19 ms·

I think the part that gets lost in all of this is that Sun offered to license Java to Google previously for $100M. [1] Google turned that down and bypassed Sun

by redm 9y ago

I think the part that gets lost in all of this is that Sun offered to license Java to Google previously for $100M. [1] Google turned that down and bypassed Sun because they didn't want to pay (or license). At the time, Sun was happy to see Java being used by Google, even without the license. Still, Google knew exactly what they were doing. [2] My point is, they did this to themselves and they knew what they were possibly getting into. [1] https://www.computerworld.com/article/2509401/technology-law-regulation/google--sun-offered-to-license-java-for--100m.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2509401/technology-law... [2] https://www.cnet.com/news/why-oracle-not-sun-sued-google-over-java/ https://www.cnet.com/news/why-oracle-not-sun-sued-google-ove... EDIT: Added the second reference and cleaned up thoughts. Included note regarded license as well as pay.

Retric 9y ago
That licence would have more restrictions in both the short and long term than just the upfront cost.
kodablah 9y ago
Call me naive, but is a company being happy with what you're doing to the tune of them even saying so (or representatives thereof) tantamount to an implicit contract? I know it's been argued in this case, but it strikes me as disingenuous at the least and fraudulent at the most to change your mind. Sure we don't mind Google bearing the brunt of this because they can, but how would we feel were a smaller company subject to this kind of bait and switch based on legalities?
- josaka 9y ago
  It's not a contract, but there are other mechanism in the law to give effect to this intuition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel
  - ineedasername 9y ago
    Estoppel: This my be my new favorite word. I can imagine all kinds of scenarios for use (okay, I can imagine one) "You can try to renege on your promises, but I'll estop you, I'll estop you once & for all!"
- ABCLAW 9y ago
  This isn't a bait and switch based on legalities. If Oracle made representations to Google that they didn't mind them using their software, Google would be able to claim that Oracle is estopped from pursuing a claim due to the prior authorization they received. What's being stated here is that Google's infringement improved Oracle's market position - that fact doesn't bar Oracle from pursuing their remedy against infringement. If you steal my software for making phones chirp every time you get a tweet and widely distribute it to the point that it becomes the de-facto standard in the tweet notification market, it doesn't magically mean that I don't get to come after you for stealing my tweet tech. Here's the decision itself. Estopple is mentioned 0 times. This isn't because Google's legal team is braindead. It's because the argument that the Google's use was authorized following them walking away mid-licensing negotiation is insane. Google's defense is based on fair use. http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-1118.Opinion.3-26-2018.1.PDF http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-or...
  - wrs 9y ago
    They did make those representations, and Google did claim that. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/suns-jonathan-schwartz-at-trial-java-was-free-android-had-no-licensing-problem/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/suns-jonathan-sc...
    - ABCLAW 9y ago
      No, they didn't. If I hand you a bag of balls and say you're allowed to play with the purple and green balls inside, I haven't given you permission to play with any of the other balls. In this case, the different balls are the different dismemberments/rights related to Java.
      - wrs 9y ago
        Sun defended Java with the trademark and the compatibility kit, not copyright on the API. It never occurred to anyone (as it shouldn't now) that there was copyright on the API. [edit] Jonathan Schwartz: "The strategy was, we agree on these open APIs, then we compete on implementations."
djsumdog 9y ago
But the thing is Google didn't use the Oracle Java engine. They implemented their own runtime environment that's mostly API compatible with Java (and getting further from that as the years go on). This gets into really critical concerns around APIs. If commercial product A sucks and I'm in a shop where we made our own drop in replacement that implement's A's APIs .. then we open source that drop-in replacement and put it on Github so anyone can use it, are we no violating their copyright just by implementing their API? This can set dangerous prescient when it comes to interoperability and reverse engineering.
- pjmlp 9y ago
  All telecommunication companies, Nokia, Motorola, Alcatel-Lucent, .... have their network elements APIs copyrighted and pattented. Try to sell a device that comunicates with a e.g. BTS station without buying their licenses, to see how it ends.
  - steve_gh 9y ago
    Mobile Telecoms standards are written by 3GPP, all BTSs and handsets (and for that matter, interfaces like 'A') are standard, and controlled by 3GPP. I believe they are open.
    - pjmlp 9y ago
      Not they belong to the companies and some of them are available under FRAND licensing. For the rest there is the 3GPP patent platform.
