8 ms·

Oracle v Google: Why? What does Oracle hope to gain?

70 points by bensummers 16y ago

stanleydrew 16y ago
> What Dalvik never did – never could have done – was protect Google from patent litigation. This comment is a little silly considering that creation of Dalvik is what incented this lawsuit in the first place.
- sogrady 16y ago
  With the disclaimer that I'm the author of the linked piece, I'm not sure why the comment is silly. Dalvik is indeed at the heart of Oracle's claims, but many casual followers of its development are operating under the assumption that Google's cleanroom reimplementation shields it from patent claims. An interpretation that is obviously false, as Dalvik was intended to circumvent copyright and - perhaps - trade secrets, not patents. But it's something you hear with some frequency, so spelling it out in clear terms seemed worthwhile. No?
  - stanleydrew 16y ago
    I guess I can see where you're coming from vis-a-vis wanting to spell it out. But wouldn't it make more sense to emphasize that creating Dalvik is exactly what put Google in position to receive this suit? It feels like you are suggesting that there was some intent to avoid a patent suit when Google decided to create Dalvik rather than license the JVM but that it didn't work. When in reality, creating Dalvik is what brought about the suit in the first place. If Google wanted to safely avoid a suit, they would have just licensed the JVM like everyone else right?
    - DenisM 16y ago
      You need to understand the difference between patents and copyrights. Copyright infringement and trade secrets abuse (where exposure could have happened) can be avoided by clean-rooming original works. That's what it means to clean-room - re-implement without being directly affected by the original. Patent infringement can not be avoided in this fashion. Hence, Google had choices: 1. License JVM, and probably pay some fees not compatible with their "free and free" android plans. 2. Use JVM without licensing and get nailed for copyright infringement. 3. Clean-room their own VM and risk a patent fight. At the time Sun was known for not starting up fights (Shwartz let on this in a recent interview), so it looked like a good plan. 4. Go a completely different route. Still risk patent infringement.
      - stanleydrew 16y ago
        Wait, I never suggested that software patents could be avoided by cleanroom implementations. And I don't see how anything I've said has anything to do with the difference between patent infringement and copyright infringement. But your laying out of Google's options is very useful. My point is just that it's a little weird to say that Dalvik couldn't protect Google from a patent suit, because building it created the suit. It's a little like saying that playing Russian roulette can't protect you from getting shot. But I've belabored this point enough I think.
        ericd 16y ago
        Just because a suit is created doesn't mean it has merit. What he's saying is that clean room reimplementations (Dalvik) side-step copyrights, but not patents. The fact that it was created to circumvent something, just not this particular thing, could lead to a lot of confusion for a lot of less savvy readers if this wasn't cleared up.
        stanleydrew 16y ago
        I never said the suit had merit, so I'm not sure what your first comment is referring to. But your second point is valid, and I agree that some things needed clearing up. I just thought the way that particular comment was worded wasn't helping that much. Going back to my Russian roulette analogy, of course playing Russian roulette won't protect you from getting shot. It's the fact that you're playing Russian roulette in the first place that is putting you at risk of being shot. If people are confused about that, then it's probably best to educate them about how playing Russian roulette can result in you getting shot. Bringing the analogy back, I feel like it would have been more useful to just educate people about the fact that creating Dalvik is what directly led to this suit and for what reasons.
        DenisM 16y ago
        Let me restate the point differently, maybe it will make more sense that way. While many people think that Dalvik was built to protect against all kinds of lawsuits, this is not true - it only protects against one kind - copyright/tradesecret lawsuit, and does not protect against patent lawsuit. This is exactly what article says where you quoted it. The reason why it needs to be pointed out is that, well, many people do not realize the difference. Does it make more sense now?
  - wvenable 16y ago
    > Dalvik was intended to circumvent copyright and - perhaps - trade secrets, not patents. I disagree. There is no reason that Google couldn't have built their own clean-room implementation of the JVM and called in Android. If they used no Sun code and no Sun trademarks, there were would be copyright or trademark infringement. Outside of some technical advantage, the only other reason to completely change the design of the VM would be to get around JVM related patents. It's quite possible that Dalvik allows Google to avoid most of Sun's patents on Java technology. The patents included the suit would seem to be violated by most VM technologies, including Microsoft's .NET CLR.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - webmink 16y ago
      Going further than that, given Google hired a number of staff that had worked on the Java implementation at Sun, and given that the head of Google was present at Sun as the Java patent-and-copyright trap was being constructed, it seems inconceivable to me that Dalvik would have been permitted to violate Sun's patents.
      - sogrady 16y ago
        In a rational world and under a reasonable patent system, I might agree. But you know as well as I do, Simon, probably better, that under the current process it's difficult to guarantee that you're not violating anyone's patents. Particularly when you're reimplementing an existing system. Is it possible that Oracle's patents don't read on Dalvik? Certainly. Did Google take care to minimize the risk of such? I'm sure they did. But however careful the execution, the system at present is would be actively working against them.
avar 16y ago
It just dawned on me that this is going to be another thing like SCO. Man years will be spent arguing over this by thousands of self-appointed Internet Lawyers for years, with the signal to noise ratio approaching zero.
- mbreese 16y ago
  Some have already started calling this SCOracle. So yes, be prepared for a long protracted legal battle. The upside might be the end to software patents. The downside is years of legal maneuvering not to mention the death of Java.
  - moeffju 16y ago
    I know a number of people who would not call the death of Java a downside.
    - mcav 16y ago
      The death of the JVM would most definitely be a downside.
      - nkassis 16y ago
        Considering that if Oracle gets it's way, making a JVM type VM is going to be impossible without lawsuit. Those patents seem very broad.
  - sogrady 16y ago
    As much as I would like to believe that this case could bring sufficient attention to the absurdity that is software patents that it would compel a remedy, I think it unlikely. Frankly, this is likely to be regarded as business-as-usual outside of technology circles, and as long as large technology providers are extracting substantial revenue from their intellectual property in this fashion we can't expect much change. Economics are, generally, the only real change agent.
- enjo 16y ago
recampbell 16y ago
This is the best analysis I've seen of the suit. I agree that this is not primarily about money, given the uncertainty of an outcome. More than anything else though, this is Oracle proving they aren't going to play softball with infringement Sun's IP. The whole episode reminds me of Nixon and Kissinger's plan to make the Soviets think he was nuts: "Frustrated, Nixon decided to try something new: threaten the Soviet Union with a massive nuclear strike and make its leaders think he was crazy enough to go through with it. His hope was that the Soviets would be so frightened of events spinning out of control that they would strong-arm Hanoi, telling the North Vietnamese to start making concessions at the negotiating table or risk losing Soviet military support." http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/16-03/ff_nuclearwar?currentPage=all#ixzz0wbWpMqUT http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/16-03/ff_nuc... Larry doesn't care about openness or community -- he holds them in contempt. What he cares about is winning. And this was his way to prove it.
- sogrady 16y ago
