5 ms·

Day 3 of Oracle v. Google: Larry Page bests David Boies

77 points by grellas 15y ago

zmanji 15y ago
I'm not sure what is being contested in the case any more. Larry Page testified that their implementation of Java was a clean room implementation. Is Oracle trying to assert that an API is something that is subject to copyright?
- caf 15y ago
  The trial is examining both copyright and patent issues. But yes, one of the things Oracle is claiming is that they can copyright their API and you can't reimplement it without a license. This does not seem like it should fly, in my inexpert opinion.
  - fpgeek 15y ago
    If it does fly, Oracle is going to have a lot of fun. For instance, Oracle copied SQL from IBM years before it was a standard. There's also Sun's involvement in Wabi. I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't mind extracting some cash for that "infringement".
    - pdw 15y ago
      Novell and the Unix API...
  - acchow 15y ago
    It shouldn't fly. We already went through this with IBM's BIOS and its clones in the 80's.
- wmf 15y ago
  We've been discussing this extensively in other threads: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3862782 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3862782 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3859361 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3859361 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3854767 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3854767
  - onli 15y ago
    But the answer is yes, they try to say an api is subject to coypright (in the article is a list of challenged points, including apis).
mturmon 15y ago
Misspells the Oracle software architect Edward Screven as Edward Serevan throughout.
Estragon 15y ago
What is SSO?
- Nogwater 15y ago
  I just searched the linked page and found this: SSO (Sequence, Structure, Organization).
  - Estragon 15y ago
    Thanks.
cheald 15y ago
Strong play by Google's lawyers here. Google: This means that a JME app may not run on a JavaCard device? Edward Serevan: Yes. Google: There are different APIs between JavaCard and JSE? Edward Serevan: [Some disagreement over the differences between versions.] Google: There are differences between JSE, JEE, JME, and Java Card? Edward Serevan: Yes. Google: How can it be that (Oracle can say that Java is WORA)? Edward Serevan: Oracle defines WORA as across platforms [different operating systems], not Java versions. I'm not sure how Oracle is going to get the assertion that Google caused significant damage to the Java ecosystem by their violation of WORA to stick here, in light of this testimony. By any objective measure, Google has created a new platform for Dalvik in Android.
- JamisonM 15y ago
  They are going to assert the Android is for phones, and J2ME is for phones. Thus Android broke their WORA definition for that platform. Seems fairly straightforward and that Google is kind of making their case for them. (Just to clarify: I think Oracle should, and is likely to lose their case.)
  - cheald 15y ago
    I think that's easily trumped, though, because "phones" are not a platform. They're a form factor. Otherwise, J2ME should run on iPhones and Windows 7 devices. Part of the whole Android package is a hardware specification [1]. Android The Product is a platform, which consists of a compatible hardware device and a Dalvik VM with Android APIs. It isn't just the software. J2ME might happen to run on some handheld battery-powered computers, but a form factor does not a platform make. [1] http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/source.android.com/en/us/compatibility/4.0/android-4.0-cdd.pdf http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrust...
    - JamisonM 15y ago
      I don't think that saying J2ME should run on any given OS for a platform or form factor is relevant. I could then argue that if there is no Java for Minix or someone's pet OS that runs on a server somewhere that servers are not a platform for Java. Doesn't seem right. I don't think it matters how complex or precise the Google definition of what Android is, that is their definition. Oracle's point in this was the damage to the perception of Java as a portable way to build programs for anything "Java" -- Android was only part-way Java, creating the alleged confusion. I think the parallel to Sun's MS suit from long ago is fairly straightforward.
stretchwithme 15y ago
How strange is it that Eric Schmidt guided the development of the very software Google is now accused of copying?
pcullen 15y ago
Oracle mobile phone plans revealed http://ofb.net/~pcullen/ophone/ophone.html http://ofb.net/~pcullen/ophone/ophone.html
- fletchowns 15y ago
  Gonna start to get pricey with multi-core phones.
Steko 15y ago
I enjoy reading both the incredibly biased but still informative Groklaw and then the incredibly biased in the opposite direction (and paid by MS/Oracle) Florian Mueller. Looking past the thinly veiled cheerleading isn't that hard once you realize where they're coming from and both seem fairly thorough. But what would be really awesome is if there was somewhere I could go for legal tech blogging that isn't always good or bad news for open source. Nilay Patel and Matt Macari at the Verge do a good job but coverage isn't as regular as what you'll get by checking Groklaw daily and it gets lost in the Verge-o-polis.
- ZeroGravitas 15y ago
  I've always found the Nilay Patel legal coverage, despite his qualifications, to be overwhelmingly tainted by whatever the Apple fanbase would currently like to be legally true. Like Florian I think he has a direct monetary incentive for taking a certain view and presenting it as objective.
- mdaniel 15y ago
  I mean this honestly: what makes you think Groklaw is biased? That deosn't match my [uninformed] mental model of their site.
  - Steko 15y ago
    I don't think PJ ever hid the fact that she was advocating in a certain direction, quoth wiki: "Groklaw publishes articles (both news and opinion) from a self-described pro-FOSS, anti-FUD perspective" The comments are similarly policed to comply with this. This certainly isn't a secret, as Florian Mueller's deals with MS and Oracle were, and I don't think I'm making a wild accusation here. Back in the day a 100% anti-SCO line worked great because SCO was a fraud. But the current issues are murkier and the one sidedness of the site now sticks out like the news channel at your grandparents house.

