8 ms·

Oracle and the End of Programming as We Know It

73 points by MrFoof 14y ago

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
skrebbel 14y ago
Good observation. I wonder what would happen if programming and selling software in the US suddenly becomes too dangerous to do. Would it impact the rest of the world?
- marcusf 14y ago
  I'd hope it'd help to further flame innovation in Europe and Asia. Crippling US innovation with onerous IP laws (like this might lead to) would probably lead short-term to a dip in global tech innovation (and a correlated rise in IP law expenditures :)) until money and talent moves elsewhere on the globe. One can hope. On the other hand, the US has always been good at exporting copyright provisions and IP laws so worst case, we'll all be at the behest of rent-seekers like Oracle, etc.
- fierarul 14y ago
  Since the US has a habit of forcing it's practices on the rest of the world, I'm sure it would have an impact on the long term. Because of software patents, I already see programming and selling software in the US as a dangerous thing to do.
Irishsteve 14y ago
Any idea how much would this license that Google possibly needed may have cost? Or would it have been one of a kind?
- pron 14y ago
  From what I've read, price wasn't the issue. Google tried to buy a license, but Sun was afraid of losing control over Java (while Google wanted control over Android, or, at least, wanted handset vendors to be able to do what they want with it, which, apparently, has proven to be a mistake as well). Some middle ground would have been the best choice, but the two sides couldn't find one.
- ZeroGravitas 14y ago
  The Sun CEO at the time claimed that they would have paid Google to use Java, the disagreement was who got to make decisions and neither side trusted the other to get it right (personally I think history has vindicated Google on this point).
  - pron 14y ago
    Well, considering the success of Amazon's Android fork, I think that vindication is still pending. And no matter who's been right - legally or business-wize - I find it seriously annoying to have two Javas.
    - ZeroGravitas 14y ago
      Amazon use Dalvik don't they? Why not the JVM?
      - pron 14y ago
        Because OpenJDK is GPL licensed, and I guess Amazon didn't want to open-source their code. BTW, Google doesn't want to open-source (or even let Apple look at) the Nexus Android code.
  - nl 14y ago
    That's not the case. Sun wanted to charge Google for the license, but also wanted there to be a per-handset license fee. That per-handset fee was what Google couldn't agree on.
    - ZeroGravitas 14y ago
      Direct quote from Schwartz's testimony: "We probably would have paid them to work with us on a Java phone" The decision of exactly how open-source to be and therefore whether to require a per-handset fee is the kind of decision I was referring to that they couldn't agree on.
      - 14y ago
fierarul 14y ago
>However, a silver lining could present itself: The jury could affirm that the APIs are copyrighted but that the syntax of the function signatures are a fair use exception. Perhaps I'm missing something, but aren't APIs a documented bunch of function signatures and class hierarchies? According to the silver lining above, what's not covered by the fair-use?
- pron 14y ago
  Hmm, maybe publishing the API in book form?
pron 14y ago
I don't care who wins this case, but as a Java developer I hope that eventually Android will come into the Java fold, adhere to standards and run on an awsome, standard JVM. Imagine using all JVM languages, unmodified, on Android. Both Oracle and Google will gain from this, as well as the entire Java developer community. (Side note: a ruling on API copyrights could have far reaching ramifications, some might be quite unfortunate, but it's important to make clear that Oracle did not start out trying to establish API copyrightability. They simply set out to nail Google for Android, and API copyright was simply a tool in their legal toolbox.)
- magicalist 14y ago
  > Side note: a ruling on API copyrights could have far reaching ramifications, some might be quite unfortunate, but it's important to make clear that Oracle did not start out trying to establish API copyrightability. They simply set out to nail Google for Android, and API copyright was simply a tool in their legal toolbox. Er, I'm not seeing the part of that which makes Oracle look better.
  - pron 14y ago
    It's not supposed to, except to say that Oracle isn't trying to fight developers - it's just fighting Google (though innocent developers may be accidental victims). Frankly, I can't bring myself to whole-heartedly support either party. They're both big, fat, super-rich and super-powerful conglomerates who have no one's interest in mind except their own (and, possibly, their shareholders').
    - magicalist 14y ago
      > It's not supposed to, except to say that Oracle isn't trying to fight developers - it's just fighting Google (though innocent developers may be accidental victims). In this case, the two are functionally equivalent. It's not even a subtle side effect, everyone is saying it as loudly as possible, so "accidental" or "unintended" seem disingenuous at this point.
waterlesscloud 14y ago
"You might recall that the Lotus v. Borland suit (1990) originally resulted in a ruling affirming the copyrightability of a menu hierarchy." Well those resources were certainly well spent, as the current dominance of these two companies indicates.
- bluedanieru 14y ago
  Here's to the pattern continuing in the case of Oracle. They are a blight.
  - kijin 14y ago
    I'd be a tad bit concerned about a patent troll obtaining Oracle's IP if they ever go down, though. Oh, the joy of having to choose the lesser of two evils.
    - nextparadigms 14y ago
      Let's worry about the first, "real" evil right now, rather than a hypothetical one in the future.
      - SkyMarshal 14y ago
        Or, take a cue from Stallman and worry about both.
    - bluedanieru 14y ago
      Oracle already goes after the small players who don't have a patent portfolio of their own, and patent trolls tend to avoid the bigger players anyway. It could be worse, but not much worse.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
fpp 14y ago
