28 ms·

The biggest issue I see with Oracle's lawsuit is not with Android itself, but the future of Java as an open platform. The claims are pretty serious, and Oracle

by cscotta 16y ago

The biggest issue I see with Oracle's lawsuit is not with Android itself, but the future of Java as an open platform. The claims are pretty serious, and Oracle is going straight for the jugular. It'll be interesting to see how it shakes out, but I've got to hope that Google will come out of this in good shape for the sake of Java. It's unfortunate that Oracle is interpreting Google's implementation of Dalvik and a Java-based system as a direct infringement upon their patents. Android aside, it raises some fairly serious questions around Java's future development as a platform vis a vis the uncertainty recently resolved between Microsoft and the Mono project. While Microsoft extended their "Community Promise" to Mono implementors and users, Oracle seems to be taking the opposite approach to companies developing alternate JVMs and Java-based devices. It'll be interesting to see Oracle's stance toward other alternate JVMs such as IBM's. If you're curious, the original complaint is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35811761/Oracle-s-complaint-against-Google-for-Java-patent-infringement http://www.scribd.com/doc/35811761/Oracle-s-complaint-agains... The patents upon which Oracle claims infringement are: - Protection domains to provide security in a computer system (6,125,447) - Controlling Access to a Resource (6,192,476) - Method and apparatus for pre-processing and packaging class files (5,966,702) - System and method for dynamic preloading of classes through memory space cloning of a master runtime system process (7,426,720) - Interpreting functions utilizing a hybrid of virtual and native machine instructions (6,910,205) - Method and system for performing static initialization (6,061,520)

kingkilr 16y ago
> Interpreting functions utilizing a hybrid of virtual and native machine instructions Are they serious? Unless I'm missing something this is a fantastic joke, JITs far predate Java.
- tptacek 16y ago
  Careful. The name of a title and its actual claims are two very different things.
  - patrickaljord 16y ago
    Careful. Google's implementation and the patent itself are two very different things.
  - shasta 16y ago
    Well, here's claim 1: In a computer system, a method for increasing the execution speed of virtual machine instructions, the method comprising: - inputting virtual machine instructions for a function; - compiling a portion of the function into at least one native machine instruction so that the function includes both virtual and native machine instruction; and - overwriting a selected virtual machine instruction of the function with a new virtual machine instruction, the new virtual machine instruction specifying execution of at least one native machine instruction. You think that sounds like an idea worthy of a patent? Probably depends if you're a programmer or a patent lawyer. I'll leave you to judge the merits of the other 46 claims, the next of which are: 2. Claim 1 in a box 3. Claim 1 with a fox
    - btilly 16y ago
      It sounds like the sort of stuff that Smalltalk implementations were doing before Java existed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-in-time_compilation#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-in-time_compilation#Histor... for more. (I wonder whether Sun's patents were filed for Self?)
      - fhars 16y ago
        Sun bought several of these, especially the developers of Strongtalk, a compiled, statically typed dialect of Smalltalk. So if there is any prior art on this, chances are that all the related patents are now in Oracle's portfolio.
      - gaius 16y ago
        sigh A patent isn't an idea. It's the specific method for implementing an idea. If there is a way to get the same end result using a completely different method, the patent doesn't apply.
- nl 16y ago
  I'm guessing, but I suspect working around this & other patents was why a JIT took so long to ship in Android.
  - bmastenbrook 16y ago
    You can't write a good JIT overnight. You can't adapt an existing JIT for a JVM-like VM to Dalvik either. I don't think working around patents had much to do with it, especially since they got sued anyway.
- js4all 16y ago
  Careful. Hotspot compiling was introduced with the JVM.
  - bad_user 16y ago
    There is prior art in Smaltalk and Self ... the Hotspot compiler itself is an old Smaltalk implementation that Sun bought, open-sourced recently by SUN btw ... http://www.strongtalk.org/ http://www.strongtalk.org/
    - loewenskind 16y ago
      I'm pretty sure the prior art was just with Self. Smalltalk had polymorphic cache tables, but it was Self that was doing really aggressive in-lining of those caches (e.g. in-lining the method and all code the method called right into the cache). Strongtalk was a Smalltalk implementation of the result of the Self research (plus optional H&M type checking) but before they released anything they got bought by Sun to get the expertise for their up coming HotSpot VM. So bottom line: Oracle may actually own all prior art via Sun (Self research was done at Sun).
shasta 16y ago
Oracle may claim that Google infringes on all those patents, but they'll never sue. Patents are just a nuclear deterrent. Edit: Wow, -7 and dropping. I guess I should have included a sarcasm symbol. Spoiler: My point was that patents do get used, and this argument about them just being for defense is nonsense.
- mhansen 16y ago
  The first sentence in TFA: Oracle Corp. said Thursday it has filed a copyright-infringement lawsuit against Google Inc.
  - CamperBob 16y ago
    The article is by some moron journalist who doesn't know that there's a difference between patents and copyrights.
    - zb 16y ago
      To be fair to the journalist concerned, if you read to the bottom of the complaint you'll find that there are 7 claims of patent infringement and 1 of copyright infringement.
- nl 16y ago
  Well they just sued based on those patents, so I guess it's nuclear war now?
- eli 16y ago
  Well, there would be no reason to build a defense in the first place if NOBODY ever went on the offense.
  - napierzaza 16y ago
    FYI there was never a global nuclear holocaust; but people still built nukes. In fact there was never direct fighting between the US and Russia...
j-g-faustus 16y ago
This article from 2007 might be of interest: "How Google routed around Sun's IP-based licensing restrictions on Java ME": http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/110/ http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/110/ It's apparently not a complete surprise, this guy in 2007 predicted that ... in the future expect a shit-load of IP-related lawsuits on this.
- superjared 16y ago
  Another interesting tidbit from the article you linked: The trick is that Google doesn’t claim that Android is a Java platform, although it can run some programs written with the Java language and against some derived version of the Java class library. Sun could prevent this if they had a patent on the standard class library, but they don’t and, even if they did, I strongly doubt it would be enforceable since Android doesn’t claim to be compatible (and in fact, could very well claim that their subset/superset is an innovation on the existing patent and challenge Sun’s position).
  - wmf 16y ago
    If by "interesting" you mean "totally misunderstands patent law". What Google claims is irrelevant; either they use Oracle's patented techniques or they don't.
    - mooneater 16y ago
      If only patent suits were so cut-and-dry.
    - brettnak 16y ago
      In software, it's really easy to not know if you're violating IP.
ssp 16y ago
The complaint as a PDF: http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadget/files/oracle-google.pdf http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadget/files/oracle-google.p...
muhfuhkuh 16y ago
"It'll be interesting to see Oracle's stance toward other alternate JVMs such as IBM's." IBM could completely paralyze the entire computer industry with their portfolio. That they don't is a testament to how much money they earn in simply letting others do the "hard" PC stuff while they singularly engulf the big iron market. IBM was the only company that I know of that actually outlasted the US government in antitrust litigation. The DoJ, after 15 YEARS of litigation, simply dropped the case due to lack of will and resources to continue. Oracle wouldn't dare try IBM in court.
- astine 16y ago
  IBM's JVM is licensed. They had a legal agreement with Sun over it and I have no reason to believe that it won't carry over with Oracle.
- tocomment 16y ago
  That's interesting. I wonder if Google could buy IBM and then have them drop the lawsuit?
  - helium 16y ago
    I don't know if you're trying to make a joke, but that might be a bit difficult for Google to do since IBM is worth more than they are. http://www.google.com/finance?catid=66529330&sort=MARKET_CAP#link_Market http://www.google.com/finance?catid=66529330&sort=MARKET... Cap
  - ryanwaggoner 16y ago
    There's no reason this comment should be voted down.
    - tocomment 16y ago
      There's no reason your comment should be voted down either. I upvoted it at least.
      - 16y ago
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
rbanffy 16y ago
> it raises some fairly serious questions around Java's future development as a platform vis a vis the uncertainty recently resolved between Microsoft and the Mono project Microsoft's "Community Promise" does not cover the whole .NET stack - it covers only the ECMA standardized parts. It has "It's a trap" written all over it. I would also think twice before relying on promises from a convicted monopoly abuser.
- shadowfox 16y ago
  Now I am not advocating that MS should be given a free hand. But what does being a convicted monopoly abuser have to do with patent traps?
  - cookiecaper 16y ago
    I think he stated that to indicate that we shouldn't just take Microsoft at its word that it won't attempt to litigate Mono et al. They'll find a loophole in the "Community Promise" (possibly the loophole described above) and try to hurt their enemies.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    > But what does being a convicted monopoly abuser have to do with patent traps? It has been already demonstrated they are willing to place profits above ethical and responsible (not to say lawful) behavior.
binaryfinery 16y ago
I shouldn't still be surprised by this shit, but the claims of patent 5,966,702 are basically "There was some data and we normalized it". Seriously. WTF? Can we start putting questions like these on 1st year bachelors exams, so we can finally prove that someone "reasonably skilled in the arts" can figure it out?

