the court may deem proper.

DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL

Oracle America demands a jury trial for all issues so triable. 21

10

Dated: August 12, 2010

By: [signature of Marc David Peters]

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (Bar No. 111664) [email]
MARC DAVID PETERS (Bar No. 211725) [email]
[address, phone, fax]

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
DAVID BOIES (Pro Hac Vice Pending) [email]
[address, phone, fax]
STEPHEN C. HOLTZMAN (Bar No. 144177)[email]
[address, phone, fax]

ORACLE CORPORATION
MATTHEW M. SARBORARIA (Bar No. 211600) [email]
[address, phone, fax]

Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.


  


Oracle America's complaint against Google, as text - Updated 3Xs | 381 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections go here
Authored by: darksepulcher on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 07:23 AM EDT
Please use this thread for corrections and the like so PJ can find them quickly.

---
Had I but time--As this fell Sergeant, Death
Is strict in his arrest--O, I could tell you--
But let it be.
(Hamlet, Act V Scene 2)

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks go here
Authored by: darksepulcher on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 07:24 AM EDT
When discussing a News Pick, please mention the title so we can all follow
along. Thank you.

---
Had I but time--As this fell Sergeant, Death
Is strict in his arrest--O, I could tell you--
But let it be.
(Hamlet, Act V Scene 2)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off-Topic Threads go here
Authored by: darksepulcher on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 07:26 AM EDT
Please keep things tidy by keeping all off-topic ramblings confined to this
thread. Post anything on-topic in here and I'll petition PJ to have offenders
locked in a room full of bag-pipe music... playing whiny protest songs from the
60s. :P

---
Had I but time--As this fell Sergeant, Death
Is strict in his arrest--O, I could tell you--
But let it be.
(Hamlet, Act V Scene 2)

[ Reply to This | # ]

One thing occured to me...
Authored by: jesse on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 07:32 AM EDT
Neither Oracle nor Google are fond of software patents...

Could this be an indirect attack by both to show the stupidity of software
patents?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Declaration of non-infringement?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 07:36 AM EDT
I thought that one way to avoid punitive damages when a dispute broke down was
for Google to be the plaintiff and seek a declaration of non-infringement before
Oracle put their action in.

Can anyone tell me why hasn't Google followed this route?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle America's complaint against Google, as text
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 07:42 AM EDT

Projects Hosted on oss.oracle.com

Title Description
ASMLib Kernel Driver ASMLib is a library addon for the Automatic Storage Manager of Oracle Database 10g. This is the kernel driver for a generic Linux implementation of ASMLib. aspectj none Btrfs A Checksumming Copy on Write Filesystem cancd This is the CA NetConsole Daemon, a daemon to receive output from the Linux netconsole driver. Code Fragments Miscellaneous code fragments Compatibility Software to aid using Oracle on various Linux distributions. coreutils Modified versions of GNU coreutils CRFS A Cache Coherent Networked File System CVSMan A system for managing distributed files via CVS Endpoint Firewire disk emulation Firewire Software for firewire clustering FSCat Cat filesystem contents from devices. GDB pstack Print stack traces of running programs (wrapper around GDB) hangcheck-timer A kernel module for detecting kernel pauses. Kernel Features Discussion and white papers on desired kernel features Kernel Patches Miscellaneous kernel patches KHarness A testing harness for the Linux Kernel. libaio-oracle SUSv2 interface to Linux kernel asynchronous I/O Linux Data Integrity Project A framework for proactive data integrity protection in Linux. Lymph Simple node existence services, including the hospital daemon Mac OS X Libraries Source code of libraries linked in with Oracle for Mac OS X Makebo Simple underpinning for projects using Autoconf Mozilla Extensions and enhancements to various Mozilla projects mvalent none NIC Failover Network card failover support for Linux OCFS Oracle Clustered File System OCFS Test Framework for testing OCFS OCFS Tools Tools and support files for creating and managing OCFS volumes. OCFS2 General-purpose cluster file system OCFS2 Testing Suite A simple MPI-based testing environment to stress and validate OCFS2. OCFS2 Tools Tools and support files for creating and managing OCFS2 volumes. Oracle ASMLib Support Oracle Linux ASMLib is a library addon for the Automatic Storage Manager of Oracle Database 10g. This package provides the support utilities. Oracle AspectJ Modifications Oracle modifications to AspectJ Project (Eclipse Public License 1.0) source files. Oracle Eclipse Distributions Download Eclipse Foundation distributions, as well as Oracle distributions like Workshop and Enterprise Pack for Eclipse. Oracle Glassfish Modifications Oracle modifications to Glassfish Project (CDDL-licensed) source files. Oracle Linux Test (OLT) Kit Oracle Linux Tests are designed to verify Linux kernel functionality and stability essential for the Oracle Database. Oracle Mozilla eXtension The Mozilla Thunderbird Extension for Oracle Collaboration Suite users OraSim Job Files Various job files for OraSim for different workloads Package Manager Utilities Package Manager Utilities for Portal System Controller. Contains the RPM and YUM open source software required by PSC. PHP RPMs A set of PHP 5.2.13 RPM packages built for Enterprise Linux 4.8 and 5.4 Pitchfork Pitchfork RASTA The RASTA system for template driven tasks RDS Reliable Datagram Sockets rds-tools none RHAS21 Kernels Kernels for Red Hat Advanced Server 2.1 RHEL3 Kernels Kernels for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 RHEL4 Kernels Kernels for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 Sourcebo A collaborative development system Test Lab Linux Test Lab information Timbo The Timbo internationalization system Transcendent Memory new approach to managing physical memory in a virtualized system Userfs Userspace filesystems with GnomeVFS Watchdog Patches for watchdog driver improvements xen-debugger kdb and gdbserver debuggers for xen Yast Yast resources

[ Reply to This | # ]

Perhaps Google could phase out Dalvik on Android
Authored by: TiddlyPom on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 08:11 AM EDT
Painful though it might be, perhaps Google could pay off Oracle (for now) and
then transition to either Ruby or Python for Android 3.0. After all, they have
already ported Ruby and Python to Android (although these run on top of Dalvik
as JPython and JRuby).

