3 ms·

Its being placed into class named java.lang.Math, though, is not. That is a product of the way it is arranged, which is a matter of design, not of necessity. It

Its being placed into class named java.lang.Math, though, is not. That is a product of the way it is arranged, which is a matter of design, not of necessity. It's hard to imagine any particular reason why a function would need to have "java" in its name in order correctly calculate the maximum of two numbers. It's absolutely essential for interoperability to preserve package layout, class/method names, and argument order. For any Java code you want to run on your Apache Harmony based mobile OS, you have to have the Java package names.

mumblemumble 6y ago
That is true, but it's irrelevant. Oracle is not suing app developers for writing Java code to run on an Apache Harmony based mobile OS. It is suing Google for proceeding to base their mobile OS on Apache Harmony after they backed out of licensing negotiations. As was observed during the hearing, everyone else who made a mobile OS was able to do it without copying someone else's API structure, so the idea that the API structure is essential to the functioning of a mobile OS is simply absurd. There's a whole section in that opinion I linked above titled, "Google's Interoperability Arguments are Irrelevant to Copyrightability," that's worth reading for a deeper treatment of the issue. In particular, Judge O'Malley (quite reasonably) calls bullshit on the very premise that Google copied the Java APIs in order to achieve interoperability, pointing out that Google did specific things to prevent such interoperability (as an aside, we now know that their desire to do so, and Sun's unwillingness to agree to that, is a major reason why they could not come to terms on a licensing agreement), and was unable to produce any examples of a pre-existing Java program that also runs on Android.
- salawat 6y ago
  Huh. I actually was about to suggest that the Java Hello World should work, but a quick perusal dismisses that. Why would Google bother keeping the JVM class hierarchy if they were implementing a different VM to run against anyway? That just seems to be asking for trouble. I can sort of see some merit to Oracle's argument now. It would be one thing if JVM byte code was treated as an Intermediary representation that then compiled to Dalvik... but it isn't even really that. Damn, Google stepped in it. Hard. Edit: Further research indicates Java Byte code is an intermediate representation compiled to Dalvik; so technically the Java Hello World would work coming out in Dalvik (or Android Runtime). So... Back to being confused again, because clearly, even if Google did copy pasta the Java APIs the end machine they are driving is drastically different; I.e., System.out.println() would generate no visible output on Android. So I'm really back in Google's camp, Oracle is trying to copyright a steering wheel.
  - int_19h 6y ago
    "Hello, world" is a rather poor example, because there's little practical value in a mobile application like that. The real value comes from being able to reuse many existing Java libraries.
    - salawat 6y ago
      Hello World! In a Turing space is all you need to implement every other program. Arguments that "there exists no program" come with an inherent verifiability criterion of " well here's one." The thing that Oracle is pissy about is that things get transpired out of Java Byte code, into Dalvik or ART. Oracle wants patent like protections for the output of Java, and overall API structure in all languages. They want copyright on a meta-pattern. Just trying to imply skulduggery to "look, they joined our API structure, and didn't even do a good job of it, so they should have to pay us for infringement" is a transparent farce. It's an entrenching power grab.

mumblemumble 6y ago

That is true, but it's irrelevant. Oracle is not suing app developers for writing Java code to run on an Apache Harmony based mobile OS. It is suing Google for proceeding to base their mobile OS on Apache Harmony after they backed out of licensing negotiations. As was observed during the hearing, everyone else who made a mobile OS was able to do it without copying someone else's API structure, so the idea that the API structure is essential to the functioning of a mobile OS is simply absurd. There's a whole section in that opinion I linked above titled, "Google's Interoperability Arguments are Irrelevant to Copyrightability," that's worth reading for a deeper treatment of the issue. In particular, Judge O'Malley (quite reasonably) calls bullshit on the very premise that Google copied the Java APIs in order to achieve interoperability, pointing out that Google did specific things to prevent such interoperability (as an aside, we now know that their desire to do so, and Sun's unwillingness to agree to that, is a major reason why they could not come to terms on a licensing agreement), and was unable to produce any examples of a pre-existing Java program that also runs on Android.

salawat 6y ago
Huh. I actually was about to suggest that the Java Hello World should work, but a quick perusal dismisses that. Why would Google bother keeping the JVM class hierarchy if they were implementing a different VM to run against anyway? That just seems to be asking for trouble. I can sort of see some merit to Oracle's argument now. It would be one thing if JVM byte code was treated as an Intermediary representation that then compiled to Dalvik... but it isn't even really that. Damn, Google stepped in it. Hard. Edit: Further research indicates Java Byte code is an intermediate representation compiled to Dalvik; so technically the Java Hello World would work coming out in Dalvik (or Android Runtime). So... Back to being confused again, because clearly, even if Google did copy pasta the Java APIs the end machine they are driving is drastically different; I.e., System.out.println() would generate no visible output on Android. So I'm really back in Google's camp, Oracle is trying to copyright a steering wheel.
- int_19h 6y ago
  "Hello, world" is a rather poor example, because there's little practical value in a mobile application like that. The real value comes from being able to reuse many existing Java libraries.
  - salawat 6y ago
    Hello World! In a Turing space is all you need to implement every other program. Arguments that "there exists no program" come with an inherent verifiability criterion of " well here's one." The thing that Oracle is pissy about is that things get transpired out of Java Byte code, into Dalvik or ART. Oracle wants patent like protections for the output of Java, and overall API structure in all languages. They want copyright on a meta-pattern. Just trying to imply skulduggery to "look, they joined our API structure, and didn't even do a good job of it, so they should have to pay us for infringement" is a transparent farce. It's an entrenching power grab.