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
Fast learner | 361 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Fast learner
Authored by: Gringo_ on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 10:10 AM EDT

Well now - that was a much better post! No ad hominem attacks this time, and no irrelevant slurs. Congratulations! You have made a serious argument... but you did not yet apologize for calling PJ "dishonest", so I will not talk to you until you do.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Please tell me more
Authored by: artp on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 10:48 AM EDT
A lot of court time was spent on whether Android used
simulation or pattern matching, and it was deemed very
relevant to whether Android violated Oracle's patents.

Could you fill me in on what method Jamaica uses that is
neither simulation nor pattern matching, thus avoiding both
Oracle's patents AND Google's workaround? After all, Android
is currently in question as being in violation of the
patents, so it wouldn't be safe to use that method.

Or are you talking about other patents that aren't included
in the current court case?

---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Android DOES interoperate with Java.
Authored by: Wol on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 01:32 PM EDT
Which Java are you talking about? You're right it's a competitor to the Java VM,
but it runs Java programs.

Given that Oracle doesn't seem to have a clue which Java it's talking about, and
flip-flops between whatever definition seems most convenient at that particular
moment, you can't complain when we take a leaf from Oracle's book, and use
whichever of THEIR definitions we find convenient at any given moment.

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Assertions and anecdotes are not evidence.
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 03:28 PM EDT
> And I AM supporting my "claim" with evidence:

No, you are merely making assertions and anecdotes.

> the patents Oracle is suing over are not required to
> make software interoperate with Java.

That is correct, and Oracle has not shown that Android or Dalvik practices
these.

> For that matter, Android does not interoperate with Java
> (it's a competing implementation).

There are programs written in Java that can run on Sun/Oracle JVM and (after
processing) run on Android. But of course one can use any definition of
'interoperate' that suits the argument, as Oracle tries to do.

> Proof: there are millions of programs interoperating with
> Java none are even suspected of infringing on said patents.

That is merely an assertion, you have _no_ idea whether programs infringe on the
patents or not, and you definitely have no idea about what Oracle suspects or
who it will try to sue next.

> There are competing implementations of Java (e.g. Aicas
> Jamaica VM) that are also not suspected on infringing on
> said patents.

That is merely an assertion, you have _no_ idea whether programs infringe on the
patents or not, and you definitely have no idea about what Oracle suspects or
who it will try to sue next.

> Ergo, said patents do not hinder interoperability with Java.

That may be true, but Oracle is asserting that they do.

> On top of that, they do not even preclude a competing
> implementation. Ergo, this paper does NOT contradict
> Oracle's claims. QED

It does contradict Oracles claims that Google needed a licence. You are fighting
the wrong battle.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

This post argues against anon posts
Authored by: jjs on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 03:50 PM EDT
1. Please learn what interoperability means. It's not just
programs that speak the same language, it includes re-
implementing the system. According to Oracle, it is
impossible to write a JVM without violating their patents.

2. Please learn the differences between Java the language,
Java the specification, Java the API, Java the JVM, and Java
the bytecode.

3. Please learn about estoppel and laches. What Sun (who
owned Java at the time) thought about Java and patents very
much matters in regards to what Google could do AT THE TIME.



---
(Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
etc)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Correction: none are _accused_
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 07:05 PM EDT
You cannot say that none of them "are under suspicion". To say that,
you would have to be Oracle's lawyer (or else Ellison).
You can say that none of them have been accused in a court of law. There is a
world of difference. For all we know, Oracle could be making a list of JVMs to
sue, or could have already begun contacting them (yes, unlikely, but possible).

Your argument boils down to "Absence of proof that this will be the modus
operandi for anything interoperable in the future proves that this will not be
the modus operandi in the future". Absence of proof proves nothing.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Interoperating with yourself makes no sense
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 07:30 PM EDT
For that matter, Android does not interoperate with Java (it's a competing implementation),
That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

It is only competing implementations that can can ever be interested in interoperating with Java. Nobody talks about a single implementation interoperating with itself, that would be beyond stupid, since every implementation interoperates with itself.

Android isn't Java because trademark legalities prevent it, and they no longer want to be officially Java anyway after negotiations broke down. They do however interoperate with Java in exactly the same way as all competing implementations like Harmony and GNU Classpath do, through the public API. This is nothing new. Language implementations have worked this way for over half a century.

You gained points for using fewer ad homs this time, but really the logic is still pretty broken.

[ 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 )