It can't be that hard to produce a version of CPython 3 for Android (I have
thought of trying this myself) or even a full version of Ruby (C/C++). Dalvik
and (say) CPython could co-exist for now until Dalvik applications become
deprecated (and perhaps the user has to pay for an Oracle license to use them if
they want to).

Just a thought.

---
Microsoft Software is expensive, bloated, bug-ridden and unnecessary.
Use Open Source Software instead.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle America's complaint against Google, as text
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 08:16 AM EDT
I go away on vacation for a few days and everything's changed. The last I
remember about Oracle and Sun was that we were supposed to be urging the
government authorities to allow Oracle to acquire Sun.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Dalvek similarities with the LLVM
Authored by: Gringo on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 08:26 AM EDT

I just wanted to draw your attention to this comment I just posted to the original article on Oracle vs Google.

It refers to a Java bytecode front end for the Low Level Virtual Machine (LLVM), a compiler designed for optimization of programs written in arbitrary programming languages.

I was looking to see who is experimenting with this and input the phrase "Java bytecode front end for the Low Level Virtual Machine" into Google. That brought up many references that I leave to you for follow up, including this interesting discussion about what are the differences between LLVM and Java.

[ Reply to This | # ]

about GPLv3
Authored by: nola on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 08:31 AM EDT
I wonder if this will suggest to Linus that he change his position on GPLv3?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • about GPLv3 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 11:07 AM EDT
  • about GPLv3 - Authored by: ledow on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 11:46 AM EDT
    • BZZT! Wrong - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 02:36 PM EDT
    • about GPLv3 - Authored by: Wol on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 08:41 PM EDT
Wait, MoFo and BSF are allies now?
Authored by: Henning Makholm on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 08:37 AM EDT
I want my black-and-white worldview back!

[ Reply to This | # ]

A fairly decent rationalization for this suit
Authored by: kehall on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 08:43 AM EDT
T he Register has a pretty good explanation for what's supposedly going on here. In a nutshell, Dalvik may be a clean room version of Java, and therefore not covered by copyrights, but in Oracle's mind, it IS covered by the patents.

Had Google used the GPL version of Java, this suit might not have been possible, but they didn't. Google has a license to use Java in mobile devices, but that's for Java ME, which Google determined to be inadequate for Android. Dalvik is based on Java SE, but Google is only licensed to use SE on desktops, not mobile devices, hence the suit. The royalties payable to Sun/Oracle are higher for SE than ME, so Oracle stands to gain quite a bit more if they can force Google into a licensing deal for SE.

The Dalvik developers and individuals using Dalvik are left alone because Dalvik is an open source project, and there's nothing to be made by suing those folks. Dalvik is considered a "non-certified" Java platform anyway, so nobody is supposed to use it for "serious" applications.

I'm not taking a position on the merits of this argument, read the article and form your own conclusions.

[ Reply to This | # ]

All patented software is a monkey trap
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 08:46 AM EDT
Look at that yummy food that stupid hunter just left in that hole. All I have
to do is to reach in and grab it. Hah, Got it! Hmm, now I can't seem to get my
fist out. Oh no, here comes the hunter again! Must get hand out! But can't let
go of food! Noooo! My food! MINE! <WHACK>

Don't be that monkey. Don't put your hand in the Java hole, and for the love of
the Monkey God, don't pass it by and go for the C# hole instead. Sooner or
later, your hand will go in but not come out again, then it's monkey brains for
lunch.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle America's complaint against Google, as text
Authored by: Stumbles on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 08:52 AM EDT
Not that this is definitive in any way but this guy seems to have some relevant thoughts about the patents Oracle is claiming; Defending Free Software against Oracle's attack

---
You can tuna piano but you can't tune a fish.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Java is dead as a FOSS language
Authored by: philc on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 09:13 AM EDT
May it rest in peace.

Tuition in the college of hard knocks is often expensive. Sometimes it takes
several courses to finally learn the lessons.

The Linux developers learned the lesson with source control. They now use GIT.
Developers are about to learn the lesson on Java.

If you want to develop FOSS, you MUST use FOSS languages and tools.

Java is a proprietary language. Its use is controlled by proprietary
corporations however they choose.

Ultimately Google will be forced to offer a FOSS tool chain if it wants to
attract FOSS developers. Or they have to win in a convincing way.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Part of a larger picture?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 09:39 AM EDT
I've spent the morning reading all the media coverage I
could find on this suit. It's amazing the degree of
inaccuracy, even within the technical net. The best
comments I've come across to date were at Redmonk.

The most glaring problem with coverage has been the notion
that Oracle is suing Google over Google's use of Java on
Android. I think we need to be clear that there is no Java
on Android. No Java VM, no Java byte code, No Java class
libraries. This realization puts a completely different
color on the lawsuit.

But what of the larger picture? As both Redmonk and
Updegrove mention, the simplest view of this as purely
financial does not answer all questions as to Oracle's
motivation or goals.

Building on what they have said, I would add two additional
items that occur to me.

1. There's an old saying, "if you can't lick 'em, join 'em."
I would expand this to "if you can't lick 'em, and don't
want to join 'em, then become a parasite upon them." This
may be a bit of it.

2. Add this to what I postulate as part of the larger
picture: Oracle views much of what Google is doing as
profoundly disruptive, in the space where Oracle makes
significant revenue. They may figure that they can't lick
them, and don't want to join them, so hey, let's just get
money out of them.

Where I am adding to what other commentators have said, is
the scope of Google's disruptive technology impact. To
those who think of Google only as a
Search/Service/Advertising entity, this may not make any
sense - Oracle is not a web search giant. But Google is
having a very disruptive impact on many areas of data
processing and intelligence.

While Google does not open-source it's crown jewels, such
disruptive technology as the Hadoop family, HDFS, Hadoop,
HBase, Zookeeper, etc. are based on several excellent
research papers that Google (and to some extent, Amazon)
have published, as well as direct works by the same.

These sorts of technologies are not, I think, very likely to
put too large a dent in the relational database market. But
in some sectors, both horizontal and vertical, they are
bidding fair to make significant inroads on network centric
or network based data processing, business intelligence,
etc. This in turn is likely to have significant impact on
Oracle offerings, such as the WebLogic suite and others,
which deal with processing data, rather than the core of
storage and retrieval of that data.

It may be here that Oracle feels it needs to arrive at some
'accommodation' with Google. If this is a factor, it would
lend further support to the idea that the lawsuit is a
strategic move on the part of Oracle to arrive at patent
and/or technology licensing agreements with Google, both as
defensive and proactive means of defending and enhancing
Oracle's bottom line going forward in the longer term.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • pithy aphorism - Authored by: nsomos on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 11:23 AM EDT
  • Not exactly - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 01:10 PM EDT
    • No - Authored by: cjk fossman on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 03:15 PM EDT
      • No - Authored by: PJ on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 03:20 PM EDT
        • No - Authored by: Jimbob0i0 on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 05:46 PM EDT
    • Not exactly - Authored by: DannyB on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 04:46 PM EDT
    • Not exactly - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 17 2010 @ 05:38 AM EDT
  • Java... it's in there... - Authored by: BitOBear on Tuesday, August 17 2010 @ 03:11 AM EDT
    • Dalvik source - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 17 2010 @ 03:33 AM EDT
Coordination with Apple?
Authored by: Carlo Graziani on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 09:40 AM EDT
I am curious, given that this is the second major patent-based attack on Android
this year (the first one being Apple's lawsuit against HTC), about whether there
is evidence of coordination between Oracle and Apple.

These are two corporations that have a commonality of world-view when it comes
to fierce --- even vicious --- defense of their software properties, and
affection for closed, proprietary, un-invadable walled gardens. They have set
out to cripple the only real possibility for an open environment in the mobile
space. Without getting too sentimental about Google's ethics (which I
distrust), I would say that Google is now legslly beset by two corporations that
are conspicuous for their sociopathic, predatory outlooks.

It seems not impossible to me that Oracle and Apple could have identified enough
common interest in kneecapping Android to have decided on a legal division of
labor, with Apple going after the devices (HTC) and Oracle doing sapper work on
the system software.

I have no evidence to point to, and am the first to admit that I'm offering up
no more than a superficially-plausible conspiracy theory. But that superficial
plausibility is enough to at least remain alert for further signs of
coordination, in my opinion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle America's complaint against Google, as text
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 09:49 AM EDT
By any chance has Oracle hired Darl McBride in a senior role lately?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle America's complaint against Google, as text
Authored by: mutlu on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 10:01 AM EDT
There is a nicely short analysis of the patent claims by KDE bindings developer Richard Dale. He is not a lawyer and only did this superficially, but it is certainly an interesting read: Blog posting

[ Reply to This | # ]

Guess the $$$ amount for a quick settlement?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 11:22 AM EDT
With the lawsuit clearly going for the jugular when it tries to ban the Android
Advertising, they clearly want a 'quickie'. But the question remains how much
for the deal?

My guess would be in the region of the amount that Oracle paid for Sun.
I like to think that Mr Ellison would say 'That will do nicely' at that amount.

somehow I don't think Sergei will want to write a cheque for anywhere near that
amount.

7 more years in court anyone?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle America's complaint against Google, as text
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 11:40 AM EDT
It will be interesting to see how things would develop in the jury trials Oracle
is asking for. Everybody uses Google and benefits somehow from them. Just a few
use Oracle.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Dalvik and dx are not Java and owe nothing to Java
Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 12:05 PM EDT
This is a comment from the previous article, recycled and changed, somewhat.

Because it is long, I have provided it as a child comment.

What it boils down to is that the only part of Java that Android employs is the
Java high-level language. The reasons are given why this is not protectable.

It also discusses the fact that Oracle America maintain that Java is not limited
to a particular, or specific, machine and that, in any action based on Java
patents, the courts can use the Supremes Bilski decision to use the particular
machine test to help decide that the patents are invalid.

It also explains how, now that Oracle America have destroyed the Java
environment for most developers, It is a trivial task to provide an alternative
high-level language for Android. Then it needs nothing from Java.

I can understand how developers that have licenced Java will continue to use it
as it is supported on so many platforms. However, Dalvik is better. it could be
engineered as a secure environment to run small programs safely within a full
Linux distribution. it would be a good system for KDE desktop apps, for
example.

Would the fact that Google will not port it to Windows or SnowLeopard slow its
progress? Steve Jobs will not accept it because it is too dangerous for his
mobile platform. Microsoft will continue to use Java.

It matters not a jot. This action has guaranteed the further success of Android
and it can become a unique selling point for Linux distributions in general; a
selling point that competing operating systems will not match.

---
Regards
Ian Al
SCOG, what ever happened to them? Whatever, it was less than they deserve.

[ Reply to This | # ]

old SCO, old Sun
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 12:05 PM EDT
Didn't Sun buy Unix Sources from SCO, BTW?

cb

[ Reply to This | # ]

Either I have misunderstood what Dalvik is...
Authored by: Vic on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 12:13 PM EDT
...Or Oracle has.

With everything I've read so far, I keep coming back to one thought[1]: this lot
only makes sense if Dalvik were an alternative JVM.

If you read through Oracle's complaint with that in mind, it seems perfectly
legitimate - it would indeed infringe on those patents, and would probably
infringe on copyright (to be proven, of course).

The only fly in Oracle's ointment, AIUI, is that Dalvik isn't a JVM at all.

So have I misunderstood what Dalvik is? Or has Oracle?

Vic.

[1] Actually, two thoughts - but the other one is poorly-formed, and probably
irrelevant to this discussion: what ever happened to that Java patent that SCO
was touting as more precious than rubies?