by cscotta 16y ago

kingkilr 16y ago

> Interpreting functions utilizing a hybrid of virtual and native machine instructions Are they serious? Unless I'm missing something this is a fantastic joke, JITs far predate Java.

tptacek 16y ago
Careful. The name of a title and its actual claims are two very different things.
- patrickaljord 16y ago
  Careful. Google's implementation and the patent itself are two very different things.
- shasta 16y ago
  Well, here's claim 1: In a computer system, a method for increasing the execution speed of virtual machine instructions, the method comprising: - inputting virtual machine instructions for a function; - compiling a portion of the function into at least one native machine instruction so that the function includes both virtual and native machine instruction; and - overwriting a selected virtual machine instruction of the function with a new virtual machine instruction, the new virtual machine instruction specifying execution of at least one native machine instruction. You think that sounds like an idea worthy of a patent? Probably depends if you're a programmer or a patent lawyer. I'll leave you to judge the merits of the other 46 claims, the next of which are: 2. Claim 1 in a box 3. Claim 1 with a fox
  - btilly 16y ago
    It sounds like the sort of stuff that Smalltalk implementations were doing before Java existed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-in-time_compilation#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-in-time_compilation#Histor... for more. (I wonder whether Sun's patents were filed for Self?)
    - fhars 16y ago
      Sun bought several of these, especially the developers of Strongtalk, a compiled, statically typed dialect of Smalltalk. So if there is any prior art on this, chances are that all the related patents are now in Oracle's portfolio.
    - gaius 16y ago
      sigh A patent isn't an idea. It's the specific method for implementing an idea. If there is a way to get the same end result using a completely different method, the patent doesn't apply.
nl 16y ago
I'm guessing, but I suspect working around this & other patents was why a JIT took so long to ship in Android.
- bmastenbrook 16y ago
  You can't write a good JIT overnight. You can't adapt an existing JIT for a JVM-like VM to Dalvik either. I don't think working around patents had much to do with it, especially since they got sued anyway.
js4all 16y ago
Careful. Hotspot compiling was introduced with the JVM.
- bad_user 16y ago
  There is prior art in Smaltalk and Self ... the Hotspot compiler itself is an old Smaltalk implementation that Sun bought, open-sourced recently by SUN btw ... http://www.strongtalk.org/ http://www.strongtalk.org/
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    I'm pretty sure the prior art was just with Self. Smalltalk had polymorphic cache tables, but it was Self that was doing really aggressive in-lining of those caches (e.g. in-lining the method and all code the method called right into the cache). Strongtalk was a Smalltalk implementation of the result of the Self research (plus optional H&M type checking) but before they released anything they got bought by Sun to get the expertise for their up coming HotSpot VM. So bottom line: Oracle may actually own all prior art via Sun (Self research was done at Sun).

shasta 16y ago

Oracle may claim that Google infringes on all those patents, but they'll never sue. Patents are just a nuclear deterrent. Edit: Wow, -7 and dropping. I guess I should have included a sarcasm symbol. Spoiler: My point was that patents do get used, and this argument about them just being for defense is nonsense.

