4 ms·

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 so

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.

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.