77 points by grellas 15y ago

I'm not sure what is being contested in the case any more. Larry Page testified that their implementation of Java was a clean room implementation. Is Oracle trying to assert that an API is something that is subject to copyright?

caf 15y ago
The trial is examining both copyright and patent issues. But yes, one of the things Oracle is claiming is that they can copyright their API and you can't reimplement it without a license. This does not seem like it should fly, in my inexpert opinion.
- fpgeek 15y ago
  If it does fly, Oracle is going to have a lot of fun. For instance, Oracle copied SQL from IBM years before it was a standard. There's also Sun's involvement in Wabi. I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't mind extracting some cash for that "infringement".
  - pdw 15y ago
    Novell and the Unix API...
- acchow 15y ago
  It shouldn't fly. We already went through this with IBM's BIOS and its clones in the 80's.
wmf 15y ago
We've been discussing this extensively in other threads: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3862782 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3862782 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3859361 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3859361 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3854767 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3854767
- onli 15y ago
  But the answer is yes, they try to say an api is subject to coypright (in the article is a list of challenged points, including apis).

mturmon 15y ago

Misspells the Oracle software architect Edward Screven as Edward Serevan throughout.

Estragon 15y ago

What is SSO?

Nogwater 15y ago
I just searched the linked page and found this: SSO (Sequence, Structure, Organization).
- Estragon 15y ago
  Thanks.

cheald 15y ago

Strong play by Google's lawyers here. Google: This means that a JME app may not run on a JavaCard device? Edward Serevan: Yes. Google: There are different APIs between JavaCard and JSE? Edward Serevan: [Some disagreement over the differences between versions.] Google: There are differences between JSE, JEE, JME, and Java Card? Edward Serevan: Yes. Google: How can it be that (Oracle can say that Java is WORA)? Edward Serevan: Oracle defines WORA as across platforms [different operating systems], not Java versions. I'm not sure how Oracle is going to get the assertion that Google caused significant damage to the Java ecosystem by their violation of WORA to stick here, in light of this testimony. By any objective measure, Google has created a new platform for Dalvik in Android.

JamisonM 15y ago
They are going to assert the Android is for phones, and J2ME is for phones. Thus Android broke their WORA definition for that platform. Seems fairly straightforward and that Google is kind of making their case for them. (Just to clarify: I think Oracle should, and is likely to lose their case.)
- cheald 15y ago
  I think that's easily trumped, though, because "phones" are not a platform. They're a form factor. Otherwise, J2ME should run on iPhones and Windows 7 devices. Part of the whole Android package is a hardware specification [1]. Android The Product is a platform, which consists of a compatible hardware device and a Dalvik VM with Android APIs. It isn't just the software. J2ME might happen to run on some handheld battery-powered computers, but a form factor does not a platform make. [1] http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/source.android.com/en/us/compatibility/4.0/android-4.0-cdd.pdf http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrust...
  - JamisonM 15y ago
    I don't think that saying J2ME should run on any given OS for a platform or form factor is relevant. I could then argue that if there is no Java for Minix or someone's pet OS that runs on a server somewhere that servers are not a platform for Java. Doesn't seem right. I don't think it matters how complex or precise the Google definition of what Android is, that is their definition. Oracle's point in this was the damage to the perception of Java as a portable way to build programs for anything "Java" -- Android was only part-way Java, creating the alleged confusion. I think the parallel to Sun's MS suit from long ago is fairly straightforward.

stretchwithme 15y ago

How strange is it that Eric Schmidt guided the development of the very software Google is now accused of copying?

pcullen 15y ago

Oracle mobile phone plans revealed http://ofb.net/~pcullen/ophone/ophone.html http://ofb.net/~pcullen/ophone/ophone.html

fletchowns 15y ago
Gonna start to get pricey with multi-core phones.

Steko 15y ago

I enjoy reading both the incredibly biased but still informative Groklaw and then the incredibly biased in the opposite direction (and paid by MS/Oracle) Florian Mueller. Looking past the thinly veiled cheerleading isn't that hard once you realize where they're coming from and both seem fairly thorough. But what would be really awesome is if there was somewhere I could go for legal tech blogging that isn't always good or bad news for open source. Nilay Patel and Matt Macari at the Verge do a good job but coverage isn't as regular as what you'll get by checking Groklaw daily and it gets lost in the Verge-o-polis.

ZeroGravitas 15y ago
I've always found the Nilay Patel legal coverage, despite his qualifications, to be overwhelmingly tainted by whatever the Apple fanbase would currently like to be legally true. Like Florian I think he has a direct monetary incentive for taking a certain view and presenting it as objective.
mdaniel 15y ago
I mean this honestly: what makes you think Groklaw is biased? That deosn't match my [uninformed] mental model of their site.
- Steko 15y ago
  I don't think PJ ever hid the fact that she was advocating in a certain direction, quoth wiki: "Groklaw publishes articles (both news and opinion) from a self-described pro-FOSS, anti-FUD perspective" The comments are similarly policed to comply with this. This certainly isn't a secret, as Florian Mueller's deals with MS and Oracle were, and I don't think I'm making a wild accusation here. Back in the day a 100% anti-SCO line worked great because SCO was a fraud. But the current issues are murkier and the one sidedness of the site now sticks out like the news channel at your grandparents house.