  "Larry doesn't care about openness or community -- he holds them in contempt. What he cares about is winning. And this was his way to prove it." That's a better way of putting it than anything I came up with. To give credit where credit is due, his approach has produced for the firm. And his disdain for communities like Linux (e.g. Oracle's Linux distribution) and OpenSolaris (e.g. the leaked memo) has not cost the firm much on the public markets thus far. But the same was once true of Microsoft, and now they have felt compelled to attempt a difficult, long term rehab of their public image. Which makes one wonder whether a similar effort from Oracle is not an If, but rather a When.
  - andrewljohnson 16y ago
    Oracle does not sell consumer software, so the image issue is mostly irrelevant.
    - sogrady 16y ago
      Respectfully disagree. Reputation and image are important if yours is poor amongst a community that influences buying decisions. Traditionally, this hasn't really been the case with Oracle, as their products are still adopted up the food chain from most developers who might be expected to have a poor image of Oracle. The question is how long this remains the case, and what impact a poor image will have on hiring, partnership, investment in the Java ecosystem, and so on.
curious_man 16y ago
There is something I don't get yet (my ignorance): how this mess will affect the other languages that runs on the JVM (like clojure, scala, etc)?
- mhd 16y ago
  Not much. I've seen no steps taken against OpenJDK yet, and even if they did an OpenSolaris on that, you could always run it with the official JDK. It would be beyond crazy if the wouldn't make one available anymore. What probably will happen is that some frustrated developers won't use anything associated with the JVM. I don't expect to see a lot of this, though. A lot of the people who use JVM languages already work in an environment where there's more than enough proprietary enterprise software. And I doubt that it matters a lot for complete newbies. Personally, I was on the lookout for new languages to focus upon, after playing with a lot recently. And after this, Ocaml and Erlang moved to the top of the stack, past Scala and Clojure.
  - curious_man 16y ago
    Thank you for your perspective. Let me recap the issue as I understand it so far: Oracle filed a lawsuit against Google regarding patents infringement for their use of Dalvik in Android. This is a big problem for Google and for every other alternative JVM (especially open-source) because even for a clean-room implementation you need to be licensed by Oracle. But as far as I can see this is not so interesting to general application developers since, I think, the majority of them targets the official JVM (open or not) anyway. The same goes for other JVM based languages, since they can generally run well in the OpenJDK. However the general consent that I see is that this is a bad move for the innovation of the JVM platform and a move that will likely reduce the trust of the industry in this technology. Maybe new projects will be developed upon another and more open platform, but the vast majority of application-level projects (such as the myriad of enterprise webapps) won't be so interested. What do you think? Disclosure: I'm interested in alternative JVM languages because in my company (who is J[ava/VM] centric) we're evaluating technologies to rewrite one of our products from scratch. Aside from my personal interest in new languages obviously.
jared314 16y ago
Time to swap Dalvik for v8? I saw a presentation on how you could swap out the Dalvik VM for something else. Has anyone tried it?
mtkd 16y ago
1) Brings the issue of software patents to court in a big way 2) Opens a massive opportunity for new enterprise technologies to emerge First reaction was anger, but after consideration I'm quite glad it's happened.
cwp 16y ago
> Apple and Microsoft will be thrilled by this development. No kidding! Apple, especially. To the extent that Apple has suffered from developer frustration with it's App Store policies, this is a mitigating factor. Apple is fickle about approving apps, but who knows what will happen with Dalvik.
varjag 16y ago
Regardless of their goals, that Oracle found it suitable to throw Java into kamikaze attack on Google, shows how little they really value it.
- zmmmmm 16y ago
  I think they value Java quite a lot. The frightening part is that they must value something else quite a lot more. For my money, it has to be that they want a stake in the mobile market - they've decided they can't sit by and let the future of computing pass them by. This is their way of getting in on the action.
binaryfinery 16y ago
