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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
Google Needed Java | 394 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Google Needed Java
Authored by: jvillain on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 04:53 PM EDT
Who ever denied Google used Java to further their own ends? The question is did
they do it legally. If they did it is pretty hard to paint Larry Page as the
Sith Lord.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Google Needed Java
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 04:55 PM EDT
+1

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Pretense?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 05:15 PM EDT
What pretense that Google is a white knight are you talking about?

Of course Google is a business and is going to make whatever decisions are good
for their business. We like that some of those decisions also happen to be good
for everyone else (like their contributions to OSS).

Anyway, in this case, Oracle is clearly the Black Knight and Google is just King
Arthur trying to get past him. Oracle, even when their litigation strategy has
been mortally wounded, just refuses to give up.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Google Needed Java
Authored by: scav on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 05:36 PM EDT
Google's intention was to use Java all along because they did not have a developer base. They couldn't bring Android to market without Java.
Note that everyone is allowed to use the Java language freely and Sun were entirely happy for Google to do this.
I think we can drop the pretense that Google is any white knight. Google's a large corporation like Oracle out to make money. Period.
Can we also drop the twin pretences that Oracle and Google have an equally bad relationship with the software development community, and that you are trying to assert a disinterested position of neutrality?
Google couldn't secure a proper license from Sun so they went the backdoor route.
Aww, you say that like it's a bad thing ;) Google couldn't secure a license to use the Java trademark and keep Android as open as they wanted it to be. So they chose not to license the trademark, and instead did something they didn't need a license for: implemented an alternative. It is in evidence that Sun said this was perfectly OK too.
It will basically come down to: Did Google violate any agreement,
Nope. Breach of contract is not at issue in this litigation.
any IP that Oracle owns? If there is some Java IP that is not GPL'ed then Google loses.
Nope. GPL is largely irrelevant. Google are not asserting a defence of having a GPL license. They are asserting a bunch of other defences (such as estoppel) and non-infringement. Attention to detail, please.
If not, Google wins.
We'll see how Google wins. It will be fun to watch.
But let it be clear, Google used Java to further its own ends.
As opposed to what? To the extent that developers like Google, it's not because they constantly make idiotic decisions to stymie themselves! Unlike some companies I could mention. But they give back a lot, and to get a bigger slice of pie, they are happy to grow the pie for everyone rather than trying to steal everyone else's piece.

If I had to pick one adjective for Google, it would be "smart". If I had to pick one for Oracle it would be "pernicious". Unless we're talking about their DB, in which case I'd take "clunky" or "overpriced".

---
The emperor, undaunted by overwhelming evidence that he had no clothes, redoubled his siege of Antarctica to extort tribute from the penguins.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

No, Google wanted Java
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 06:12 PM EDT
But couldn't get what they wanted on workable terms, so they developed Android
instead.

Just like Apache did with Harmony.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

get back under thy bridge
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 06:58 PM EDT
And take your thousands of whole works and your compilation of journal items
that is not a compilation with you.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Choosing Java as a platform
Authored by: hardmath on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 07:08 PM EDT
It's been pointed out that Apple was successful in attracting ObjectiveC
developers to the iOS platform. There was probably a degree of comfort there
because of Macintosh apps historically being developed in that language, but it
is definitely less well known than C++ or Java. So perhaps the critical mass of
app developers is not the tipping point we might think it is.

I think the testimony of Andy Rubin yesterday showed other languages were
considered (Python, Lua, Javascript), but Eric Schmidt testified that
"mobile carriers" were primary Java users in 2005. Rubin also
mentioned "carriers" as a target in yesterday's testimony.

So perhaps the difference between Apple's iPhone strategy and Google's Android
strategy was the fundamental marketing philosophy. Apple's margins on iPhone's
have been phenomenal, and for their early years they could and did demand a
premium from AT&T for exclusive carrier contracts. Google needed to attract
a critical mass of vendors/carriers who would invest in the Android platform and
penetrate the mass market.

Both strategies have been successful, much to the chagrin of M$ and Nokia.


---
"Prolog is an efficient programming language because it is a very stupid theorem
prover." -- Richard O'Keefe

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Oracle is trying to change the rules
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 07:17 PM EDT
I see your point, but I don't entirely agree. If Sun had argued against Android
from the beginning it might be different. Intead Sun applauded Google for
developing Android and now Oracle is trying to ignore that.

Secondly, Oracle is trying to push the idea that APIs are copyrightable. I
think this is damaging to the industry as a whole.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Google Needed Java
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 09:00 PM EDT
Google (...) couldn't bring Android to market without Java.

Yes, as witness how Apple failed so miserably with the iPhone because it didn't support Java. Poor Apple with their ObjectiveC. No byte code. No WORA. No J2ME. No legacy enterprise applications. No one will ever buy an iPhone and the carriers won't touch it with a barge pole. How could Apple have been so foolish.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )