Oracle reaches new low

This is a discussion on Oracle reaches new low within the General Discussions forums, part of the Community Boards category; Oracle sues Google over Java in Android • The Register...

  1. #1
    Epy
    Epy is offline
    Fortran lover Epy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    998

    Oracle reaches new low


  2. #2
    &TH of undefined behavior Fordy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    5,789
    Not really surprised. Seems like another yet another chapter in the drama that begun when Sun was bought.

    I use a couple of Sun's products quite a bit (MySQL & VirtualBox) and I'm waiting for the day when they get caught up in the "drama".

  3. #3
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    4,913
    In all fairness to Oracle, Sun was dying. I'm good friends with several employees there, and it was apparently quite a painful experience to be there at the end. They're much happier with how Oracle has been recovering the situation. I use a lot of their products myself, but I'd much rather pay for free-as-in-freedom software, than get free-as-in-beer software backed by an unstable company with an unstable future.

  4. #4
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,579
    So, let's see: Google writes its own Java VM and SDK (complete with its own runtime and compiler), almost entirely independent from Oracle's. Meanwhile Oracle owns the IP and patents associated with Java, which were previously Sun's. And you say Oracle has hit a new low?

    Don't you feel Oracle felt the need to defend their $7.4 billion deal last year when they acquired Sun? 7.4 billion dollars isn't exactly pocket money. And one of the flagship products of Sun was precisely the Java programming language. If I'm going to spend 7.4 billion dollars, you may be well damn sure I'll skin you alive if I must to milk every cent from you, if you so much dare to steal my IP.

    Google couldn't have done what they did. They used intellectual property they don't own, reshaped it and all but branded it anew.

    A few years back we were discussing Microsoft bad practices and how Sun was so damn right to sue them for Microsoft-Java. And now what? Because it's do-no-evil Google, they are the saints and Oracle is the bad boogeyman?

    People really need to start awakening to Google. This isn't the garage hipster company on everyone's drool list anymore. This is a multi-billion dollar business. And they mess up as much as anyone else. They messed up here greatly. This case will never go to court. Google will try to settle. They are in the wrong.
    Last edited by Mario F.; 08-13-2010 at 10:46 AM. Reason: The deal wasn't 5.6 billion, it was 7.4. 5.6 excludes debt
    The programmers wife tells him: Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  5. #5
    &TH of undefined behavior Fordy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    5,789
    It certainly looks like it was badly run before being bought out, but the thing that worries me is the stream of big names leaving the place (not just Gosling). The products may not be profitable to retain, but surely the talent behind them is.

  6. #6
    l'Anziano DavidP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Plano, Texas, United States
    Posts
    2,738
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    So, let's see: Google writes its own Java VM and SDK (complete with its own runtime and compiler), almost entirely independent from Oracle's. Meanwhile Oracle owns the IP and patents associated with Java, which were previously Sun's. And you say Oracle has hit a new low?

    Don't you feel Oracle felt the need to defend their $7.4 billion deal last year when they acquired Sun?
    Two things:

    1. I was under the impression that Java is now completely open source. Both the libraries and the language itself. I thought Sun did that recently (before they were bought by Oracle).

    2. There have been plenty of Java VMs built by people other than Sun/Oracle. What's so different about Google doing it that allows them to get sued?
    My Website

    "Circular logic is good because it is."

  7. #7
    Epy
    Epy is offline
    Fortran lover Epy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    998
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidP View Post
    Two things:

    1. I was under the impression that Java is now completely open source. Both the libraries and the language itself. I thought Sun did that recently (before they were bought by Oracle).

    2. There have been plenty of Java VMs built by people other than Sun/Oracle. What's so different about Google doing it that allows them to get sued?
    Apparently Microsoft got sued too when they did their Java VM back in the 90s.

    Still though, they're just writing their own code to a spec...to hell with software patents.

  8. #8
    Epy
    Epy is offline
    Fortran lover Epy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    998
    Quote Originally Posted by Fordy View Post
    I use a couple of Sun's products quite a bit (MySQL & VirtualBox) and I'm waiting for the day when they get caught up in the "drama".
    Me too...don't forget openoffice

  9. #9
    ... kermit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,528
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidP View Post
    What's so different about Google doing it that allows them to get sued?
    Google has lots of money?

  10. #10
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,579
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidP View Post
    1. I was under the impression that Java is now completely open source. Both the libraries and the language itself. I thought Sun did that recently (before they were bought by Oracle).