Please oh please let it be a Java-based iOS SDK instead of the archaic shit we have to use now.
- binaryfinery 16y ago
  Why the markdown? Objective-C is shitty with shitty tools. Ellison is Jobs' friend. Ellison owns Java. Android is iPhone's rival.
  - Synaesthesia 16y ago
    You don't have to use it. Your opinion on objective-c is irrelevant, and Apple aren't gonna switch to Java.
zmmmmm 16y ago
A good summary. After several days of thinking about this I can only come to two conclusions, neither of which I like: a) Oracle is realizing that mobile is strategic and has decided this is how they will get in on the action. They think it is much more important than Java. They will force Google to license Java from them and that way gain not only royalties, but actual control of Android. b) This is purely about damaging Android. There is an agreement we know nothing about yet between Apple and Oracle that if Oracle takes down Android something will happen in return from Apple. They don't care if they win or lose, they just want to smash adoption of Android. It could as easily be a move from MS but it is hard to think past the bitterness and sense of betrayal expressed by Jobs about Android, or the frequently reported "close friendship" between Ellison and Jobs. I wish these were conspiracy theories but I can't account for Oracle's willingness to detonate what is still an incredibly valuable Java asset any other way.
- sprout 16y ago
  I have to think that if licensing fees were required for Android Google would re-tool 3.0 for Python or something. Mobile processors are getting fast enough that Python wouldn't be a problem And if they didn't, I suspect device manufacturers would look to the truly free Linux platforms.
  - tzs 16y ago
    What is important for a phone platform is what's on top, not what's on bottom. Android can compete with iPhone because of the high level stuff Google provided--the Linux at the bottom is pretty much irrelevant. Most Linux phones, other than Android and WebOS, run crappy top level stuff written by the device manufacturers. Rarely, a device manufacturer does come up with something that is not crap to put on top of the kernel, but even then they can't compete with iPhone because they lack the infrastructure, like app stores that can attract significant developer interest.
    - sprout 16y ago
      By all accounts I've seen, WebOS is a great platform, and failed because of marketing and hardware, not software.
bretpiatt 16y ago
Total speculation but it seems very likely that Google has some database / data analysis / data processing related patents that Oracle would like to cross-license and rather than a starting with a soft discussion they throw a live grenade in the room and make the talks go quickly.
wvenable 16y ago
I wonder if Google made a mistake including any part of "Java" in Android. In retrospect, it seems like it would have been better to not only create their own VM but the whole rest of the stack as well. It wouldn't have protected them, necessarily, from these patent claims but Oracle wouldn't even have bothered looking because there wouldn't have been any Java technology involved.
nkassis 16y ago
Why did Google not just buy Sun? I've been saying this since IBM started talking to Sun.
10ren 16y ago
One of Oracle's selling points for their database was independence over hardware vendors. Java offers the same - although today's hardware is much less diverse. Sun in fact did litigate over Java, as the article offhandedly mentions, though the motivation there was that MS different version was fragmenting the language, and undermining the compatibility of "write once, run anywhere". I agree with the article that even a few billion in damages isn't worth it to Oracle. There must be some strategic advantage, quite possibly in some negotiations with Google that we haven't heard about (and perhaps will never hear about). The point made about the mobile revolution is the right kind of path; another revolution in progress is the cloud. There is definite overlap between Google and Oracle in the cloud, with Google's technology expertise, and it being used by the enterprise - that's probably what Oracle hopes to gain.
va_coder 16y ago
I thought a while back that Google's Appengine could eventually compete with Oracle Database and Oracle Peoplesoft. As more people use Google Apps, Gmail and build custom apps on Appengine, they may start to compete with Oracle offerings. Maybe this is Oracle's way of slowing that down.

