3 ms·

From what I have read Google forked Apache Harmony which has a field of use restriction that includes mobile phones. They were aware of this restriction but pro

From what I have read Google forked Apache Harmony which has a field of use restriction that includes mobile phones. They were aware of this restriction but proceeded anyway, correctly assuming that Sun would never sue them. Oracle bought Sun and that backfired. Now I don't think software patents are valid but Google winning this case won't somehow invalidate software patents. In fact it would probably be better if they lost because it will bring the issue into the light for more people and encourage Google to campaign harder against software patents despite their own large holdings.

mbreese 16y ago
I don't think that's quite right... My recollection is that Harmony was a clean-room implementation of Java licensed under the Apache license (which has no field of use restriction). The problem was the Harmony wanted to the 'certified' as Java, which meant that they'd have to pass the Java Technology Compatibility Kit (TCK). The only way Sun would let them run the test was if they included a field of use restriction. Apache said no. Google and Oracle backed Apache in this fight. Up until Oracle bought Sun, that is. I'm not entirely sure how Harmony has woven itself into this mess, because I was under the impression that the patents in question corresponded to things in the JVM. I believe that Google only uses the Harmony libraries in Android, not the Harmony JVM. So, I'm not sure how helpful this will be specifically to them, except as to portray Oracle as a bad-actor. It's important to note though, that even as Sun open-sourced Java, it did so under the GPL v2, which doesn't cover patents. Sun always maintained a level of control with Java due to the patents involved, regardless of licensing. It just chose to only force the issue when it came to using Java on phones.
- sandGorgon 16y ago
  I think you are right. Here's what I think the issue is: 1. Sun invents java. 2. Sun patents several aspects - including the security model, bytecode, etc. 3. Sun open sources java and has a patent grant agreement in place if (whatever flavor of ) java passes the TCK. 4. Sun does not release the TCK as opensource 5. Apache Harmony does not comply with TCK - some weird stuff that if Harmony uses the TCK, it ceases to be opensource (might be applicable to mobile domain only). This means that it does not enjoy patent grants. 6. Dalvik uses the Harmony class library, as well as having a similar security model as Java (Patents 6,125,447 and 6,192,476). So the problem is that, indeed the Dalvik bytecode is different, but that was never part of Oracle's patent claims IMHO. The patent claims are allegedly due to Harmony AS WELL AS other stuff like security models, PACK200 Java compression scheme for DEX, etc. Side note: there is a Android fork called Sundrop which claims to be a non-infringing Android because it uses the official jvm. I disagree because it does not take care of the other patents.
  - wtallis 16y ago
    It's not so much that Harmony doesn't comply with the TCK as Harmony wasn't allowed to be tested against the TCK except under Faustian terms: in order to be allowed to test Harmony against the TCK, Apache would have had to make Harmony non-Free.
jacquesm 16y ago
> From what I have read Google forked Apache Harmony which has a field of use restriction that includes mobile phones. Do you have a reference for that? My google fu must be failing me because I searched all over and can't find a substantiation for that. (no doubt my fault though).
- tzs 16y ago
  It's in the patent license that covers the Java specification. That license specifically covers Java SE and Java EE and excludes Java ME, and it only covers you if you implement the full spec, without any extensions. Thus, independent Java implementations relying only on the spec and its patent license are not covered if they do Java ME.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    That's pretty absurd, I'm not a specialist on the guts of java but from what I do know ME (mobile edition) is a subset of SE (standard edition), or isn't it? By that reading you'd be allowed a full implementation but not a subset?
    - bad_user 16y ago
      Yes, subseting or superseting aren't allowed, making the patents grant completely useless.

mbreese 16y ago

I don't think that's quite right... My recollection is that Harmony was a clean-room implementation of Java licensed under the Apache license (which has no field of use restriction). The problem was the Harmony wanted to the 'certified' as Java, which meant that they'd have to pass the Java Technology Compatibility Kit (TCK). The only way Sun would let them run the test was if they included a field of use restriction. Apache said no. Google and Oracle backed Apache in this fight. Up until Oracle bought Sun, that is. I'm not entirely sure how Harmony has woven itself into this mess, because I was under the impression that the patents in question corresponded to things in the JVM. I believe that Google only uses the Harmony libraries in Android, not the Harmony JVM. So, I'm not sure how helpful this will be specifically to them, except as to portray Oracle as a bad-actor. It's important to note though, that even as Sun open-sourced Java, it did so under the GPL v2, which doesn't cover patents. Sun always maintained a level of control with Java due to the patents involved, regardless of licensing. It just chose to only force the issue when it came to using Java on phones.

sandGorgon 16y ago
I think you are right. Here's what I think the issue is: 1. Sun invents java. 2. Sun patents several aspects - including the security model, bytecode, etc. 3. Sun open sources java and has a patent grant agreement in place if (whatever flavor of ) java passes the TCK. 4. Sun does not release the TCK as opensource 5. Apache Harmony does not comply with TCK - some weird stuff that if Harmony uses the TCK, it ceases to be opensource (might be applicable to mobile domain only). This means that it does not enjoy patent grants. 6. Dalvik uses the Harmony class library, as well as having a similar security model as Java (Patents 6,125,447 and 6,192,476). So the problem is that, indeed the Dalvik bytecode is different, but that was never part of Oracle's patent claims IMHO. The patent claims are allegedly due to Harmony AS WELL AS other stuff like security models, PACK200 Java compression scheme for DEX, etc. Side note: there is a Android fork called Sundrop which claims to be a non-infringing Android because it uses the official jvm. I disagree because it does not take care of the other patents.
- wtallis 16y ago
  It's not so much that Harmony doesn't comply with the TCK as Harmony wasn't allowed to be tested against the TCK except under Faustian terms: in order to be allowed to test Harmony against the TCK, Apache would have had to make Harmony non-Free.

jacquesm 16y ago

> From what I have read Google forked Apache Harmony which has a field of use restriction that includes mobile phones. Do you have a reference for that? My google fu must be failing me because I searched all over and can't find a substantiation for that. (no doubt my fault though).

tzs 16y ago
It's in the patent license that covers the Java specification. That license specifically covers Java SE and Java EE and excludes Java ME, and it only covers you if you implement the full spec, without any extensions. Thus, independent Java implementations relying only on the spec and its patent license are not covered if they do Java ME.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  That's pretty absurd, I'm not a specialist on the guts of java but from what I do know ME (mobile edition) is a subset of SE (standard edition), or isn't it? By that reading you'd be allowed a full implementation but not a subset?
  - bad_user 16y ago
    Yes, subseting or superseting aren't allowed, making the patents grant completely useless.