A ruling could also go along the line that Sun / Oracle might have a copyright to the API but Google was free to use them. In any case I guess we will see appeals from either side. The author mixed in C# and VB in Mono - while MS has in the past applied and received patents on their APIs they have explicitly provided this use. This might be the way forward - company who created those APIs keeps control but let everyone use them. Nevertheless, IMHO if I provide a solution like the Java language into the public domain / license it under GNU, parts like APIs become elements of speech - otherwise the whole thing becomes rather philosophical (and solved far more than 100 years ago by Hegel - 100% information is not possible).
lucian1900 14y ago
Actually, if APIs/languages turned out to be copyrightable, IBM might just sue Oracle for using SQL and other related APIs. Oracle are even trying to invalidate the defence of implicit acceptance (same situation with both Sun and IBM). Really stupid move on Oracle's part.
- DrJokepu 14y ago
  That would be actually very good for Oracle. Oracle would pay a certain amount of money to IBM in exchange for licensing these APIs. As they say, business is IBM's middle name so it's not like they're going to make this a political question, they will happily take the money. Suddenly, the barrier to enter to relational database market is a lot higher, and PostgreSQL (and MySQL copies without a license from Oracle) are illegal. How is this a stupid move on Oracle's part?
  - jurre 14y ago
    I guess it would speed up nosql adoption quite a bit if things would actually get that far.
    - jrgnsd 14y ago
      NoSQL isn't a replacement for SQL. It's a separate technology.
      - jurre 14y ago
        Yes I understand that, but if SQL would become oracle expensive I think you will see a lot of companies/projects switching to one of the many nosql options that don't infringe IBM's patented API.
        roel_v 14y ago
        I don't think you understand. How can you switch from the one to the other if they're separate technologies? Going on foot is not a substitute for driving a car when we're talking about transporting 100 refrigerators from a port to a warehouse 300 km inland, it's only a substitute when we're talking about transporting a person less than a few kilometers and when time is of little importance. That's not to say that there are no alternatives to relational databases or SQL, but the leap to 'oh then NoSQL will take over' doesn't make much sense.
liotier 14y ago
IT lawyer and digital liberties' advocate Carlo Piana mentions at https://plus.google.com/u/0/115445134403759043734/posts/coVxN3TDcmj https://plus.google.com/u/0/115445134403759043734/posts/coVx... that such API copyrightability has been largely denied by the SAS v. WPL case that came out today (nice coincidence !) : "[...] neither the functionality of a computer program nor the programming language and the format of data files used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of expression of that program and, as such, [they] are not protected by copyright in computer programs" - http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=122362&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=115060 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&#38...
- viraptor 14y ago
  Fortunately that happens in Europe, but that also means the ruling doesn't apply abroad. With US being very keen on trying to apply local laws to companies/people in other countries... We'll see what happens.
codeka 14y ago
One question is what will happen with Apache Harmony? From what I've read of the case, Apache have basically done the exact same thing that Google did, but Sun/Oracle never bothered to go after them. How will that project survive with the proverbial sword of Damocles hanging over it?
- dteoh 14y ago
  The Apache Harmony project has been discontinued.
  - codeka 14y ago
    Oh, you're right! I only wondered because of what I've been reading about the case, since it was mentioned a few times. Though I guess the same question could be asked of GNU Classpath, which as far as I can see is still actively maintained.
WildUtah 14y ago
API copyrights is a terrible idea that would promote vendor lock in and block interoperability. It would be a disaster for companies writing to a small niche API or who lost access to a flaky vendor's approach to their problem. This wouldn't really be so bad as far as programming languages go. AT&T already cross-licensed the C and UNIX ecosystem to the University Of California's open source BSD project and you could inherit their license. Java VMs and compilers could be distributed under GPL (and Android would be a better platform under GPL with less fragmentation). Python, Ruby, Perl, and the like license themselves to the world freely and easily. I can't think of any really major programming languages that would be harshly damaged. C# is largely effectively proprietary because Microsoft rattles the patent sabre at non-Windows implementations. I don't know what the status of Javascript might be, but the standard API is fairly tiny. Of course, no unfree language or API in the future would ever gain traction without a monopoly platform provider of some kind to require it and still it would never spread beyond that platform. Users would be too terrified of vendor lock-in. Things like Wine would need to take development overseas, but the need for them is shrinking along with the use of proprietary platform binaries.
- batista 14y ago
  >C# is largely effectively proprietary because Microsoft rattles the patent sabre at non-Windows implementations. C# is an open standard, submitted to ISO and ECMA (at least for versions < latest). MS also signed a legally binding patent pledge to not sue anyone for the language and runtime IIRC. There exist at least two C# open source implementations that I know of, Mono and some GNU project.
  - gouranga 14y ago
    The runtime is a hodgepodge of standardised bits and Microsoft extensions though.
    - nextparadigms 14y ago
      That's my worry. They could always find some technicality to sue over.
pavanky 14y ago
This is a sad situation. I don't want to name names, but the startup I am working at is being sued by a much bigger company for exactly the same thing. Copyright infringement over their APIs.
cageface 14y ago
I know it would be extremely traumatic to the entire Android ecosystem but I'd personally be happy if Google just shat out Java entirely and put their efforts into making Go the native tongue of Android.
- grogs 14y ago
  Why?
  - cageface 14y ago
    Go is a cleaner, more elegant language that makes better use of memory.
rfugger 14y ago
According to Groklaw, the jury will not decide whether copyright applies to APIs. The judge instructed them to assume it does, find whether there is a violation, and if so, the judge will decide whether APIs can be copyrighted at all. If they find no violation, he doesn't have to rule on the matter.

73 points by MrFoof 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

Good observation. I wonder what would happen if programming and selling software in the US suddenly becomes too dangerous to do. Would it impact the rest of the world?

marcusf 14y ago
I'd hope it'd help to further flame innovation in Europe and Asia. Crippling US innovation with onerous IP laws (like this might lead to) would probably lead short-term to a dip in global tech innovation (and a correlated rise in IP law expenditures :)) until money and talent moves elsewhere on the globe. One can hope. On the other hand, the US has always been good at exporting copyright provisions and IP laws so worst case, we'll all be at the behest of rent-seekers like Oracle, etc.
fierarul 14y ago
Since the US has a habit of forcing it's practices on the rest of the world, I'm sure it would have an impact on the long term. Because of software patents, I already see programming and selling software in the US as a dangerous thing to do.

Irishsteve 14y ago

Any idea how much would this license that Google possibly needed may have cost? Or would it have been one of a kind?

pron 14y ago
From what I've read, price wasn't the issue. Google tried to buy a license, but Sun was afraid of losing control over Java (while Google wanted control over Android, or, at least, wanted handset vendors to be able to do what they want with it, which, apparently, has proven to be a mistake as well). Some middle ground would have been the best choice, but the two sides couldn't find one.
ZeroGravitas 14y ago
The Sun CEO at the time claimed that they would have paid Google to use Java, the disagreement was who got to make decisions and neither side trusted the other to get it right (personally I think history has vindicated Google on this point).
- pron 14y ago
  Well, considering the success of Amazon's Android fork, I think that vindication is still pending. And no matter who's been right - legally or business-wize - I find it seriously annoying to have two Javas.
  - ZeroGravitas 14y ago
    Amazon use Dalvik don't they? Why not the JVM?
    - pron 14y ago
      Because OpenJDK is GPL licensed, and I guess Amazon didn't want to open-source their code. BTW, Google doesn't want to open-source (or even let Apple look at) the Nexus Android code.
- nl 14y ago
  That's not the case. Sun wanted to charge Google for the license, but also wanted there to be a per-handset license fee. That per-handset fee was what Google couldn't agree on.
  - ZeroGravitas 14y ago
    Direct quote from Schwartz's testimony: "We probably would have paid them to work with us on a Java phone" The decision of exactly how open-source to be and therefore whether to require a per-handset fee is the kind of decision I was referring to that they couldn't agree on.
    - 14y ago

fierarul 14y ago

>However, a silver lining could present itself: The jury could affirm that the APIs are copyrighted but that the syntax of the function signatures are a fair use exception. Perhaps I'm missing something, but aren't APIs a documented bunch of function signatures and class hierarchies? According to the silver lining above, what's not covered by the fair-use?

