Oracle Clarifies its Case, Motions to Strike Google's Letter
Although they haven't shown us the source document yet, some news sites are reporting that Oracle has updated its original complaint in the lawsuit against Google. Oracle is now saying that Google "directly copied" their copyrighted Java API packages and related documents in several instances. They say that about one-third of Android's API packages are derived from Sun/Oracle Java APIs.
So now we have one specific area of code to compare, unlike last month when Oracle's initial statement was too vague to make definitive judgements. This new information still isn't enough, but it's a start. We don't know the exact APIs that Oracle has a problem with, but we do have a defined list of possibilities. Oracle adds that the infringed elements include "Java method and class names, definitions, organization, and parameters; the structure, organization and content of Java class libraries; and the content and organization of Java’s documentation." The Dalvik VM's use of Apache Harmony is also central to this case, which was established back in September.
An Effort to Erase Google's Letter
In a related action, Oracle also filed a motion this week to dismiss many of the key statements in Google's Answer with Counterclaims letter to the district court. Areas that they want to strike from the court's record include statements claiming that Oracle's patents are invalid, and some of the history lessons Google gave on Oracle's staunch support for making Java completely open source right before they acquired its patents.
Oracle argued that the patent invalidity claims were vaguely supported and that the letter was full of "self-congratulatory remarks and polemics."
So now we have one specific area of code to compare, unlike last month when Oracle's initial statement was too vague to make definitive judgements. This new information still isn't enough, but it's a start. We don't know the exact APIs that Oracle has a problem with, but we do have a defined list of possibilities. Oracle adds that the infringed elements include "Java method and class names, definitions, organization, and parameters; the structure, organization and content of Java class libraries; and the content and organization of Java’s documentation." The Dalvik VM's use of Apache Harmony is also central to this case, which was established back in September.
An Effort to Erase Google's Letter
In a related action, Oracle also filed a motion this week to dismiss many of the key statements in Google's Answer with Counterclaims letter to the district court. Areas that they want to strike from the court's record include statements claiming that Oracle's patents are invalid, and some of the history lessons Google gave on Oracle's staunch support for making Java completely open source right before they acquired its patents.Oracle argued that the patent invalidity claims were vaguely supported and that the letter was full of "self-congratulatory remarks and polemics."
Comments
Fabrizio Giudici replied on Thu, 2010/10/28 - 10:26am
Otengi Miloskov replied on Thu, 2010/10/28 - 11:14am
Michael Urban replied on Thu, 2010/10/28 - 12:34pm
I still see no case here. "Oracle adds that the infringed elements include "Java method and class names, definitions, organization, and parameters; the structure, organization and content of Java class libraries"
So what's the problem? Java is GPL. The only concievable violation on Google's part that I can see would be a GPL violation claim. In other words, Oracle could argue that Dalvik has to be released under the GPL and not the Apache license. But other than that, I don't see how Oracle can make any kind of claim that Google is violating any patents based on copying class names, method names, definitions, etc.
The only thing Oracle is doing here is hurting Java by driving developers away from it. I used to be a staunch supporter of Java. But thanks to Oracle, I've pretty much abandoned it in favor of Python. I simply don't feel comfortable trusting my time investment in Java anymore given the way Oracle is handling it.
John J. Franey replied on Thu, 2010/10/28 - 2:40pm
in response to:
Michael Urban
I'm not commenting on the validity of the complaint. And I am not a lawyer.
I think if you jumped to python ONLY because of Oracle's copyright infringement claims: 1) you jumped too early because an open evaluation process of Oracle's copyright complaint has hardly started, 2) you jumped for the wrong reason.
Slavomír Varchula replied on Thu, 2010/10/28 - 6:00pm
Fabrizio Giudici replied on Fri, 2010/10/29 - 5:44am
Behrang Saeedzadeh replied on Fri, 2010/10/29 - 6:54am
in response to:
Fabrizio Giudici
Michael Urban replied on Wed, 2010/11/03 - 1:50pm
in response to:
John J. Franey
It's not the only reason. The other reason is because I do a significant amount of desktop application development, and I have grown frustrated with how Swing has been allowed to stagnate over the years. I mean lets face it, other than "under the hood" improvements, and some improvements to widget looks, nothing much has changed in Swing since Java 1.2. User interfaces have evolved greatly since the mid 1990s, but Swing has not kept up with the trends. With Oracle controlling Java now, I suspect the Swing stagnation problem is only going to get worse.
Meanwhile, the Qt toolkit, and its Python bindings have been marching forward with new advanced widgets that are easier to use and more powerful than Swing.
That's another reason Python is my go to language instead of Java these days. Python can do basically everything Java can do, and it can do it quicker and without the worry about the future that comes with Java and Oracle. In the few times where I actually need to do something that Python can't do well (cause it needs to be really fast or something), I just write small sections of code in C or C++. Calling a C or C++ module from Python is child's play.
Nils Kilden-pedersen replied on Wed, 2010/11/10 - 11:18am
in response to:
Michael Urban