---
http://solectronics.co.uk
Solving problems with Free Software

[ Reply to This | # ]

Spinning down to extinction
Authored by: kawabago on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 01:05 PM EDT
I hope we aren't going to watch Oracle spin around the drain flinging lawsuits
everywhere like another Szombie (SCOzombie) (hmmm maybe SCOracle is better).
Even a behemoth can shrivel and die if it runs in the red too long.

Writing a new implementation of the Java specification is not infringement and
Java patents can't be tied to a specific machine because Java was designed to be
platform independent. Sounds like frivolous prosecution to me but I'm a biased
observer.

No matter what happens, Oracle won't have foreseen it! Kind of funny when you
think about it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is why Google should attack software patents per se
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 01:17 PM EDT
The more I see about all this, the more I'm convinced Google
should be the one the challenge the validity of software
patents per se. How long will it be before Microsoft joins
the fray? How many more lawsuits does Google want to put up
with?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Quality of the writing
Authored by: AMackenzie on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 01:18 PM EDT
There might not be much good about this document, but at least it is cleanly
written, sharp, and to the point. It's such a pleasant change from SCO's
filings' rambling turgid sophistry.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why are so many companies incorporated in Delaware?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 01:19 PM EDT
As an only vaguely legally minded Brit, I'm just curious as to why so many of
the companies that we see in these legal documents are incorporated in Delaware
with their Head Office anywhere but Delaware.

Is there a significant business advantage to it or is it so they can choose to
use Delaware state laws or what?

I apologize if this has been brought up before, but there are a lot of posts and
comments to go through to find the answer:)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can't keep PJ's opinion of Sun Java straight
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 01:38 PM EDT
Google does release software under the GPL. They have no qualms with the GPL.
They wrote Dalvik because Java ME is stuck in the past (limited to Java 1.3).

They released Dalvik as non-GPL open source because -- although Google is fine
with the GPL -- they expected mobile phone companies to be a little wary of the
GPL, even with the Classpath exception. And by removing that impediment, Google
managed to create a fast growing mobile platform.

What I'm having trouble with is PJ's constant statements about how Google
shouldn't fear the GPL'ed Sun Java codebase, but at the same time PJ says that
(1) Stallman was correct when he talked about the Java trap, (2) to avoid
trouble like this you need to use only FOSS tools and FOSS languages -- even
though I suspect PJ believes Java as released under the GPL is a FOSS tool and a
FOSS language.

Maybe somebody can help me square these statements?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Clean-Room Java
Authored by: sproggit on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 01:58 PM EDT
PJ writes,
Actually, Java is worse than open core, now that I think of it. Oracle America seems to believe you can't even clean room a Java replacement, and you can't fork it.
I may well be wrong, but I suspect that "Oracle America" are trying to develop a revisionist history of JAVA. For example, see here, where you can see that not only do "Oracle America" (e.g. Sun) have a published "Language Specification" for Java, but they actually let you download that document for free...

To illustrate this assertion, I am going to use an example which I am afraid I am having some difficulty in backing up with a concrete, verifiable fact. But I'm sure one or more of my fellow Groklawrians should be able to help...

Back in the day, IBM decided that they liked the look of JAVA and decided that it would be good to have the language running on their own platforms. [ In case you're not aware, one of their most successful technologies, WebSphere Application Server, is a web application server that is designed from the ground up to run JAVA Applications, up to and including EJBs (Enterprise JAVA Beans) ]. WebSphere is offered by IBM on all of their platforms, including the Mainframe (zOS / OS/390) and the Midrange (iSeries / OS/400) technologies.

My understanding (having been a "tekkie" who used to support WebSphere) was that IBM first ported JAVA to the iSeries host. They did this by taking Sun's published language specification and writing their own implementation of it for the iSeries host. Think of this a bit like different computers all being able to talk to a TCP/IP network, like the internet, because they have all implemented the appropriate Internet Standards (RFCs).

IBM chose to use the iSeries as their first machine test study because JAVA is an object-oriented programming language and the iSeries is an object-oriented machine (literally, from the ground up, it's designed to be O-O in nature). They discovered that there were startling synergies between the requirements of the JVM and the way that the iSeries platform, with it's MI (Machine Interface) had been architected.

Now, the context in which I had the original conversation with the IBMer (and, Sir, I apologise for being unable to recall your name after approximately 10 years or so!) is that when IBM made the port, they actually came up with better ways to write the language than Sun had. In other words, IBM wrote a better implementation of JAVA than Sun themselves...

Because this happened back at a time when there was cooperation between vendors, the story I was told was that IBM then contributed their enhancements back to Sun. Even more sketchy in my memory is that these enhancements had something to do with garbage collection and memory management and resulted in (I think) the 1.4 release of JAVA, but I may be wrong with that, as 1.4 was I think 2002 and slightly later than I recall.

But to get back to the point...

PJ states in her characterisation that Oracle America now believe that you "can't even clean room a JAVA replacement". Thing is, we know for a fact that JAVA has been ported to platforms over which Sun has no control. This did not happen by magic. Sun must have, in some way or other, either knowingly and with consent or otherwise, allowed this to happen. One route would be for a company to download the document contained in the link, above, and write their own implementation from scratch.

To be fair, we've also seen issues with this. Anyone remember when Microsoft "modified" JAVA on Windows so that by default the bytecode produced contained proprietary Microsoft extensions that prohibited the code from running on any other platform? Sun went after Microsoft for that, and were successful. But they did so because Microsoft were attempting to pevert the JAVA standard.

I read PJ's analysis and after doing so I am not at all convinced that Oracle America have the strongest foundation on which to build their case.

Time will tell...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Technical Misconceptions
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 02:07 PM EDT

There are lots of good posts here, but a number of them are plain wrong about Dalvik. PJ's comments don't illuminate things well either in this post.

What's interesting about this issue (and from the comments on-line about it, I think that Google has got their work cut out for them explaining this exceedingly fine point to a 70+ year old judge) is that Dalvik DOES rely on java technology to do what it does, not just a language specification.

