29 ms·

Would this be enough though? As I understand it the issue is that Dalvik implements large portions of the Java API so that developers can write Java and run on

by gnoway 11y ago

Would this be enough though? As I understand it the issue is that Dalvik implements large portions of the Java API so that developers can write Java and run on Android without Android actually providing a Java VM. So introducing a new language to run on the same VM doesn't work. If anything it reinforces how similar Dalvik is to the JVM. And that's what's really terrible about this, because before you could provide a clean-room reverse-engineered implementation of something and that would be OK. If I'm understanding this decision correctly, you can't do that anymore; if this were the law 40 years ago then there would never have been an "IBM Compatible" and who knows what consumer computing would look like today.

cwyers 11y ago
The ruling says that APIs are copyrightable. It does not say that Google is infringing, yet -- the court has yet to rule on whether or not Google's use of the Java APIs falls under a fair use exception. The argument being advanced, as I understand it, is that Google's use of the APIs does not qualify for fair use because it was not being used to create an implementation of the JVM, but because it was being used to create a different runtime (Dalvik) which uses some of the Java APIs but is NOT an attempt to be compatible with the JVM. So it is possible to rule that Google infringed upon Oracle's copyrights without ruling that something like the IBM-compatible PC infringing.
- pyre 11y ago
  So are they claiming that it infringes copyright if your implementation is a superset or a subset of the original implementation, but if it is an exact implementation, then it's not copyright infringement? How would that work with (e.g.) beta versions of something that was aiming for 100% compatibility, but had not achieved it yet? Are you prevented from releasing until you reach 100% compatibility? Does this prevent MS-style "embrace, extend, extinguish?"
  - cwyers 11y ago
    I am not a lawyer, so take what I'm saying here with several large grains of salt. My understanding is that a subset and a superset would both be okay. I am more certain about subset than superset -- I am not sure that something like Microsoft's J++ would pass muster either. But a subset I think would still be permissible under fair use so long as the goal was to achieve compatibility. Oracle's argument is that Dalvik is not the JVM, nor is it an attempt to be the JVM. It's a competitor to the JVM that uses parts of the Java API. I don't know if they're right, and I don't know that being right should mean that Google has to pay them money or what have you as a result. I do think that people are overstating the effect that a ruling that Google infringed on Oracle's copyrights would have.
  - wtallis 11y ago
    > So are they claiming that it infringes copyright if your implementation is a superset or a subset of the original implementation, but if it is an exact implementation, then it's not copyright infringement? They're claiming that any of the above would require an API license, and that a license (requiring GPL for the implementation) was granted only to the latter, so a subset would be unauthorized infringement.
    - pyre 11y ago
      But when you start creating an implementation, it ends up being a subset while it is a work in progress. Are you stating that works in progress are infringing, until they become "magically" not infringing at the point where they reach parity? Does Mono infringe on Microsoft's .NET API because it has always lagged behind the official .NET API, even though the goal of the project is to achieve compatibility?
      - wtallis 11y ago
        .NET isn't relevant because Microsoft isn't trying to control it with the same kind of licensing terms that Oracle's using to try to ensure that anybody else's Java implementation adheres to their standards.
- Oletros 11y ago
  > It does not say that Google is infringing, yet Yes, the jury ruled that there was infringement
  - bitmapbrother 11y ago
    Which was overruled by Judge Alsup.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Yes, the jury ruled that there was infringement A jury verdict is not a court judgement. Because the district court ruled against copyrightability, it did not rule on infringement. When the court rules on infringement -- and the court is not necessarily constrained by the jury verdict on that point, and there will be further motions on it -- then someone will likely be upset and appeal that judgement to the Court of Appeals again. And whichever way that goes, there will no doubt be an appeal to the Supreme Court again. And, after all that is done, then we'll have a final answer.
    - Oletros 11y ago
      No, as the appeal court stated, the only thing waiting for a rule is the fair use one. Alsup asked the jury to rule as if API's were copyrighteable so that ruling stands
bitmapbrother 11y ago
The ART VM is language agnostic. As long as the language compiles to bytecode the ART AOT compiler will compile it to the native code of the CPU. The Java API's have more to do with source code interoperability with existing Java libraries.

by gnoway 11y ago

cwyers 11y ago

The ruling says that APIs are copyrightable. It does not say that Google is infringing, yet -- the court has yet to rule on whether or not Google's use of the Java APIs falls under a fair use exception. The argument being advanced, as I understand it, is that Google's use of the APIs does not qualify for fair use because it was not being used to create an implementation of the JVM, but because it was being used to create a different runtime (Dalvik) which uses some of the Java APIs but is NOT an attempt to be compatible with the JVM. So it is possible to rule that Google infringed upon Oracle's copyrights without ruling that something like the IBM-compatible PC infringing.

pyre 11y ago
So are they claiming that it infringes copyright if your implementation is a superset or a subset of the original implementation, but if it is an exact implementation, then it's not copyright infringement? How would that work with (e.g.) beta versions of something that was aiming for 100% compatibility, but had not achieved it yet? Are you prevented from releasing until you reach 100% compatibility? Does this prevent MS-style "embrace, extend, extinguish?"
- cwyers 11y ago
  I am not a lawyer, so take what I'm saying here with several large grains of salt. My understanding is that a subset and a superset would both be okay. I am more certain about subset than superset -- I am not sure that something like Microsoft's J++ would pass muster either. But a subset I think would still be permissible under fair use so long as the goal was to achieve compatibility. Oracle's argument is that Dalvik is not the JVM, nor is it an attempt to be the JVM. It's a competitor to the JVM that uses parts of the Java API. I don't know if they're right, and I don't know that being right should mean that Google has to pay them money or what have you as a result. I do think that people are overstating the effect that a ruling that Google infringed on Oracle's copyrights would have.
- wtallis 11y ago
  > So are they claiming that it infringes copyright if your implementation is a superset or a subset of the original implementation, but if it is an exact implementation, then it's not copyright infringement? They're claiming that any of the above would require an API license, and that a license (requiring GPL for the implementation) was granted only to the latter, so a subset would be unauthorized infringement.
  - pyre 11y ago
    But when you start creating an implementation, it ends up being a subset while it is a work in progress. Are you stating that works in progress are infringing, until they become "magically" not infringing at the point where they reach parity? Does Mono infringe on Microsoft's .NET API because it has always lagged behind the official .NET API, even though the goal of the project is to achieve compatibility?
    - wtallis 11y ago
      .NET isn't relevant because Microsoft isn't trying to control it with the same kind of licensing terms that Oracle's using to try to ensure that anybody else's Java implementation adheres to their standards.
Oletros 11y ago
> It does not say that Google is infringing, yet Yes, the jury ruled that there was infringement
- bitmapbrother 11y ago
  Which was overruled by Judge Alsup.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Yes, the jury ruled that there was infringement A jury verdict is not a court judgement. Because the district court ruled against copyrightability, it did not rule on infringement. When the court rules on infringement -- and the court is not necessarily constrained by the jury verdict on that point, and there will be further motions on it -- then someone will likely be upset and appeal that judgement to the Court of Appeals again. And whichever way that goes, there will no doubt be an appeal to the Supreme Court again. And, after all that is done, then we'll have a final answer.
  - Oletros 11y ago
    No, as the appeal court stated, the only thing waiting for a rule is the fair use one. Alsup asked the jury to rule as if API's were copyrighteable so that ruling stands

bitmapbrother 11y ago

The ART VM is language agnostic. As long as the language compiles to bytecode the ART AOT compiler will compile it to the native code of the CPU. The Java API's have more to do with source code interoperability with existing Java libraries.