70 points by bensummers 16y ago

> What Dalvik never did – never could have done – was protect Google from patent litigation. This comment is a little silly considering that creation of Dalvik is what incented this lawsuit in the first place.

sogrady 16y ago
With the disclaimer that I'm the author of the linked piece, I'm not sure why the comment is silly. Dalvik is indeed at the heart of Oracle's claims, but many casual followers of its development are operating under the assumption that Google's cleanroom reimplementation shields it from patent claims. An interpretation that is obviously false, as Dalvik was intended to circumvent copyright and - perhaps - trade secrets, not patents. But it's something you hear with some frequency, so spelling it out in clear terms seemed worthwhile. No?
- stanleydrew 16y ago
  I guess I can see where you're coming from vis-a-vis wanting to spell it out. But wouldn't it make more sense to emphasize that creating Dalvik is exactly what put Google in position to receive this suit? It feels like you are suggesting that there was some intent to avoid a patent suit when Google decided to create Dalvik rather than license the JVM but that it didn't work. When in reality, creating Dalvik is what brought about the suit in the first place. If Google wanted to safely avoid a suit, they would have just licensed the JVM like everyone else right?
  - DenisM 16y ago
    You need to understand the difference between patents and copyrights. Copyright infringement and trade secrets abuse (where exposure could have happened) can be avoided by clean-rooming original works. That's what it means to clean-room - re-implement without being directly affected by the original. Patent infringement can not be avoided in this fashion. Hence, Google had choices: 1. License JVM, and probably pay some fees not compatible with their "free and free" android plans. 2. Use JVM without licensing and get nailed for copyright infringement. 3. Clean-room their own VM and risk a patent fight. At the time Sun was known for not starting up fights (Shwartz let on this in a recent interview), so it looked like a good plan. 4. Go a completely different route. Still risk patent infringement.
    - stanleydrew 16y ago
      Wait, I never suggested that software patents could be avoided by cleanroom implementations. And I don't see how anything I've said has anything to do with the difference between patent infringement and copyright infringement. But your laying out of Google's options is very useful. My point is just that it's a little weird to say that Dalvik couldn't protect Google from a patent suit, because building it created the suit. It's a little like saying that playing Russian roulette can't protect you from getting shot. But I've belabored this point enough I think.
      - ericd 16y ago
        Just because a suit is created doesn't mean it has merit. What he's saying is that clean room reimplementations (Dalvik) side-step copyrights, but not patents. The fact that it was created to circumvent something, just not this particular thing, could lead to a lot of confusion for a lot of less savvy readers if this wasn't cleared up.
        stanleydrew 16y ago
        I never said the suit had merit, so I'm not sure what your first comment is referring to. But your second point is valid, and I agree that some things needed clearing up. I just thought the way that particular comment was worded wasn't helping that much. Going back to my Russian roulette analogy, of course playing Russian roulette won't protect you from getting shot. It's the fact that you're playing Russian roulette in the first place that is putting you at risk of being shot. If people are confused about that, then it's probably best to educate them about how playing Russian roulette can result in you getting shot. Bringing the analogy back, I feel like it would have been more useful to just educate people about the fact that creating Dalvik is what directly led to this suit and for what reasons.
      - DenisM 16y ago
        Let me restate the point differently, maybe it will make more sense that way. While many people think that Dalvik was built to protect against all kinds of lawsuits, this is not true - it only protects against one kind - copyright/tradesecret lawsuit, and does not protect against patent lawsuit. This is exactly what article says where you quoted it. The reason why it needs to be pointed out is that, well, many people do not realize the difference. Does it make more sense now?
- wvenable 16y ago
  > Dalvik was intended to circumvent copyright and - perhaps - trade secrets, not patents. I disagree. There is no reason that Google couldn't have built their own clean-room implementation of the JVM and called in Android. If they used no Sun code and no Sun trademarks, there were would be copyright or trademark infringement. Outside of some technical advantage, the only other reason to completely change the design of the VM would be to get around JVM related patents. It's quite possible that Dalvik allows Google to avoid most of Sun's patents on Java technology. The patents included the suit would seem to be violated by most VM technologies, including Microsoft's .NET CLR.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - webmink 16y ago
    Going further than that, given Google hired a number of staff that had worked on the Java implementation at Sun, and given that the head of Google was present at Sun as the Java patent-and-copyright trap was being constructed, it seems inconceivable to me that Dalvik would have been permitted to violate Sun's patents.
    - sogrady 16y ago
      In a rational world and under a reasonable patent system, I might agree. But you know as well as I do, Simon, probably better, that under the current process it's difficult to guarantee that you're not violating anyone's patents. Particularly when you're reimplementing an existing system. Is it possible that Oracle's patents don't read on Dalvik? Certainly. Did Google take care to minimize the risk of such? I'm sure they did. But however careful the execution, the system at present is would be actively working against them.

avar 16y ago

It just dawned on me that this is going to be another thing like SCO. Man years will be spent arguing over this by thousands of self-appointed Internet Lawyers for years, with the signal to noise ratio approaching zero.

mbreese 16y ago
Some have already started calling this SCOracle. So yes, be prepared for a long protracted legal battle. The upside might be the end to software patents. The downside is years of legal maneuvering not to mention the death of Java.
- moeffju 16y ago
  I know a number of people who would not call the death of Java a downside.
  - mcav 16y ago
    The death of the JVM would most definitely be a downside.
    - nkassis 16y ago
      Considering that if Oracle gets it's way, making a JVM type VM is going to be impossible without lawsuit. Those patents seem very broad.
- sogrady 16y ago
  As much as I would like to believe that this case could bring sufficient attention to the absurdity that is software patents that it would compel a remedy, I think it unlikely. Frankly, this is likely to be regarded as business-as-usual outside of technology circles, and as long as large technology providers are extracting substantial revenue from their intellectual property in this fashion we can't expect much change. Economics are, generally, the only real change agent.
enjo 16y ago

