5 ms·

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 straightfor

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.
  - bad_user 15y ago
    I think the parallel to Sun's MS suit from long ago is fairly straightforward. Not it isn't. Microsoft had Java licensed from Sun, meaning that they could use the Java trademark for their own compiler and their own VM. In return Microsoft had to make their compiler and their VM be compliant with Java's specifications. Microsoft then started to extend everything, the language, the base class library (and you cannot extend the base namespaces, e.g. java.*) and their virtual machine. They did this while advertising to developers that their compiler takes Java code and produces Java-compatible bytecode. The differences: - Google never agreed to an (explicit) license - Dalvik is not a Java VM and was never advertised as such - Google does not claim Android has Java technology inside - Google does not claim that the compiled binaries can be executed on Java VMs What Google actually did: - created a compiler that translates from JVM bytecode to Dalvik bytecode - took the base Java library from Harmony, a clean-room implementation What Google did is exactly what projects like IKVM.net are doing. IKVM is a project that allows you to recompile and run Java jars on top of a .NET VM. This is not new and if Oracle wins it will open a huge can of worms, as if our industry wasn't having enough problems related to "intellectual property" already.
    - JamisonM 15y ago
      Google did not agree to a license but if Oracle convinces the court they needed one then that is a moot point (Oracle asserts trademark, copyright, and patents to make this claim I believe). All the differences between what MS and Google did are irrelevant if Oracle can convince the court that having Java all over the developer website and documentation created confusion with respect to what Java is. I think to a relatively non-technical judge they have a chance -- I can imagine a judge asking himself/herself, "So you used the language Java and the libraries for Java but you said that it wasn't Java. But if it walks and talks like a duck and you call it a chicken are you still not creating confusion for anyone who knew what a duck was before you showed them your 'chicken'?" I agree that this would line projects like IKVM up to get nailed but that has nothing to do with the merits of the case.
jsight 15y ago
Also: "Edward Serevan: I wouldn't characterize the JSE as being only for laptops and desktops. Smartphones have become capable enough to run the JSE." It looks like their expectation was that JSE would run on phones as well. So they were already planning fragmentation at this level.
- JamisonM 15y ago
  Agreed, but Android was never actually J2SE either so Android is a fragmentation of a different sort. Of course, the the court accepts Oracle's right to control Java then it is Oracle's choice to fragment it however they like, not Google's. If Google is out ahead of them defining how this fragmentation will happen then if you are Oracle I guess you argue that this is damaging their ability to plan and execute it as they wish since Google's choices are already associated with the Java name. This confusion is, I guess, sort of, kind of, damaging to the ecosystem.. if you were easily confused I guess.

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.
- bad_user 15y ago
  I think the parallel to Sun's MS suit from long ago is fairly straightforward. Not it isn't. Microsoft had Java licensed from Sun, meaning that they could use the Java trademark for their own compiler and their own VM. In return Microsoft had to make their compiler and their VM be compliant with Java's specifications. Microsoft then started to extend everything, the language, the base class library (and you cannot extend the base namespaces, e.g. java.*) and their virtual machine. They did this while advertising to developers that their compiler takes Java code and produces Java-compatible bytecode. The differences: - Google never agreed to an (explicit) license - Dalvik is not a Java VM and was never advertised as such - Google does not claim Android has Java technology inside - Google does not claim that the compiled binaries can be executed on Java VMs What Google actually did: - created a compiler that translates from JVM bytecode to Dalvik bytecode - took the base Java library from Harmony, a clean-room implementation What Google did is exactly what projects like IKVM.net are doing. IKVM is a project that allows you to recompile and run Java jars on top of a .NET VM. This is not new and if Oracle wins it will open a huge can of worms, as if our industry wasn't having enough problems related to "intellectual property" already.
  - JamisonM 15y ago
    Google did not agree to a license but if Oracle convinces the court they needed one then that is a moot point (Oracle asserts trademark, copyright, and patents to make this claim I believe). All the differences between what MS and Google did are irrelevant if Oracle can convince the court that having Java all over the developer website and documentation created confusion with respect to what Java is. I think to a relatively non-technical judge they have a chance -- I can imagine a judge asking himself/herself, "So you used the language Java and the libraries for Java but you said that it wasn't Java. But if it walks and talks like a duck and you call it a chicken are you still not creating confusion for anyone who knew what a duck was before you showed them your 'chicken'?" I agree that this would line projects like IKVM up to get nailed but that has nothing to do with the merits of the case.

jsight 15y ago

Also: "Edward Serevan: I wouldn't characterize the JSE as being only for laptops and desktops. Smartphones have become capable enough to run the JSE." It looks like their expectation was that JSE would run on phones as well. So they were already planning fragmentation at this level.

JamisonM 15y ago
Agreed, but Android was never actually J2SE either so Android is a fragmentation of a different sort. Of course, the the court accepts Oracle's right to control Java then it is Oracle's choice to fragment it however they like, not Google's. If Google is out ahead of them defining how this fragmentation will happen then if you are Oracle I guess you argue that this is damaging their ability to plan and execute it as they wish since Google's choices are already associated with the Java name. This confusion is, I guess, sort of, kind of, damaging to the ecosystem.. if you were easily confused I guess.