It does NOT, as other commenters have stated here, "compile java source code". What it does instead is take code that has been compiled to run on the JVM (Java Bytecode), and translate it to "Dalvik Bytecode", or a .dex file.

So, as a developer, you need some sort of java compiler to work with Android: Dalvik isn't going to compile your sourcecode for you. Once you've compiled it with your (free- ish, easy to obtain, and definitely not-the-expensive Java- ME version) Java compiler, Dalvik will dive into that bytecode, get things set up properly for the Dalvik Virtual Machine, and you're good to go on an Android phone.

This is, to my mind, at the heart of the matter: imagine you wrote a software program that had a free version and an expensive version. The expensive version is protected by patents, among other things.

Google comes along, and gives away a tool to one hundred million end-users allowing them to get all the 'expensive' stuff out of your 'free' version. Are you pissed about this? Do you dig through your pockets and contracts trying to figure out what you can do about it?

If you're Oracle, you're actually kind of happy, because you can unleash the litigators..

At any rate, there will be much discussion, segmenting and dissecting of what exactly it means when you do this bytecode translation that relies on outputs from a java compiler, so I think it's worth having our heads around the process.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"All the Sun people who'd never do this in a million years"
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 02:27 PM EDT

Would they be the Sun people who did more or less the same thing to Microsoft, when Microsoft tried to destroy Java's portability in a similar way to what Google is trying to do?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why other countries should not "harmonize" with U.S. law
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 02:45 PM EDT
This is just another example of why other countries should not try to
"harmonize" with U.S. law. Is this the kind of thing you want in your
country? Oracle and Microsoft and SCO?

[ Reply to This | # ]

How long will it take Google to write new software?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 03:25 PM EDT
I would like to think Google is now working furiously on a wholesale replacement
for Java stuff that can be easily downloaded by the user while preserving the
user's data. I just wonder how long this will take. And, moreover, how long it
will take for Google's new stuff to become the new standard and leave Java in
the dust.

If so, Oracle's Java revenue stream will dry up rather quickly. Google still may
have to pay damages up to the moment of replacement software, but I would bet it
will be cheaper than paying ongoing license fees. Oracle will get a residual
revenue stream until replacements for Java can be found.

Or does Oracle's patents cover any replacement, too, completely independent of
Java? If they do, this is another reason to challenge software patents per se.

By the way, what are the legal questions of a patent changing hands from a
company with a lenient attitude to one who changes the rules in the middle of
the game without warning?

And PJ, even if it was a simple miscalculation by Ellison, no one will ever
trust Oracle again. You can't put this genie back in the bottle.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is what you have in store with Mono, too
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 04:25 PM EDT
An Oracle-type lawsuit is exactly what you have to look forward to if you use
Mono and C#.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How do you find the best lawyers?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 06:31 PM EDT
BSF and MoFo together sounds scary, but are they the best lawyers out there? I
wonder if Oracle found them using a Google search. I wonder who Google comes up
with after they do their own search.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OK now up to speed :-) This is going to be interesting!
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 07:25 PM EDT
I think Oracle are full of it and will be laughed out of court...

Then again this is the "Alice in Wonderland" US legal system...

I hope that Google have done their homework and can tell Oracle to go forth and
multiply.

____
HTC Desire User.



---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle America's complaint against Google, as text - Updated 2Xs
Authored by: JohnF on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 07:26 PM EDT
I remember some 30 years or so ago there was a system called UCSD P-System the
details I show below: -

UCSD p-System Overview
The UCSD p-System was a highly portable operating system that ran programs whose
object code was pseudocode for an idealized 16-bit processor. The p-System
contained an interpreter for this virtual machine. Programs were thus
object-code-compatible across different hardware platforms.
The p-System was developed at the University of California at San Diego, by a
team headed by Kenneth W. Bowles. The commercial rights to the system were
eventually sold to SofTech Microsystems of San Diego. The licensing terms
appear to have been rather confusing, and there are quite a few articles and
memos from 1979 attempting to clarify the situation.
The UCSD p-System was also referred to as the UCSD Pascal System, but this name
was misleading. It's true that almost all development for the system was done
in UCSD's implementation of Pascal, but other languages were available.
SoftTech Microsystems sold a FORTRAN compiler, and other organizations also sold
or distributed other language processors.
As of 1980, the UCSD p-System (now being called the UCSD System) was available
on DEC PDP-11 (separate versions for true PDP-11, LSI-11, and Terak), Intel 8080
/ Zilog Z-80, Motorola 6800, and 6502 systems. A TI 9900 version was
occasionally mentioned in product literature, but apparently wasn't available by
1980. Later, Western Digital developed a microprocessor whose instruction set
was UCSD p-code. It ran the p-System much faster than processors which had to
emulate the p-System instructions, but Western Digital's microprocessor never
sold well.
p-System compared to Java
There are obvious similarities between the UCSD p-System and Java, two attempts
at portable environments separated by about 18 years. Both systems created
programs in pseudocode that would run unmodified, without recompilation, on any
platform that supported the system. In both cases, a virtual machine needed to
be created for the target hardware platform before programs could be run. Both
systems allowed native code to be included, though of course this was
discouraged because it hindered portability. And in both cases, a single
programming language (Pascal vs. Java) became strongly identified with the
system, even though other programming languages could be used.
One important difference was that the p-System was a complete operating system
that in most (or possibly all) cases run directly on the target hardware. The
Java Virtual Machine, by contrast, is not a complete operating system, and must
be implemented in the context of an operating system such as UNIX, MacOS,
Windows NT, or the unnamed operating systems running on Network Computers.
User Interface
The p-System was menu-based. The top line of the screen was used to present a
menu of commands. You typed a single keystroke to execute a command, which
usually would bring up another menu. The keystroke to execute a command was
usually, but not always, the first letter of the name of the command.
Because each command from a given menu had to correspond to a unique keystroke,
the commands sometimes had to have unusual names. For example, in the Filer, the
command to copy a file was given the name Transfer, because the letter C was
taken up by the Change command. If there were more commands than could fit on
the menu line, you could cycle through multiple versions of the menu lines by
successively pressing "?".
The Terak keyboard had no real function keys, though there were a few special
keys for non-printing ASCII characters such as ESC and, surprisingly, ETX. Thus,
the p-System designers stuck with alphabetic commands. For instance, the editor
was "modal"--more like, for instance, the modern-day (?!) vi editor
than like EMACS.
In the days before mice and pull-down menus, this was about as friendly as
operating systems got.