pron 14y ago
Hmm, maybe publishing the API in book form?

pron 14y ago

I don't care who wins this case, but as a Java developer I hope that eventually Android will come into the Java fold, adhere to standards and run on an awsome, standard JVM. Imagine using all JVM languages, unmodified, on Android. Both Oracle and Google will gain from this, as well as the entire Java developer community. (Side note: a ruling on API copyrights could have far reaching ramifications, some might be quite unfortunate, but it's important to make clear that Oracle did not start out trying to establish API copyrightability. They simply set out to nail Google for Android, and API copyright was simply a tool in their legal toolbox.)

magicalist 14y ago
> Side note: a ruling on API copyrights could have far reaching ramifications, some might be quite unfortunate, but it's important to make clear that Oracle did not start out trying to establish API copyrightability. They simply set out to nail Google for Android, and API copyright was simply a tool in their legal toolbox. Er, I'm not seeing the part of that which makes Oracle look better.
- pron 14y ago
  It's not supposed to, except to say that Oracle isn't trying to fight developers - it's just fighting Google (though innocent developers may be accidental victims). Frankly, I can't bring myself to whole-heartedly support either party. They're both big, fat, super-rich and super-powerful conglomerates who have no one's interest in mind except their own (and, possibly, their shareholders').
  - magicalist 14y ago
    > It's not supposed to, except to say that Oracle isn't trying to fight developers - it's just fighting Google (though innocent developers may be accidental victims). In this case, the two are functionally equivalent. It's not even a subtle side effect, everyone is saying it as loudly as possible, so "accidental" or "unintended" seem disingenuous at this point.

waterlesscloud 14y ago

"You might recall that the Lotus v. Borland suit (1990) originally resulted in a ruling affirming the copyrightability of a menu hierarchy." Well those resources were certainly well spent, as the current dominance of these two companies indicates.

bluedanieru 14y ago
Here's to the pattern continuing in the case of Oracle. They are a blight.
- kijin 14y ago
  I'd be a tad bit concerned about a patent troll obtaining Oracle's IP if they ever go down, though. Oh, the joy of having to choose the lesser of two evils.
  - nextparadigms 14y ago
    Let's worry about the first, "real" evil right now, rather than a hypothetical one in the future.
    - SkyMarshal 14y ago
      Or, take a cue from Stallman and worry about both.
  - bluedanieru 14y ago
    Oracle already goes after the small players who don't have a patent portfolio of their own, and patent trolls tend to avoid the bigger players anyway. It could be worse, but not much worse.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

fpp 14y ago

A ruling could also go along the line that Sun / Oracle might have a copyright to the API but Google was free to use them. In any case I guess we will see appeals from either side. The author mixed in C# and VB in Mono - while MS has in the past applied and received patents on their APIs they have explicitly provided this use. This might be the way forward - company who created those APIs keeps control but let everyone use them. Nevertheless, IMHO if I provide a solution like the Java language into the public domain / license it under GNU, parts like APIs become elements of speech - otherwise the whole thing becomes rather philosophical (and solved far more than 100 years ago by Hegel - 100% information is not possible).

lucian1900 14y ago

Actually, if APIs/languages turned out to be copyrightable, IBM might just sue Oracle for using SQL and other related APIs. Oracle are even trying to invalidate the defence of implicit acceptance (same situation with both Sun and IBM). Really stupid move on Oracle's part.

