4 ms·

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

by lucian1900 15y 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 15y 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 15y ago
  I guess it would speed up nosql adoption quite a bit if things would actually get that far.
  - jrgnsd 15y ago
    NoSQL isn't a replacement for SQL. It's a separate technology.
    - jurre 15y 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 15y 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.
        Hoff 15y ago
        Raise the price of the current solution sufficiently, and the migration then makes a whole lot of sense. This even if the target product is less capable, less desirable or otherwise inferior, given a sufficiently large price delta (or hassle delta or product support delta, etc) then management and operations and finance will most definitely encourage the migration.
        jurre 15y ago
        Both are in the business of storing data that can later be retrieved again, so I don't think your analogy really holds in this case. Maybe you are thinking of one particular nosql solution but I think almost all projects could find an alternative to a database that uses SQL. That is not to say that it shouldn't be a relational database or that there's a one shoe fits all solution out there.
        GlennS 15y ago
        I think you would really struggle to find adequate replacements for relational databases in at least two areas: reporting and ad-hoc queries.
        viraptor 15y ago
        Mongodb has ad-hoc queries (not as simple as SQL, but still). Many engines can run huge aggregated queries (hadoop?) But I think the problem is placed in the wrong place. If SQL the language/API is copyrighted, then isn't it easier produce a new API with the same functionality?)
  - batista 15y ago
    Actually we had nosql databases for far more than we have had SQL databases (by definition, for one). They were quite popular in the seventies / early eighties. So, those too could have lots of old patents and prior art.
    - jerf 15y ago
      Old, expired patents, so that wouldn't be a stopper.
      - batista 15y ago
        Patents, maybe. Copyright? Oracle's case is all about copyright, no?
        jerf 15y ago
        Copyright as it stands today would only be a stopper if you tried to grab the actual implementations from that era, which wouldn't even run without serious work. Reimplementations would be clear. Copyright even as Oracle is grabbing at it would only be an issue if you cloned those old APIs, which is probably also not what would happen, as the APIs wouldn't translate to anything today either.
bunderbunder 15y ago
There's a big distinction between SQL and Java in that regard. SQL being published as an ISO standard implies that its creators intended for others to be able to produce their own implementations of it. Sun/Oracle did no such thing with Java, and has always officially claimed that implementations needed to be licensed by them. It was almost 15 years ago that Sun sued Microsoft for implementing Java in a way they didn't like.
- kaffiene 15y ago
  Rubbish, they sued MS for calling their incompatible fork 'Java', there is and was nothing stopping anyone making an implementation and calling it something else.

DrJokepu 15y 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 15y ago
I guess it would speed up nosql adoption quite a bit if things would actually get that far.
- jrgnsd 15y ago
  NoSQL isn't a replacement for SQL. It's a separate technology.
  - jurre 15y 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 15y 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.
      - Hoff 15y ago
        Raise the price of the current solution sufficiently, and the migration then makes a whole lot of sense. This even if the target product is less capable, less desirable or otherwise inferior, given a sufficiently large price delta (or hassle delta or product support delta, etc) then management and operations and finance will most definitely encourage the migration.
      - jurre 15y ago
        Both are in the business of storing data that can later be retrieved again, so I don't think your analogy really holds in this case. Maybe you are thinking of one particular nosql solution but I think almost all projects could find an alternative to a database that uses SQL. That is not to say that it shouldn't be a relational database or that there's a one shoe fits all solution out there.
        GlennS 15y ago
        I think you would really struggle to find adequate replacements for relational databases in at least two areas: reporting and ad-hoc queries.
        viraptor 15y ago
        Mongodb has ad-hoc queries (not as simple as SQL, but still). Many engines can run huge aggregated queries (hadoop?) But I think the problem is placed in the wrong place. If SQL the language/API is copyrighted, then isn't it easier produce a new API with the same functionality?)
- batista 15y ago
  Actually we had nosql databases for far more than we have had SQL databases (by definition, for one). They were quite popular in the seventies / early eighties. So, those too could have lots of old patents and prior art.
  - jerf 15y ago
    Old, expired patents, so that wouldn't be a stopper.
    - batista 15y ago
      Patents, maybe. Copyright? Oracle's case is all about copyright, no?
      - jerf 15y ago
        Copyright as it stands today would only be a stopper if you tried to grab the actual implementations from that era, which wouldn't even run without serious work. Reimplementations would be clear. Copyright even as Oracle is grabbing at it would only be an issue if you cloned those old APIs, which is probably also not what would happen, as the APIs wouldn't translate to anything today either.

bunderbunder 15y ago

There's a big distinction between SQL and Java in that regard. SQL being published as an ISO standard implies that its creators intended for others to be able to produce their own implementations of it. Sun/Oracle did no such thing with Java, and has always officially claimed that implementations needed to be licensed by them. It was almost 15 years ago that Sun sued Microsoft for implementing Java in a way they didn't like.

kaffiene 15y ago
Rubbish, they sued MS for calling their incompatible fork 'Java', there is and was nothing stopping anyone making an implementation and calling it something else.