********

I was wondering if this is "Prior Art" when consiudering Java and
compiled byte code - P code was compiled byte code produced by these UCSD
P-System compilers

John F

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ads; Java vs JavsScript
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 08:33 PM EDT
2 comments keep coming to me reading about this lawsuit:

1. The 'Ads' thing from Oracle - don't forget Google makes all their money on
Ads. It may just be a hint from Oracle to say "we want to hit you where
the money is". A long shot idea, maybe, but just a thought.

2. Java in Google's future - I'm pretty sure Google is looking towards
JavaScript (and HTML, CSS, "Web 2.0" the web, but offline, Chrome OS,
etc) instead of Java as their App-making language moving forward. I suspect
they will stop using java sooner or later, and this lawsuit just means sooner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Berkeley DB Java Edition on Android
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 09:39 PM EDT
Is this it?

http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/berkel eydb/bdb-je- android -160932.pdf

[ Reply to This | # ]

Java patents a minefield ?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 16 2010 @ 09:43 PM EDT

Seeing Oracle going after Google in regard to Java patents is interesting.

Most folk tend to assume that Java (nee OAK) is a Sun technology.

This is true in part. Sun were working on OakIn the late 1980s & early
1990s as a scripting language to be used for managing networks of appliances in
a residence (i.e. a home).

When in the early 1990s, Microsoft decided to switch direction & give up on
their proprietary 'blackbird' network & 'co-opt' the Internet they had
previously derided, Sun began to talk up Oak (renamed to Java) as a net
technology and Netscape were quick to integrate it into their browser. At the
time it was a 'wow' technology with enormous 'promise'.

As excite around Java grew, an IBMer called Mike Cowlinshaw (one those roaming
genius types given a free hand within IBM) went to Sun in the early 1990s to
look at Java & to discuss if there might be value in IBM getting behind the
technology & helping develop it. I believe some at IBM saw it as a chance
to slow Microsoft from taking over the net by using Sun as a proxy.

Cowlinshaw recommended IBM get behind Java in a big way & they did a deal
with Sun that as best as I could tell (I was involved) included these points
...

- IBM would allow Sun to say Java was theirs (as it well was in the very early
versions)

- IBM labs would provide masses of code & coding in support of enterprise
features that would bolster Java from a fairly simple scripting tool to an
Enterprise class development platform

- IBM would have a perpetual license (Sun later tried to reneg on this but lost
that battle)

- IBM would put in place a global program to promote Java (calling it Sun Java)
& Sun, Netcscape, Novell & IBM would join in a world tour (1997) to
launch Java as a serious development environment for the net. The 1st Java world
tour was completely organized by IBM even though everyone was led to believe it
was a joint effort of the 4 named companies. Sun & the others were told of
the agenda & city by city events once they had been put in place by IBM. The
event was a resounding success

- IBM labs subsequently handed over code that became parts of Enterprise Java
& other companies did so too

Microsoft found themselves having to play a 'mee too' role with Java in their
browser. But, Microsoft then attempted to 'corrupt' Java by doing mods to the
Java VM that would only work in a windows environment. Sun sued Microsoft &
eventually won but Microsoft effectively killed client-side Java. IBM & Sun
then switched to a 'server-side' Java strategy & in time this grew into the
Java we know today.

For quite a while there were 2 Javas, Sun's & IBM's & there was a lot of
cross sharing of code, but not all of it. e.g. IBM did their own JVMs.

At some point (forget exactly when) Sun decided they wanted to get back full
control of Java and introduced Java 2 & told IBM they had no rights to it or
to use Java logos for IBM's version of Java. They tried to say that IBM only had
righjts to 'Java 1'. But IBM did some hard & harsh talking to Sun & they
backed down. IBM was allowed to use a logo that said Java Compatible.

Now having passed on the aove little bit of info & commentary, am intigued
as to just what Oracle America (Sun) are going after Google for :)

DSM

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google no Hero here...
Authored by: BitOBear on Tuesday, August 17 2010 @ 03:25 AM EDT
You know, I just started researching this and I cannot say that I find Google to
be deserving of my Open Source pity here.

As near as I can tell Dalvik is _NOT_ open source either. I can find no tarballs
or source repositories.

So it seems like Oracle has turned Sun into a dirty little semi-open-source
finger puppet with which they will attempt to smear Google for offering a
completely closed source semi implementation of Java.

As a proponent of Open Source I must ask: which one of these idiots am I
supposed to be rooting for?

Oracle's attack on Dalvik doesn't seem to be attacking _anything_ an open source
proponent should be interested in defending.

Now if Google uses this suit to destroy software patents, hell if they even
_try_ to use it to destroy software patents then I will support that. But if
they just try to defend their little magical and secret code base then I hope
all the parties kill each other dead leaving nothing but scorched earth.

If anything, half-open source is better than closed and the open source people
should be supporting Oracle/Sun for attacking the secret closed-source
could-be-doing-anything Dalvik VM. The Android pages seem to list a bunch of
opcode names (without the numbers or encodings), but that's meaningless.

As much as I think Larry is a used car salseman and I generally dislike Oracle
for it "slippery" practices, Google isn't the good guy here. Their
position seems to be "we took the whole operation closed source, and made a
subset of it better/faster, and slipped it into this neat programmable device
that geeks like, so the fact that we took the whole operation secret should be
okay with everybody, right?"

Oracle/Sun suing Google for being twads is just like BusyBox suing people for
failing to meet the terms of the GPL.

That is, unless there is some freakish error in the Google Search Engine that
prevents it from finding the Google Source Code Repository for the Google
Android Implementation of Dalvik...