DrJokepu 14y ago
That would be actually very good for Oracle. Oracle would pay a certain amount of money to IBM in exchange for licensing these APIs. As they say, business is IBM's middle name so it's not like they're going to make this a political question, they will happily take the money. Suddenly, the barrier to enter to relational database market is a lot higher, and PostgreSQL (and MySQL copies without a license from Oracle) are illegal. How is this a stupid move on Oracle's part?
- jurre 14y ago
  I guess it would speed up nosql adoption quite a bit if things would actually get that far.
  - jrgnsd 14y ago
    NoSQL isn't a replacement for SQL. It's a separate technology.
    - jurre 14y ago
      Yes I understand that, but if SQL would become oracle expensive I think you will see a lot of companies/projects switching to one of the many nosql options that don't infringe IBM's patented API.
      - roel_v 14y ago
        I don't think you understand. How can you switch from the one to the other if they're separate technologies? Going on foot is not a substitute for driving a car when we're talking about transporting 100 refrigerators from a port to a warehouse 300 km inland, it's only a substitute when we're talking about transporting a person less than a few kilometers and when time is of little importance. That's not to say that there are no alternatives to relational databases or SQL, but the leap to 'oh then NoSQL will take over' doesn't make much sense.

liotier 14y ago

IT lawyer and digital liberties' advocate Carlo Piana mentions at https://plus.google.com/u/0/115445134403759043734/posts/coVxN3TDcmj https://plus.google.com/u/0/115445134403759043734/posts/coVx... that such API copyrightability has been largely denied by the SAS v. WPL case that came out today (nice coincidence !) : "[...] neither the functionality of a computer program nor the programming language and the format of data files used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of expression of that program and, as such, [they] are not protected by copyright in computer programs" - http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=122362&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=115060 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&#38...

viraptor 14y ago
Fortunately that happens in Europe, but that also means the ruling doesn't apply abroad. With US being very keen on trying to apply local laws to companies/people in other countries... We'll see what happens.

codeka 14y ago

One question is what will happen with Apache Harmony? From what I've read of the case, Apache have basically done the exact same thing that Google did, but Sun/Oracle never bothered to go after them. How will that project survive with the proverbial sword of Damocles hanging over it?

dteoh 14y ago
The Apache Harmony project has been discontinued.
- codeka 14y ago
  Oh, you're right! I only wondered because of what I've been reading about the case, since it was mentioned a few times. Though I guess the same question could be asked of GNU Classpath, which as far as I can see is still actively maintained.

WildUtah 14y ago

API copyrights is a terrible idea that would promote vendor lock in and block interoperability. It would be a disaster for companies writing to a small niche API or who lost access to a flaky vendor's approach to their problem. This wouldn't really be so bad as far as programming languages go. AT&T already cross-licensed the C and UNIX ecosystem to the University Of California's open source BSD project and you could inherit their license. Java VMs and compilers could be distributed under GPL (and Android would be a better platform under GPL with less fragmentation). Python, Ruby, Perl, and the like license themselves to the world freely and easily. I can't think of any really major programming languages that would be harshly damaged. C# is largely effectively proprietary because Microsoft rattles the patent sabre at non-Windows implementations. I don't know what the status of Javascript might be, but the standard API is fairly tiny. Of course, no unfree language or API in the future would ever gain traction without a monopoly platform provider of some kind to require it and still it would never spread beyond that platform. Users would be too terrified of vendor lock-in. Things like Wine would need to take development overseas, but the need for them is shrinking along with the use of proprietary platform binaries.

batista 14y ago
>C# is largely effectively proprietary because Microsoft rattles the patent sabre at non-Windows implementations. C# is an open standard, submitted to ISO and ECMA (at least for versions < latest). MS also signed a legally binding patent pledge to not sue anyone for the language and runtime IIRC. There exist at least two C# open source implementations that I know of, Mono and some GNU project.
- gouranga 14y ago
  The runtime is a hodgepodge of standardised bits and Microsoft extensions though.
  - nextparadigms 14y ago
    That's my worry. They could always find some technicality to sue over.

pavanky 14y ago

This is a sad situation. I don't want to name names, but the startup I am working at is being sued by a much bigger company for exactly the same thing. Copyright infringement over their APIs.

cageface 14y ago

I know it would be extremely traumatic to the entire Android ecosystem but I'd personally be happy if Google just shat out Java entirely and put their efforts into making Go the native tongue of Android.

grogs 14y ago
Why?
- cageface 14y ago
  Go is a cleaner, more elegant language that makes better use of memory.

rfugger 14y ago

According to Groklaw, the jury will not decide whether copyright applies to APIs. The judge instructed them to assume it does, find whether there is a violation, and if so, the judge will decide whether APIs can be copyrighted at all. If they find no violation, he doesn't have to rule on the matter.