mhansen 16y ago
The first sentence in TFA: Oracle Corp. said Thursday it has filed a copyright-infringement lawsuit against Google Inc.
- CamperBob 16y ago
  The article is by some moron journalist who doesn't know that there's a difference between patents and copyrights.
  - zb 16y ago
    To be fair to the journalist concerned, if you read to the bottom of the complaint you'll find that there are 7 claims of patent infringement and 1 of copyright infringement.
nl 16y ago
Well they just sued based on those patents, so I guess it's nuclear war now?
eli 16y ago
Well, there would be no reason to build a defense in the first place if NOBODY ever went on the offense.
- napierzaza 16y ago
  FYI there was never a global nuclear holocaust; but people still built nukes. In fact there was never direct fighting between the US and Russia...

j-g-faustus 16y ago

This article from 2007 might be of interest: "How Google routed around Sun's IP-based licensing restrictions on Java ME": http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/110/ http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/110/ It's apparently not a complete surprise, this guy in 2007 predicted that ... in the future expect a shit-load of IP-related lawsuits on this.

superjared 16y ago
Another interesting tidbit from the article you linked: The trick is that Google doesn’t claim that Android is a Java platform, although it can run some programs written with the Java language and against some derived version of the Java class library. Sun could prevent this if they had a patent on the standard class library, but they don’t and, even if they did, I strongly doubt it would be enforceable since Android doesn’t claim to be compatible (and in fact, could very well claim that their subset/superset is an innovation on the existing patent and challenge Sun’s position).
- wmf 16y ago
  If by "interesting" you mean "totally misunderstands patent law". What Google claims is irrelevant; either they use Oracle's patented techniques or they don't.
  - mooneater 16y ago
    If only patent suits were so cut-and-dry.
  - brettnak 16y ago
    In software, it's really easy to not know if you're violating IP.

ssp 16y ago

The complaint as a PDF: http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadget/files/oracle-google.pdf http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadget/files/oracle-google.p...

muhfuhkuh 16y ago

"It'll be interesting to see Oracle's stance toward other alternate JVMs such as IBM's." IBM could completely paralyze the entire computer industry with their portfolio. That they don't is a testament to how much money they earn in simply letting others do the "hard" PC stuff while they singularly engulf the big iron market. IBM was the only company that I know of that actually outlasted the US government in antitrust litigation. The DoJ, after 15 YEARS of litigation, simply dropped the case due to lack of will and resources to continue. Oracle wouldn't dare try IBM in court.

astine 16y ago
IBM's JVM is licensed. They had a legal agreement with Sun over it and I have no reason to believe that it won't carry over with Oracle.
tocomment 16y ago
That's interesting. I wonder if Google could buy IBM and then have them drop the lawsuit?
- helium 16y ago
  I don't know if you're trying to make a joke, but that might be a bit difficult for Google to do since IBM is worth more than they are. http://www.google.com/finance?catid=66529330&sort=MARKET_CAP#link_Market http://www.google.com/finance?catid=66529330&sort=MARKET... Cap
- ryanwaggoner 16y ago
  There's no reason this comment should be voted down.
  - tocomment 16y ago
    There's no reason your comment should be voted down either. I upvoted it at least.
    - 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

rbanffy 16y ago

> it raises some fairly serious questions around Java's future development as a platform vis a vis the uncertainty recently resolved between Microsoft and the Mono project Microsoft's "Community Promise" does not cover the whole .NET stack - it covers only the ECMA standardized parts. It has "It's a trap" written all over it. I would also think twice before relying on promises from a convicted monopoly abuser.

shadowfox 16y ago
Now I am not advocating that MS should be given a free hand. But what does being a convicted monopoly abuser have to do with patent traps?
- cookiecaper 16y ago
  I think he stated that to indicate that we shouldn't just take Microsoft at its word that it won't attempt to litigate Mono et al. They'll find a loophole in the "Community Promise" (possibly the loophole described above) and try to hurt their enemies.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  > But what does being a convicted monopoly abuser have to do with patent traps? It has been already demonstrated they are willing to place profits above ethical and responsible (not to say lawful) behavior.

binaryfinery 16y ago

I shouldn't still be surprised by this shit, but the claims of patent 5,966,702 are basically "There was some data and we normalized it". Seriously. WTF? Can we start putting questions like these on 1st year bachelors exams, so we can finally prove that someone "reasonably skilled in the arts" can figure it out?