Baring that, we should be scoffing at Google not Oracle/Sun, and I _hate_ that
fact.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why did Google invent Dalvik and side-step Java?
Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, August 17 2010 @ 04:05 AM EDT
Here is an article from 2007 over at O'Reilly. The author doesn't at all like what Google did but then almost all the comments (that I read) are pro-Google and briefly explain the technical reasons why Google had to do what they did.

I think this brings some much needed technical context to the discussion. None of the existing Java platforms had the performance needed to let Google compete in the smartphone market against the iPhone. ISTM this case is an ideal example of how software patents are used to stifle innovation. IMO, that makes them unconstitutional.


---
You just can't win with DRM.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM wanted Amazon to sign a cross-license agreement...
Authored by: UncleJosh on Tuesday, August 17 2010 @ 09:31 AM EDT
Amazon refused, and after years of negotiations, IBM sued for patent infringement (in the Eastern District of Texas, by the way). Subsequently IBM and Amazon settled and entered into a cross-license agreement. As has been said, it's all about the money and this sort of thing is SOP for big businesses in the software industry.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where are the Prior Art / Patent discussion threads?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 17 2010 @ 11:55 AM EDT

I've not seen a thread yet for prior art. Nor one discussing the patents? Is it wise to discuss the patents? Should there be a disclaimer telling certain folks not to read such discussions, so as not to compromise themselves over the patents? Also, I'm now in the process of digging deep into the patents to figure out who might be infringing on these patents. The following is safe to read.

Based on my in depth reading of the first patent, 6,125,447, Micsoroft's Windows XP and all later Oses is infringing and Visual Studio is also infringing.

Other possible infringers are: SQL Server (all versions), MySQL, Oracle Server, in fact every relational DB is infringing, Firefox, IE, and any modern webbrowser, at least some VMs, and any program that verifies rights of remote code before executing it. Although, I may be stretching it a bit with these. It depends on a few factors, since an invention has to violate *all* of the claims to be infringing. Unless, I'm mistaken. So, I'll simply say that any app that verifies local and remote code before executing it may violate.

I don't want to post all the claims of the patent, so as not to damage any Groklawer who could be damaged by knowing all the claims. The title of the claim is very generic. But it lacks considerable information about the claims. It's not as simple as "protection domains". So for example the *nix passwd/group/shadow security files and security system are not infringing. Neither is the sandbox security method. Both of these types of systems are described , and how they lack the kind of protection this invention covers. Given, that, there is enough detail in this patent where OSITA could build a infringing product.

Now when I say Visual Studio infringes, I don't mean *all* versions of VS infringe, there is a certain version where that begins.

Furthermore, I'll say that Windows 2000 is both an infringing product and prior art for this patent. Additional possible prior art: LDAP, ?NDS (Novell Directory Services), Active directory.

I'm not entirely sure of the last three, because they aren't really normally used to validate code permissions per se. But Windows 2000 as a total package is definitely prior art.

I myself have written protection domain software, but nothing that is prior art, nor infringing. Since this protection domain scheme is geared specifically for validating code from remote systems. So a better description is "Implementing security domains to validate software execution code from local and remote systems". That is what the title should have said.

Lastly, I'll add the "computer" for this is laughable. It includes these devices by it's general description: calculators, cell phones, PDAs, every computer known to man, video game consoles, and much, much more. Here's the best part, a direct quote; "Thus the present invention is not limited to any specific combination of hardware circuitry and software" [section/page 6 lines 18-20]. I think that is the killer argument for the machine test.

Group Summary of claims:
Invention claims #1-9,
Computer readable medium claims #10-18,
Computer claims #19-24.

So, 15 very generic claims to describe a general purpose computer, and 9 claims to describe the functioning of the software invention.

--Celtic_hackr
OSITA

P.S. This patent can be easily coded past by not using Object Oriented code. They've included that as part of their invention. So by writing the equivalent code without objects you'd be free of this patent. However, if you did do this, it doesn't mean they wouldn't sue you, but that you should be able to win in court. After spending millions defending a baseless lawsuit. The Object Oriented part is not one of the claims, but part of the technical description. Although the claims use the Object Oriented specific language in making the claims. Hence any skilled in the art would read the claimed invention as written in OO code.

P.P.S. I can post a detailed analysis of this patent, if anyone thinks it's a good idea. I haven't disclosed the whole patent here, so anyone who reads this is safe. But again, anyone reading a full analysis would be tainted by reading that. As I am now tainted, by reading the whole patent. But screw it, let them sue me. I don't care.

[ Reply to This | # ]

People way overthink this
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 17 2010 @ 08:58 PM EDT
Larry Ellison is greedy.

Google is making money.

Ellison says: "Gimme!"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle America's complaint against Google, as text - Updated 3Xs
Authored by: hamstring on Wednesday, August 18 2010 @ 08:55 AM EDT

Sad to say that anyone that did not see this coming is rather blinded to how things operate with Oracle. The morals in Oracle match the morals of the average private sector company in the US. "How much money can we make in the shortest amount of time."

I can hope that Americans are sick of businesses with this attitude, and begin to boycott Oracle everything. That is the power of of the consumers. Before you boycott, name the reason behind it. Convince others to do the same, and the capitalist system starts to work. Ignoring bad behavior and still doing business with them does no harm, and the capitalist system does not function.

Workin in IT, Oracle has already punished consumers of Sun products by requiring you to pay for support simply to get patches. This practice was only regular to another *nix provider called SGI, and you see where they are now in the market.

Oracle does not care who they hurt or harm in the process, so there is no logic in trying to debate why they are doing what they are doing. It's all about making as much money as they can as quickly as they can, even if that means rules are bent and poor business ethics are used to make the money.

One thing I would find amusing if nothing else is what deals have been made with Microsoft since the Sun buy out. I would only be interested because it would add to my disgust of the convicted monopoly.