recampbell 16y ago

This is the best analysis I've seen of the suit. I agree that this is not primarily about money, given the uncertainty of an outcome. More than anything else though, this is Oracle proving they aren't going to play softball with infringement Sun's IP. The whole episode reminds me of Nixon and Kissinger's plan to make the Soviets think he was nuts: "Frustrated, Nixon decided to try something new: threaten the Soviet Union with a massive nuclear strike and make its leaders think he was crazy enough to go through with it. His hope was that the Soviets would be so frightened of events spinning out of control that they would strong-arm Hanoi, telling the North Vietnamese to start making concessions at the negotiating table or risk losing Soviet military support." http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/16-03/ff_nuclearwar?currentPage=all#ixzz0wbWpMqUT http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/16-03/ff_nuc... Larry doesn't care about openness or community -- he holds them in contempt. What he cares about is winning. And this was his way to prove it.

sogrady 16y ago
"Larry doesn't care about openness or community -- he holds them in contempt. What he cares about is winning. And this was his way to prove it." That's a better way of putting it than anything I came up with. To give credit where credit is due, his approach has produced for the firm. And his disdain for communities like Linux (e.g. Oracle's Linux distribution) and OpenSolaris (e.g. the leaked memo) has not cost the firm much on the public markets thus far. But the same was once true of Microsoft, and now they have felt compelled to attempt a difficult, long term rehab of their public image. Which makes one wonder whether a similar effort from Oracle is not an If, but rather a When.
- andrewljohnson 16y ago
  Oracle does not sell consumer software, so the image issue is mostly irrelevant.
  - sogrady 16y ago
    Respectfully disagree. Reputation and image are important if yours is poor amongst a community that influences buying decisions. Traditionally, this hasn't really been the case with Oracle, as their products are still adopted up the food chain from most developers who might be expected to have a poor image of Oracle. The question is how long this remains the case, and what impact a poor image will have on hiring, partnership, investment in the Java ecosystem, and so on.

curious_man 16y ago

There is something I don't get yet (my ignorance): how this mess will affect the other languages that runs on the JVM (like clojure, scala, etc)?

mhd 16y ago
Not much. I've seen no steps taken against OpenJDK yet, and even if they did an OpenSolaris on that, you could always run it with the official JDK. It would be beyond crazy if the wouldn't make one available anymore. What probably will happen is that some frustrated developers won't use anything associated with the JVM. I don't expect to see a lot of this, though. A lot of the people who use JVM languages already work in an environment where there's more than enough proprietary enterprise software. And I doubt that it matters a lot for complete newbies. Personally, I was on the lookout for new languages to focus upon, after playing with a lot recently. And after this, Ocaml and Erlang moved to the top of the stack, past Scala and Clojure.
- curious_man 16y ago
  Thank you for your perspective. Let me recap the issue as I understand it so far: Oracle filed a lawsuit against Google regarding patents infringement for their use of Dalvik in Android. This is a big problem for Google and for every other alternative JVM (especially open-source) because even for a clean-room implementation you need to be licensed by Oracle. But as far as I can see this is not so interesting to general application developers since, I think, the majority of them targets the official JVM (open or not) anyway. The same goes for other JVM based languages, since they can generally run well in the OpenJDK. However the general consent that I see is that this is a bad move for the innovation of the JVM platform and a move that will likely reduce the trust of the industry in this technology. Maybe new projects will be developed upon another and more open platform, but the vast majority of application-level projects (such as the myriad of enterprise webapps) won't be so interested. What do you think? Disclosure: I'm interested in alternative JVM languages because in my company (who is J[ava/VM] centric) we're evaluating technologies to rewrite one of our products from scratch. Aside from my personal interest in new languages obviously.

jared314 16y ago

Time to swap Dalvik for v8? I saw a presentation on how you could swap out the Dalvik VM for something else. Has anyone tried it?

mtkd 16y ago

1) Brings the issue of software patents to court in a big way 2) Opens a massive opportunity for new enterprise technologies to emerge First reaction was anger, but after consideration I'm quite glad it's happened.

cwp 16y ago

> Apple and Microsoft will be thrilled by this development. No kidding! Apple, especially. To the extent that Apple has suffered from developer frustration with it's App Store policies, this is a mitigating factor. Apple is fickle about approving apps, but who knows what will happen with Dalvik.