      - kpil 9y ago
        I'd say it's patent law, not copyright law, that make the licences possible to enforce. Most of the patents are the result of a lot of research and cleverness. Some of the patents are the equivalent of looking in another drawer if the first one did not contain what you are looking in. It's a bit arbitrary that an API isn't protected when some bullshit patents are. There is clearly much thought in some of the java APIs. I'd like to see shorter protection time for patents thought, especially in areas where there are very low investment costs, like software development.
pjmlp 9y ago
To complement that, here is the most recent Gosling´s interview at Triangulation about how Google screw Sun and was aware of their monetary situation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYw3X4RZv6Y&feature=youtu.be&t=57m42s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYw3X4RZv6Y&feature=youtu.be...
- geodel 9y ago
  Well, first Sun treated Apache like shit over Harmony issue which had such big role in popularizing Java. Later Sun was was on receiving side.
bitL 9y ago
SUN wasn't very happy about Google using Java without paying anything. IIRC SUN wanted Google to use J2ME and get some modest fees; instead Google decided to reimplement API, pissing off all top guys at SUN who publicly were OK with it (hoping they could negotiate some payment), but internally were boiling.
- Zigurd 9y ago
  Sun was only incrementally better than Oracle in their approach to Java licensing. They already has one pyrrhic victory over Microsoft that birthed C#, .NET, and Microsoft's own VM. Failing to come to terms with Google means client Java runs on Android, and not even on a Java VM. Way to make your language technology relevant.
- michaelmrose 9y ago
  I don't think J2ME was suitable for googles usage regardless of price. Unsuitable tech is unsuitable if someone pays YOU 100M
  - bitL 9y ago
    Sure, I also found it funny back then, but that was what SUN management was thinking...
lmm 9y ago
Google believed they could implement their own VM and get something cheaper (and/or better) than they would get by licensing one from Sun. That seems like a perfectly legitimate business decision for them to make. A clean-room reimplementation of an existing API had long been thought to be legally clear, going all the way back to Compaq reimplementing the IBM BIOS and starting the "IBM-compatible" competitive ecosystem that our whole industry is built on.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- monocasa 9y ago
  > better That's it. The VMs on the market at the time we're absolutely terrible for phones. John Carmack was commenting on how JavaME gave you worse performance than an original IBM PC, and HotSpot's strategies absolutely destroy battery life.
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    Except that wasn't the only approach available. There are OEMs selling commercial JDKs for embedded use, with their own VM, JIT and AOT compiler variations, and library extensions. Contrary to Google, they always played by the rules.
    - monocasa 9y ago
      In 2008, none were as good as Dalvik for the use case.
      - pjmlp 9y ago
        That's the story Google likes to sell. Nokia and Sony-Ericsson flagship phones were quite good.
        monocasa 9y ago
        No they weren't, I developed for them.
simias 9y ago
Google knew what they were doing and IMO they were right. I still don't think Google or anybody should have to ask for Oracle's permission for reimplementing a JVM (as long as it's done cleanly). You seem to put the blame on Google for not wanting to pay $100M at the time but what if instead it was a small startup who simply couldn't afford that cost? I'm not worried about Google in the least, I am however concerned about the precedent this sets.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  But, and this is the big but, they did it in such a way as not to be compatible with the Oracle one.
  - simias 9y ago
    I'm not sure how that's relevant, if anything since the crux of the issue seems to be the "stealing" of the API the fact that there are incompatibilities should be in Google's favour? It's a bit odd to claim that somebody stole your API while at the same time complaining that they did not steal it well enough.
    - s73v3r_ 9y ago
      "I'm not sure how that's relevant" The original license for Java said you can create your own implementation just fine, so long as it was compatible with the others (or at least the benchmark one). By not doing that, Google violated the license. "It's a bit odd to claim that somebody stole your API while at the same time complaining that they did not steal it well enough." Not if what you want to avoid is people Embracing your API, Extending it with new special bits, and Extinguishing your version.
      - icebraining 9y ago
        That's not all it said. The license had field-of-use restrictions, meaning you couldn't use your implementation for every purpose. The Apache Foundation published an open letter to Sun on that regard. And specifically, use of a J2SE implementation in mobile devices may have been forbidden.
geofft 9y ago
> I think the part that gets lost in all of this is that Sun offered to license Java to Google previously for $100M. Google turned that down and bypassed Sun because they didn't want to pay (or license). I'm not sure I follow - Google believed they didn't need a license, just like everyone who used Linux despite SCO offering to license Linux to them. If Google needed a license, and Sun had not offered one, it would not make a difference; Google would still be liable for infringement. There's no abandonware or compulsory license provision in the laws for this. The question is whether Google needed a license, not whether Sun was willing to offer one and for what price.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  There's no provision for compulsory licensing for copyright because it's not supposed to inhibit technical implementations. Patents do that, and it least in the UK the law includes compulsory licensing.
  - geofft 9y ago
    US copyright law doesn't do compulsory licensing for anything other than music recordings, and I believe it doesn't have compulsory patent licensing at all. I'm not sure there's a good rationale for this.
danShumway 9y ago
> My point is, they did this to themselves Whether or not they knew that someone would come along and sue them doesn't matter if the lawsuit is unjust. Even if Oracle is correct, and even if APIs can be copyrighted, Google's intent still doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is whether or not they infringed. I consider this to be a form of victim blaming. You should argue the case on its own merits, not posit that Google was "asking for it."
- ben509 9y ago
  It wouldn't be victim blaming to criticize a company that is breached because they didn't take compsec seriously. They weren't a small company at the time and they knew this was a hazard. Google had a responsibility to their shareholders and customers to do the right thing regardless of how stupid they thought the law was, and their attitude here was pretty arrogant. (To avoid beating up on Google, I should point out believing they could take on anything helped them do some work that changed the world for the better.) Since the attitudes of parties involved in a case are often considered in judging the case, I think it's entirely fair to bring them up.
  - danShumway 9y ago
    > It wouldn't be victim blaming to criticize a company that is breached because they didn't take compsec seriously. If you then turned around and argued that the hacker somehow wasn't in the wrong because of the victim's attitude, yes it would be. Victim blaming has nothing to do with someone's responsibility to others, and everything to do with taking a conversation about whether an attack is justified, and shifting that conversation to instead suggest "well, dumb people like that deserve to be taken advantage of." Oracle contested that Google infringed their IP. "They should have known we were gonna sue them as soon as we smelled the money" is not compelling evidence for that claim. Much in the same way, saying "Johny should have turned off his attitude and just given us the money" is not compelling justification for a mob hit.
btilly 9y ago
When Google did that, Google was relying on controlling precedents in the 9th circuit saying that APIs are functional elements needed for interoperability and therefore are not copyrightable. The first judge that they saw agreed with them and it should have been an open and shut case. It was Google's misfortune that through a quirk of the system the case wound up in the Federal Circuit, which has a history of creatively ignoring precedent to fashion new precedent that increases its own importance. (Which is how we have patents on all sorts of crap that the Supreme Court has ruled that we shouldn't.) And it was good lawyering on Oracle's part to throw every possible argument at the case, including the copyright arguments that they knew they should have lost.
erikb 9y ago
It's also very standard enterprise thinking: Save 100 mio now, get a bigger bonus check, and worry about the consequences later. Maybe all consequences can be avoided even.
bad_user 9y ago
Sun didn't just license the rights to the Java IP, but as a supposed standard established by the JCP, a farce of a standardization body that never was. Google probably had to use their implementation and J2ME was and still is a piece of shit. Yes it was about cost, but the cost would have been far greater then the licensing price ;-)
sdfmxiid1 9y ago
I'm having flashbacks here, but what I remember at that time was concern that if Google paid Sun, they'd be setting a precedent that way. There was a sigh of relief when they didn't, at least from some, because, regardless of how much better of a company Sun was than post-Sun Oracle, people felt like it was overreaching. So although you're correct that Google did this themselves, the alternative was fraught with problems also. Better to fight it and lose than implicitly accept the idea and pay. This was all happening in the context of C#, which people seem to be forgetting about too. It's important to remember that the whole idea of copyrightable API was done under the argument that it was important to protect API integrity from forks. MS provided evidence of a desire to do this (as has Google to some extent since then) but then introduced C# instead. Anyway, this is a mess because copyrightable API is ridiculous, but Google should have been more careful with cleanroom implementations.

by redm 9y ago

Retric 9y ago

That licence would have more restrictions in both the short and long term than just the upfront cost.

kodablah 9y ago

Call me naive, but is a company being happy with what you're doing to the tune of them even saying so (or representatives thereof) tantamount to an implicit contract? I know it's been argued in this case, but it strikes me as disingenuous at the least and fraudulent at the most to change your mind. Sure we don't mind Google bearing the brunt of this because they can, but how would we feel were a smaller company subject to this kind of bait and switch based on legalities?

josaka 9y ago
It's not a contract, but there are other mechanism in the law to give effect to this intuition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel
- ineedasername 9y ago
  Estoppel: This my be my new favorite word. I can imagine all kinds of scenarios for use (okay, I can imagine one) "You can try to renege on your promises, but I'll estop you, I'll estop you once & for all!"
ABCLAW 9y ago
This isn't a bait and switch based on legalities. If Oracle made representations to Google that they didn't mind them using their software, Google would be able to claim that Oracle is estopped from pursuing a claim due to the prior authorization they received. What's being stated here is that Google's infringement improved Oracle's market position - that fact doesn't bar Oracle from pursuing their remedy against infringement. If you steal my software for making phones chirp every time you get a tweet and widely distribute it to the point that it becomes the de-facto standard in the tweet notification market, it doesn't magically mean that I don't get to come after you for stealing my tweet tech. Here's the decision itself. Estopple is mentioned 0 times. This isn't because Google's legal team is braindead. It's because the argument that the Google's use was authorized following them walking away mid-licensing negotiation is insane. Google's defense is based on fair use. http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-1118.Opinion.3-26-2018.1.PDF http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-or...
- wrs 9y ago
  They did make those representations, and Google did claim that. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/suns-jonathan-schwartz-at-trial-java-was-free-android-had-no-licensing-problem/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/suns-jonathan-sc...
  - ABCLAW 9y ago
    No, they didn't. If I hand you a bag of balls and say you're allowed to play with the purple and green balls inside, I haven't given you permission to play with any of the other balls. In this case, the different balls are the different dismemberments/rights related to Java.
    - wrs 9y ago
      Sun defended Java with the trademark and the compatibility kit, not copyright on the API. It never occurred to anyone (as it shouldn't now) that there was copyright on the API. [edit] Jonathan Schwartz: "The strategy was, we agree on these open APIs, then we compete on implementations."

djsumdog 9y ago

But the thing is Google didn't use the Oracle Java engine. They implemented their own runtime environment that's mostly API compatible with Java (and getting further from that as the years go on). This gets into really critical concerns around APIs. If commercial product A sucks and I'm in a shop where we made our own drop in replacement that implement's A's APIs .. then we open source that drop-in replacement and put it on Github so anyone can use it, are we no violating their copyright just by implementing their API? This can set dangerous prescient when it comes to interoperability and reverse engineering.

pjmlp 9y ago
All telecommunication companies, Nokia, Motorola, Alcatel-Lucent, .... have their network elements APIs copyrighted and pattented. Try to sell a device that comunicates with a e.g. BTS station without buying their licenses, to see how it ends.
- steve_gh 9y ago
  Mobile Telecoms standards are written by 3GPP, all BTSs and handsets (and for that matter, interfaces like 'A') are standard, and controlled by 3GPP. I believe they are open.
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    Not they belong to the companies and some of them are available under FRAND licensing. For the rest there is the 3GPP patent platform.
    - kpil 9y ago
      I'd say it's patent law, not copyright law, that make the licences possible to enforce. Most of the patents are the result of a lot of research and cleverness. Some of the patents are the equivalent of looking in another drawer if the first one did not contain what you are looking in. It's a bit arbitrary that an API isn't protected when some bullshit patents are. There is clearly much thought in some of the java APIs. I'd like to see shorter protection time for patents thought, especially in areas where there are very low investment costs, like software development.

pjmlp 9y ago

To complement that, here is the most recent Gosling´s interview at Triangulation about how Google screw Sun and was aware of their monetary situation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYw3X4RZv6Y&feature=youtu.be&t=57m42s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYw3X4RZv6Y&feature=youtu.be...

geodel 9y ago
Well, first Sun treated Apache like shit over Harmony issue which had such big role in popularizing Java. Later Sun was was on receiving side.

bitL 9y ago

SUN wasn't very happy about Google using Java without paying anything. IIRC SUN wanted Google to use J2ME and get some modest fees; instead Google decided to reimplement API, pissing off all top guys at SUN who publicly were OK with it (hoping they could negotiate some payment), but internally were boiling.

Zigurd 9y ago
Sun was only incrementally better than Oracle in their approach to Java licensing. They already has one pyrrhic victory over Microsoft that birthed C#, .NET, and Microsoft's own VM. Failing to come to terms with Google means client Java runs on Android, and not even on a Java VM. Way to make your language technology relevant.
michaelmrose 9y ago
I don't think J2ME was suitable for googles usage regardless of price. Unsuitable tech is unsuitable if someone pays YOU 100M
- bitL 9y ago
  Sure, I also found it funny back then, but that was what SUN management was thinking...

lmm 9y ago

Google believed they could implement their own VM and get something cheaper (and/or better) than they would get by licensing one from Sun. That seems like a perfectly legitimate business decision for them to make. A clean-room reimplementation of an existing API had long been thought to be legally clear, going all the way back to Compaq reimplementing the IBM BIOS and starting the "IBM-compatible" competitive ecosystem that our whole industry is built on.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
monocasa 9y ago
> better That's it. The VMs on the market at the time we're absolutely terrible for phones. John Carmack was commenting on how JavaME gave you worse performance than an original IBM PC, and HotSpot's strategies absolutely destroy battery life.
- pjmlp 9y ago
  Except that wasn't the only approach available. There are OEMs selling commercial JDKs for embedded use, with their own VM, JIT and AOT compiler variations, and library extensions. Contrary to Google, they always played by the rules.
  - monocasa 9y ago
    In 2008, none were as good as Dalvik for the use case.
    - pjmlp 9y ago
      That's the story Google likes to sell. Nokia and Sony-Ericsson flagship phones were quite good.
      - monocasa 9y ago
        No they weren't, I developed for them.

simias 9y ago

Google knew what they were doing and IMO they were right. I still don't think Google or anybody should have to ask for Oracle's permission for reimplementing a JVM (as long as it's done cleanly). You seem to put the blame on Google for not wanting to pay $100M at the time but what if instead it was a small startup who simply couldn't afford that cost? I'm not worried about Google in the least, I am however concerned about the precedent this sets.

s73v3r_ 9y ago
But, and this is the big but, they did it in such a way as not to be compatible with the Oracle one.
- simias 9y ago
  I'm not sure how that's relevant, if anything since the crux of the issue seems to be the "stealing" of the API the fact that there are incompatibilities should be in Google's favour? It's a bit odd to claim that somebody stole your API while at the same time complaining that they did not steal it well enough.
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    "I'm not sure how that's relevant" The original license for Java said you can create your own implementation just fine, so long as it was compatible with the others (or at least the benchmark one). By not doing that, Google violated the license. "It's a bit odd to claim that somebody stole your API while at the same time complaining that they did not steal it well enough." Not if what you want to avoid is people Embracing your API, Extending it with new special bits, and Extinguishing your version.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      That's not all it said. The license had field-of-use restrictions, meaning you couldn't use your implementation for every purpose. The Apache Foundation published an open letter to Sun on that regard. And specifically, use of a J2SE implementation in mobile devices may have been forbidden.

geofft 9y ago

> I think the part that gets lost in all of this is that Sun offered to license Java to Google previously for $100M. Google turned that down and bypassed Sun because they didn't want to pay (or license). I'm not sure I follow - Google believed they didn't need a license, just like everyone who used Linux despite SCO offering to license Linux to them. If Google needed a license, and Sun had not offered one, it would not make a difference; Google would still be liable for infringement. There's no abandonware or compulsory license provision in the laws for this. The question is whether Google needed a license, not whether Sun was willing to offer one and for what price.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
There's no provision for compulsory licensing for copyright because it's not supposed to inhibit technical implementations. Patents do that, and it least in the UK the law includes compulsory licensing.
- geofft 9y ago
  US copyright law doesn't do compulsory licensing for anything other than music recordings, and I believe it doesn't have compulsory patent licensing at all. I'm not sure there's a good rationale for this.

danShumway 9y ago

> My point is, they did this to themselves Whether or not they knew that someone would come along and sue them doesn't matter if the lawsuit is unjust. Even if Oracle is correct, and even if APIs can be copyrighted, Google's intent still doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is whether or not they infringed. I consider this to be a form of victim blaming. You should argue the case on its own merits, not posit that Google was "asking for it."

ben509 9y ago
It wouldn't be victim blaming to criticize a company that is breached because they didn't take compsec seriously. They weren't a small company at the time and they knew this was a hazard. Google had a responsibility to their shareholders and customers to do the right thing regardless of how stupid they thought the law was, and their attitude here was pretty arrogant. (To avoid beating up on Google, I should point out believing they could take on anything helped them do some work that changed the world for the better.) Since the attitudes of parties involved in a case are often considered in judging the case, I think it's entirely fair to bring them up.
- danShumway 9y ago
  > It wouldn't be victim blaming to criticize a company that is breached because they didn't take compsec seriously. If you then turned around and argued that the hacker somehow wasn't in the wrong because of the victim's attitude, yes it would be. Victim blaming has nothing to do with someone's responsibility to others, and everything to do with taking a conversation about whether an attack is justified, and shifting that conversation to instead suggest "well, dumb people like that deserve to be taken advantage of." Oracle contested that Google infringed their IP. "They should have known we were gonna sue them as soon as we smelled the money" is not compelling evidence for that claim. Much in the same way, saying "Johny should have turned off his attitude and just given us the money" is not compelling justification for a mob hit.

btilly 9y ago

When Google did that, Google was relying on controlling precedents in the 9th circuit saying that APIs are functional elements needed for interoperability and therefore are not copyrightable. The first judge that they saw agreed with them and it should have been an open and shut case. It was Google's misfortune that through a quirk of the system the case wound up in the Federal Circuit, which has a history of creatively ignoring precedent to fashion new precedent that increases its own importance. (Which is how we have patents on all sorts of crap that the Supreme Court has ruled that we shouldn't.) And it was good lawyering on Oracle's part to throw every possible argument at the case, including the copyright arguments that they knew they should have lost.

erikb 9y ago

It's also very standard enterprise thinking: Save 100 mio now, get a bigger bonus check, and worry about the consequences later. Maybe all consequences can be avoided even.

bad_user 9y ago

Sun didn't just license the rights to the Java IP, but as a supposed standard established by the JCP, a farce of a standardization body that never was. Google probably had to use their implementation and J2ME was and still is a piece of shit. Yes it was about cost, but the cost would have been far greater then the licensing price ;-)

sdfmxiid1 9y ago

I'm having flashbacks here, but what I remember at that time was concern that if Google paid Sun, they'd be setting a precedent that way. There was a sigh of relief when they didn't, at least from some, because, regardless of how much better of a company Sun was than post-Sun Oracle, people felt like it was overreaching. So although you're correct that Google did this themselves, the alternative was fraught with problems also. Better to fight it and lose than implicitly accept the idea and pay. This was all happening in the context of C#, which people seem to be forgetting about too. It's important to remember that the whole idea of copyrightable API was done under the argument that it was important to protect API integrity from forks. MS provided evidence of a desire to do this (as has Google to some extent since then) but then introduced C# instead. Anyway, this is a mess because copyrightable API is ridiculous, but Google should have been more careful with cleanroom implementations.