---
# echo "Mjdsptpgu Svdlt" | tr [b-z] [a-y]
# IANAL and do not like Monopoly

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sounds like GNOME was justified in creating GObject and the Vala programming language
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 18 2010 @ 03:21 PM EDT
It's not entirely mature, but it has all the whizzy features peopl expect from
Java and C#, but it compiles to true object code via gcc, and is completely OSS.
Seems it was designed specifically as an insurance policy against actions on
Mono, Java et al.

http://live.gnome.org/Vala

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle America's complaint against Google, as text - Updated 3Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 18 2010 @ 06:16 PM EDT
It seems to me that:

1) The only area where Oracle has legal footing in this action is that if Dalvik
actually infringes on Sun's Java copyrights or Sun's Java patents (if any are
indeed valid) then Oracle might compel re-licensing of Dalvik from Apache 2
license to GPL. A jury will not award damages (see below).

2) I really don't believe there's any infringement on copyrights here. I think
that the Dalvik authors honestly created a "clean room"
implementation. It would be hard to hide any copyright infringement because
both the Dalvik code and the Java code are available for download on the
Internet as open source code.

3) Not that they needed a clean-room implementation. They could have made
incremental improvements on the original Java code instead -- it would just mean
that the GPL would have been the license of choice rather than Apache 2.

4) Are any of the cited Java patents valid? I truly doubt this. They strike me
as having about the validity of a patent for the chessboard square black queen-2
when white queen-7 was already patented.

5) Android/Google could be said to have already followed the "spirit"
of the GPL license when Dalvik was licensed as Apache 2. In this regard, given
the unlikely circumstance that copyright or patent infringement occurred, it
will be very difficult for a judge or jury to establish just what damages that
Oracle might claim they suffered because the Dalvik code was Apache 2-licensed
and not GPL-licensed. Dalvik did not damage Oracle because Dalvik was not
treated as proprietary by its authors. It was open source, and published as
such. And, Oracle has no standing in the mobile phone business, so Dalvik
surely did not compete against any Oracle business unit. A jury won’t find
Dalvik injured Oracle because it competed against Java – Java is free software
so Oracle has no monetary interest there.

6) Given all the above, it's clear that Oracle started down this path with less
promise of success than SCO had against Novell. And Oracle is an open-source
distributor; they should have better understood their weak position.

7) Given the statements made by Oracle executives, re: "monetizing"
Sun's IP assets, it's pretty clear that Oracle was not defending the GPL through
this action. It strikes me instead that maybe Larry Ellison "doesn't
get" the GPL.

8) I've got to admit, I am surprised that CEOs of such companies as Oracle and
SCO ("open source companies") are so foolish that they can drag their
stockholders into deep holes like this, discrediting themselves and their legal
teams in the name of greed.

Can he really believe that Google is so fearful of a jury drawing a distinction
between the GPL and the Apache 2 open source licenses that there is hope of
recovery of huge damages -- enough to offset the negative publicity that Oracle
is enduring over this?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Potential Prior Art - 6,910,205
Authored by: tonyxfar on Wednesday, August 18 2010 @ 07:12 PM EDT
What is described in this one - a combination of earlier compilation and
dynamic interpretation of code, is similar to something I remember
Digitial Equipment Corp (DEC) doing with the first generation Alpha-VMS
machine.

DEC had previously sold machines using the VAX architecture to run the VMS
operating system. When it first moved to the Alpha RISC architecture, they
had a lot of code they had to keep running on the new machine. So they
provided a tool you could use to translate your VAX architecture executable
into an Alpha architecture
executable.

But this tool had a problem - it could not be sure to identify all the code
which needed to be executed. So it kept the original VAX code in the
executable and arranged its memory address space so that it was easy to pick
up any attempt to branch into that code. (New code in VM addresses > 32 bit,

old code below that, memory protection exception triggered if you try to run
old code). It could then translate/interpret this code as needed at run-time.


I believe this tool existed in VMS 6 - in 1994. It had disappeared a few
versions later. But I am afraid I have no documentation, hopefully somebody
does.

I don't believe the application to virtual machines could be considered novel,
since use of virtual machines has been a way of implementing real machines
since at least 1971 and probably earlier. (The Interdata Model 70
implemented something I've been told is close to an IBM 360 instruction set. It

did this using a "microcode" scheme, a program that implemented a
complex
instruction set on a much simpler computer, interpreting each complex
instruction as it arrived. I do have access to documentation on the Model 70.)


[ Reply to This | # ]

Sun internal goofy patent contest
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 18 2010 @ 07:31 PM EDT
Here is an article on how Sun went on a binge of patenting the stupidest stuff they could imagine as a result of a suit by IBM over RISC technology, which they considered stupid.

Worth a look. Hope it helps.

Doug Coulter

[ Reply to This | # ]

State of Android when Google purchased them
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 18 2010 @ 09:06 PM EDT
My Question is, the whole tone of the article is as if Google created Android
out of thin air. They purchased the company, do we know if that company was
'clean' as far as copyrights go?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Its all about the FUD!!
Authored by: mlwmohawk on Friday, August 20 2010 @ 12:27 PM EDT
It occurred to me during a bike ride what this is all about. Larry may hate
Bill, but make no mistake, Larry would be worse than Bill ever could be given
the chance.

So, to put this in perspective.... A *LOT* of tablet computers are around the
corner. Starting in the fall and beginning of 2011, a huge paradigm shift will
happen. Casual computer users who would buy a cheap laptop at Walmart will be
buying cheaper and easier to use tablets. The odds on favorite OS for these
tablets will be Android. Google wants this to happen.

Oracle wants in on this market. Larry takes a very loud shot at Google to (a)
get a cut of the market or (b) if that doesn't work, try to FUD OEM's away from
Android.

There is a mobile version of Java. Larry wants people to use it and he'll sue to
make it happen. All the speculation about copyrights and patents is pointless,
its a means to an ends. Larry is just using what ever he can.

It will be a fight, two well funded adversaries fighting about minute details
and esoterica in a court of law with the fate of Java as an open platform in the
balance.

This case exemplifies every last thing that is wrong with intellectual property
in the 21st century.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )