6 ms·

Sun CEO explicitly endorsed Java's use in Android

105 points by mrsebastian 15y ago

happyfeet 15y ago
Nov 2007! http://androidcommunity.com/forums/f8/sun-welcomes-android-with-open-arms-48/ http://androidcommunity.com/forums/f8/sun-welcomes-android-w...
pr0filer_ 15y ago
It's a trap!
erikb 15y ago
I think we people, who are using and depending on Java and Android shouldn't take these lawsuits too personal. It is just one point where the Oracle army (made of lawyers) found a possible hole in the defense of Google and tries to attack it. Who wins this battle doesn't actually concerns our lives at all (excluding the CEOs of Oracle and Google, of course).
- CaptainZapp 15y ago
  This is extremely optimistic and advocates a total head-in-the-sand view (except ostriches don't really do that). Companies seem to care very little if their little patent wars leave a little or a lot collateral damage. GIF, anybody?
  - erikb 15y ago
    > Companies seem to care very little if their little patent wars leave a little or a lot collateral damage. Totally true and never argued a different point of view. Just consider how killing Android would be a major blow to Google and how likely it is to land such a blow on a company like Google in a situation like this. What I meant was, that considering the context and the chances, it is much more likely that whoever wins, wins some millions, maybe even billions. That will hurt the loser, maybe hurt the companies overall value, but it will not kill Java or Android. Btw. I think it is really interesting, how both sides in a discussion can think the other one is kind of naive and blind, because they don't really get the point of the other one. Your ostriches-argument is exactly what I thought when I wrote my comment (just exchange optimistic with pesimistic)!
  - esrauch 15y ago
    Do you have any sources about how GIF patents ended up doing a lot of collateral damage? Wikipedia says that .png was invented in response but was that really damaging?
m_eiman 15y ago
Except he congratulates them on using Java, not dalvik. The assumption being that Google would not circumvent the conditions for using Sun's Java tech/IP, naturally.
- chalst 15y ago
  Right. It does make the $6 billion damages claim that much harder to swallow, though.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  Dalvik was already launched by the time of the post. So clearly he implied the Java inside Dalvik.
  - esrauch 15y ago
    Amazon uses a custom JVM on Kindle devices and they paid a per-device licensing fee to Sun (and I assume they still do to Oracle). If I recall, this is actually how Sun used to handle their licensing; if you had a completely standards compliant implementation then you didn't have to pay licensing fees, but if you have any sort of custom VM that ran java (even if it was a strict subset or superset) you had to get them to agree to licensing terms. Maybe I'm off base, but it seems like just because he made a statement that he was happy to see that they were going to use a java-based VM doesn't mean he didn't assume that they were going to pay licensing fees for it.
mseebach 15y ago
I think it's a weak argument, actually I think it's a slippery slope if CEOs can't say anything without that implicitly granting all sorts of permissions. It's a valid defense that Schwartz obviously meant to welcome Android to being based on Java, assuming they didn't infringe on Suns intellectual property. "I'm happy people is so excited about watching our movies" is not an endorsement of pirating said movie.
- Symmetry 15y ago
  The crucial difference between this situation and the one that Google is in is that the activity the Sun CEO refered to was the allegedly infringing activity. "I'm happy people are watching our movies" wouldn't be a cause for invoking estoppel, but "I'm happy people are bittorrenting our movies" would be. Also, in this case the crucial aspect is what the law is, not the quickly considered opinions of non-lawyers like us.
- ansy 15y ago
  I am not a lawyer, but I completely disagree when estoppel is taken into consideration[1]. Sun publicly endorsed Google's implementation of Java and there is probably plenty of evidence it endorsed it privately as well. There is a reason a CEO doesn't just spout off whatever he wants without consulting a lawyer. Especially on company letterhead which is what the Sun Blog amounts to these days. If it was a mistake it should have been retracted. But it wasn't, so maybe it wasn't a mistake in the eyes of the law. And yes, if a film's rights holder gives explicit or even implicit endorsement of people watching the film through piracy, as did Michael Moore [2], that does protect you from him suing you for pirating it. You don't need a license contract to tell you it's OK. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7uvRCyVfa0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7uvRCyVfa0
  - econgeeker 15y ago
    He endorsed google using Sun Java, not googles implementation of "Java". This whole line of argument is FUD From pro-google people who are trying to pretend like its hypocritical to want to defend Java. Android was using Sun Java before the licensing dispute caused them to go their own way.
eli 15y ago
"Now, I am not a lawyer, but [...]. Hopefully, the U.S. District Court will see it the same way and throw this case into the trash heap where it belongs." Maybe I'm just a journalism snob, but that's some pretty poor reporting.
Symmetry 15y ago
Reading the Wikipedia page on estoppel[1], it seems that Google's case is strengthened much more by Sun's long delay in pursuing legal action against Google than by a casual statement by the CEO. Of course, IANAL. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel
econgeeker 15y ago
Yes, SUN JAVA, not Google Dalvik. Android was using Sun licensed java in the early days, switched when google didn't like the licensing terms.
- dminor 15y ago
  No. Android was released with Dalvik in November 2007, when Schwartz's blog post was written. http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/110/ http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/110/
  - YooLi 15y ago
    Blog post: Nov. 5 Google released dalvik: Nov. 12 So technically Schwartz could have been blindsided by Dalvik.
    - ig1 15y ago
      I'm pretty sure Schwartz was aware of the fact that Google hadn't licence JavaME from them...
      - YooLi 15y ago
        How can you be sure? There are other people pretty sure of the opposite http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2809775 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2809775
        ig1 15y ago
        Because it would have been a huge deal, the kind of thing they'd make press releases out of. To suggest that the board members of Sun would have been unaware of such a major deal is farcical.
- smcj 15y ago
  Wrong.
nl 15y ago
This article seems to try and make a link between the fact that the blog post is no longer available, and the Google/Oracle court case. That isn't how it happened - Oracle took down the old Sun blogging site (along with all the blogs) at the same time. It was a typical Oracle move - wanting to control the dialog about their platform - but I don't think it was specifically about this case.
nl 15y ago
IMHO, this is a much stronger case: Nothing in the licensing terms will prevent open source projects from creating and distributing their own compatible open source implementations of Java SE 6, using standard open source licenses From JSR-270 http://www.jroller.com/scolebourne/entry/jcp_bonn_meeting_october_2010 http://www.jroller.com/scolebourne/entry/jcp_bonn_meeting_oc...
- wmf 15y ago
  That doesn't help because Dalvik is not compatible (and to make it compatible would probably require making it too slow and bloated to run on phones).
  - nl 15y ago
    It depends what "compatible" means, though, doesn't it? If you include the Java bytecode-to-Dalvik compiler as part of the "system" it could be considered compatible.
    - esrauch 15y ago
      I'm not sure that the Java bytecodoe-to-Dalvik compiler actually completely Java SE 6 compatible (eg that it is a superset), but I think that is irrelevant since their licensing actually prohibits supersets. This is why Sun was able to force Microsoft to discontinue their JVM; it had nonstandard features in it, and therefore their licensing wouldn't be valid.
      - nl 15y ago
        but I think that is irrelevant since their licensing actually prohibits supersets Android/Dalvik isn't a licensed Java implementation so the irrelevance is irrelevant ;) The original statement referred to the license to use a Java compatible API, not to be a Java licencee.
    - wmf 15y ago
      It depends what "compatible" means, though, doesn't it? It's fairly well defined by JSRs 270 or 216, and Android isn't even close. For example, the GUI libraries are quite different. If you include the Java bytecode-to-Dalvik compiler as part of the "system" it could be considered compatible. I don't think the compiler runs on the phone, so it doesn't count.

105 points by mrsebastian 15y ago

Nov 2007! http://androidcommunity.com/forums/f8/sun-welcomes-android-with-open-arms-48/ http://androidcommunity.com/forums/f8/sun-welcomes-android-w...

pr0filer_ 15y ago

It's a trap!

erikb 15y ago

I think we people, who are using and depending on Java and Android shouldn't take these lawsuits too personal. It is just one point where the Oracle army (made of lawyers) found a possible hole in the defense of Google and tries to attack it. Who wins this battle doesn't actually concerns our lives at all (excluding the CEOs of Oracle and Google, of course).

CaptainZapp 15y ago
This is extremely optimistic and advocates a total head-in-the-sand view (except ostriches don't really do that). Companies seem to care very little if their little patent wars leave a little or a lot collateral damage. GIF, anybody?
- erikb 15y ago
  > Companies seem to care very little if their little patent wars leave a little or a lot collateral damage. Totally true and never argued a different point of view. Just consider how killing Android would be a major blow to Google and how likely it is to land such a blow on a company like Google in a situation like this. What I meant was, that considering the context and the chances, it is much more likely that whoever wins, wins some millions, maybe even billions. That will hurt the loser, maybe hurt the companies overall value, but it will not kill Java or Android. Btw. I think it is really interesting, how both sides in a discussion can think the other one is kind of naive and blind, because they don't really get the point of the other one. Your ostriches-argument is exactly what I thought when I wrote my comment (just exchange optimistic with pesimistic)!
- esrauch 15y ago
  Do you have any sources about how GIF patents ended up doing a lot of collateral damage? Wikipedia says that .png was invented in response but was that really damaging?

m_eiman 15y ago

Except he congratulates them on using Java, not dalvik. The assumption being that Google would not circumvent the conditions for using Sun's Java tech/IP, naturally.

chalst 15y ago
Right. It does make the $6 billion damages claim that much harder to swallow, though.
nextparadigms 15y ago
Dalvik was already launched by the time of the post. So clearly he implied the Java inside Dalvik.
- esrauch 15y ago
  Amazon uses a custom JVM on Kindle devices and they paid a per-device licensing fee to Sun (and I assume they still do to Oracle). If I recall, this is actually how Sun used to handle their licensing; if you had a completely standards compliant implementation then you didn't have to pay licensing fees, but if you have any sort of custom VM that ran java (even if it was a strict subset or superset) you had to get them to agree to licensing terms. Maybe I'm off base, but it seems like just because he made a statement that he was happy to see that they were going to use a java-based VM doesn't mean he didn't assume that they were going to pay licensing fees for it.

mseebach 15y ago

I think it's a weak argument, actually I think it's a slippery slope if CEOs can't say anything without that implicitly granting all sorts of permissions. It's a valid defense that Schwartz obviously meant to welcome Android to being based on Java, assuming they didn't infringe on Suns intellectual property. "I'm happy people is so excited about watching our movies" is not an endorsement of pirating said movie.

Symmetry 15y ago
The crucial difference between this situation and the one that Google is in is that the activity the Sun CEO refered to was the allegedly infringing activity. "I'm happy people are watching our movies" wouldn't be a cause for invoking estoppel, but "I'm happy people are bittorrenting our movies" would be. Also, in this case the crucial aspect is what the law is, not the quickly considered opinions of non-lawyers like us.
ansy 15y ago
I am not a lawyer, but I completely disagree when estoppel is taken into consideration[1]. Sun publicly endorsed Google's implementation of Java and there is probably plenty of evidence it endorsed it privately as well. There is a reason a CEO doesn't just spout off whatever he wants without consulting a lawyer. Especially on company letterhead which is what the Sun Blog amounts to these days. If it was a mistake it should have been retracted. But it wasn't, so maybe it wasn't a mistake in the eyes of the law. And yes, if a film's rights holder gives explicit or even implicit endorsement of people watching the film through piracy, as did Michael Moore [2], that does protect you from him suing you for pirating it. You don't need a license contract to tell you it's OK. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7uvRCyVfa0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7uvRCyVfa0
- econgeeker 15y ago
  He endorsed google using Sun Java, not googles implementation of "Java". This whole line of argument is FUD From pro-google people who are trying to pretend like its hypocritical to want to defend Java. Android was using Sun Java before the licensing dispute caused them to go their own way.

eli 15y ago

"Now, I am not a lawyer, but [...]. Hopefully, the U.S. District Court will see it the same way and throw this case into the trash heap where it belongs." Maybe I'm just a journalism snob, but that's some pretty poor reporting.

Symmetry 15y ago

Reading the Wikipedia page on estoppel[1], it seems that Google's case is strengthened much more by Sun's long delay in pursuing legal action against Google than by a casual statement by the CEO. Of course, IANAL. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel

econgeeker 15y ago

Yes, SUN JAVA, not Google Dalvik. Android was using Sun licensed java in the early days, switched when google didn't like the licensing terms.

dminor 15y ago
No. Android was released with Dalvik in November 2007, when Schwartz's blog post was written. http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/110/ http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/110/
- YooLi 15y ago
  Blog post: Nov. 5 Google released dalvik: Nov. 12 So technically Schwartz could have been blindsided by Dalvik.
  - ig1 15y ago
    I'm pretty sure Schwartz was aware of the fact that Google hadn't licence JavaME from them...
    - YooLi 15y ago
      How can you be sure? There are other people pretty sure of the opposite http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2809775 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2809775
      - ig1 15y ago
        Because it would have been a huge deal, the kind of thing they'd make press releases out of. To suggest that the board members of Sun would have been unaware of such a major deal is farcical.
smcj 15y ago
Wrong.

nl 15y ago

This article seems to try and make a link between the fact that the blog post is no longer available, and the Google/Oracle court case. That isn't how it happened - Oracle took down the old Sun blogging site (along with all the blogs) at the same time. It was a typical Oracle move - wanting to control the dialog about their platform - but I don't think it was specifically about this case.

nl 15y ago

IMHO, this is a much stronger case: Nothing in the licensing terms will prevent open source projects from creating and distributing their own compatible open source implementations of Java SE 6, using standard open source licenses From JSR-270 http://www.jroller.com/scolebourne/entry/jcp_bonn_meeting_october_2010 http://www.jroller.com/scolebourne/entry/jcp_bonn_meeting_oc...

wmf 15y ago
That doesn't help because Dalvik is not compatible (and to make it compatible would probably require making it too slow and bloated to run on phones).
- nl 15y ago
  It depends what "compatible" means, though, doesn't it? If you include the Java bytecode-to-Dalvik compiler as part of the "system" it could be considered compatible.
  - esrauch 15y ago
    I'm not sure that the Java bytecodoe-to-Dalvik compiler actually completely Java SE 6 compatible (eg that it is a superset), but I think that is irrelevant since their licensing actually prohibits supersets. This is why Sun was able to force Microsoft to discontinue their JVM; it had nonstandard features in it, and therefore their licensing wouldn't be valid.
    - nl 15y ago
      but I think that is irrelevant since their licensing actually prohibits supersets Android/Dalvik isn't a licensed Java implementation so the irrelevance is irrelevant ;) The original statement referred to the license to use a Java compatible API, not to be a Java licencee.
  - wmf 15y ago
    It depends what "compatible" means, though, doesn't it? It's fairly well defined by JSRs 270 or 216, and Android isn't even close. For example, the GUI libraries are quite different. If you include the Java bytecode-to-Dalvik compiler as part of the "system" it could be considered compatible. I don't think the compiler runs on the phone, so it doesn't count.