varjag 16y ago

Regardless of their goals, that Oracle found it suitable to throw Java into kamikaze attack on Google, shows how little they really value it.

zmmmmm 16y ago
I think they value Java quite a lot. The frightening part is that they must value something else quite a lot more. For my money, it has to be that they want a stake in the mobile market - they've decided they can't sit by and let the future of computing pass them by. This is their way of getting in on the action.

binaryfinery 16y ago

Please oh please let it be a Java-based iOS SDK instead of the archaic shit we have to use now.

binaryfinery 16y ago
Why the markdown? Objective-C is shitty with shitty tools. Ellison is Jobs' friend. Ellison owns Java. Android is iPhone's rival.
- Synaesthesia 16y ago
  You don't have to use it. Your opinion on objective-c is irrelevant, and Apple aren't gonna switch to Java.

zmmmmm 16y ago

A good summary. After several days of thinking about this I can only come to two conclusions, neither of which I like: a) Oracle is realizing that mobile is strategic and has decided this is how they will get in on the action. They think it is much more important than Java. They will force Google to license Java from them and that way gain not only royalties, but actual control of Android. b) This is purely about damaging Android. There is an agreement we know nothing about yet between Apple and Oracle that if Oracle takes down Android something will happen in return from Apple. They don't care if they win or lose, they just want to smash adoption of Android. It could as easily be a move from MS but it is hard to think past the bitterness and sense of betrayal expressed by Jobs about Android, or the frequently reported "close friendship" between Ellison and Jobs. I wish these were conspiracy theories but I can't account for Oracle's willingness to detonate what is still an incredibly valuable Java asset any other way.

sprout 16y ago
I have to think that if licensing fees were required for Android Google would re-tool 3.0 for Python or something. Mobile processors are getting fast enough that Python wouldn't be a problem And if they didn't, I suspect device manufacturers would look to the truly free Linux platforms.
- tzs 16y ago
  What is important for a phone platform is what's on top, not what's on bottom. Android can compete with iPhone because of the high level stuff Google provided--the Linux at the bottom is pretty much irrelevant. Most Linux phones, other than Android and WebOS, run crappy top level stuff written by the device manufacturers. Rarely, a device manufacturer does come up with something that is not crap to put on top of the kernel, but even then they can't compete with iPhone because they lack the infrastructure, like app stores that can attract significant developer interest.
  - sprout 16y ago
    By all accounts I've seen, WebOS is a great platform, and failed because of marketing and hardware, not software.

bretpiatt 16y ago

Total speculation but it seems very likely that Google has some database / data analysis / data processing related patents that Oracle would like to cross-license and rather than a starting with a soft discussion they throw a live grenade in the room and make the talks go quickly.

wvenable 16y ago

I wonder if Google made a mistake including any part of "Java" in Android. In retrospect, it seems like it would have been better to not only create their own VM but the whole rest of the stack as well. It wouldn't have protected them, necessarily, from these patent claims but Oracle wouldn't even have bothered looking because there wouldn't have been any Java technology involved.

nkassis 16y ago

Why did Google not just buy Sun? I've been saying this since IBM started talking to Sun.

10ren 16y ago

One of Oracle's selling points for their database was independence over hardware vendors. Java offers the same - although today's hardware is much less diverse. Sun in fact did litigate over Java, as the article offhandedly mentions, though the motivation there was that MS different version was fragmenting the language, and undermining the compatibility of "write once, run anywhere". I agree with the article that even a few billion in damages isn't worth it to Oracle. There must be some strategic advantage, quite possibly in some negotiations with Google that we haven't heard about (and perhaps will never hear about). The point made about the mobile revolution is the right kind of path; another revolution in progress is the cloud. There is definite overlap between Google and Oracle in the cloud, with Google's technology expertise, and it being used by the enterprise - that's probably what Oracle hopes to gain.

va_coder 16y ago

I thought a while back that Google's Appengine could eventually compete with Oracle Database and Oracle Peoplesoft. As more people use Google Apps, Gmail and build custom apps on Appengine, they may start to compete with Oracle offerings. Maybe this is Oracle's way of slowing that down.