    2. There have been plenty of Java VMs built by people other than Sun/Oracle. What's so different about Google doing it that allows them to get sued?
    The answer is ugly:

    You can build JVM's naturally. But you still need to license them from Oracle (before that, SUn). Google went around that by claiming that they don't have a JVM, they have the Dalvik VM. And according to them, it isn't a Java platform. It isn't even Java compatible. Which it really isn't (compatible, that is. IT IS a Java platform, though). And that brings yet another problem. They also added to the standard library, making the Android implementation incompatible with Oracle's, effectively fragmenting the language. A big no-no.

    The do-no-evil google essentially played their way around the JVM licensing. Exactly the same thing Microsoft tried to do and Sun sued for.

    And, for the record. This isn't from today. This is the culmination of a process that started with Sun who was already preparing to target Google with a lawsuit. Oracle just took the helm when it bought Sun.

    Stefano’s Linotype Dalvik: how Google routed around Sun’s IP-based licensing restrictions on Java ME
    The programmers wife tells him: Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  11. #11
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,273
    Yay, the joys of proprietary programming platforms. And people wonder why I think Java stinks. Hint: It's not technical reasons.
    Code:
    //try
    //{
    	if (a) do { f( b); } while(1);
    	else   do { f(!b); } while(1);
    //}

  12. #12
    ... kermit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,528
    Quote Originally Posted by brewbuck View Post
    Yay, the joys of proprietary programming platforms. And people wonder why I think Java stinks. Hint: It's not technical reasons.
    I think I can agree with this. As far as I am concerned, anyone is free to create a proprietary programming platform, just as I am free not to use it.

  13. #13
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,579
    Not a fan of Java myself. But I couldn't care any less for where it comes from or the proprietary thingy. I develop for Windows. I'm used to proprietary thingies. The programming language being the least of anyone's concerns.
    The programmers wife tells him: Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  14. #14
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Not a fan of Java myself. But I couldn't care any less for where it comes from or the proprietary thingy. I develop for Windows. I'm used to proprietary thingies. The programming language being the least of anyone's concerns.
    So, if the language platform you have used to implement some massive system suddenly disappears because of a legal issue, you don't see that as a problem?

    What if C++ was owned by some company and that company suddenly had a patent dispute with some other company, and as a result, the entire C++ language became unusable?
    Code:
    //try
    //{
    	if (a) do { f( b); } while(1);
    	else   do { f(!b); } while(1);
    //}

  15. #15
    Master Apprentice phantomotap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,409
    The do-no-evil google essentially played their way around the JVM licensing.
    No, they didn't. They aren't using the JVM and shouldn't need to license something they aren't using.

    They used intellectual property they don't own, reshaped it and all but branded it anew.
    That's questionable. They shouldn't be using any source Oracle owns that they aren't allowed to use.



    This is about money. Oracle is using a few broad patents to claim ownership or something they had no hand in creating.

    If Google used source they had no business using, they should be punished.
    If Google used techniques invited at Sun by means of hiring former Sun employees, they should be punished.

    If this is really "clean room" development, as Google claims, Oracle should not get rewarded simply because they managed to patent a few broadly applicable and obvious abstractions and tagging.

    If Sun wanted money from Google because of Java, they should have worked harder to make a deal when Google intended to actually use a JVM.



    Let me ask a serious question, how would you go about differentiating native data streams and streams unique to a language within an interpreter? You know that idea you just thought of? The completely obvious solution to the problem? Oracle has a patent on it and can sue you if you use it.



    What if C++ was owned by some company and that company suddenly had a patent dispute with some other company, and as a result, the entire C++ language became unusable?
    Or to spin it another way, what if you suddenly found yourself liable for patent infringement because you had been using API libraries purchased from a third-party who had a "falling out" with their licensor?

    Soma

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Code Explanation
    By Aliaks in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-26-2009, 11:37 PM
  2. Redhat and Oracle
    By darsunt in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-20-2006, 12:32 AM
  3. Recompiling C after Oracle 9i upgrade?
    By marcusg in forum C Programming
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-02-2005, 06:55 AM
  4. oracle database connection
    By blue8173 in forum C Programming
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-16-2004, 04:30 PM
  5. low value, high value and increment
    By Unregistered in forum C Programming
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-25-2001, 09:01 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21