Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 643 posts

Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

#91

Post by wolfgke »

randomerr wrote: post #71
gsnedders wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

V8 has little to do with Oracle, fundamentally. V8 came about because they wanted a higher performance JS VM for their browser; the JVM was never in contention there.

In underlying code you are correct. But they both work in a C/C++ style. JavaScript has become a 'Write Once, Run Anywhere' foundation because of the web browser. Don't forget projects like NWJS (Node Webkit), Electron, Cordova/PhoneGap, Google Chrome Apps, NodeJS, and ClearScript(.NET). All of these JavaScript implementations use the V8 JVM and can make desktop and command line application. Depending on security set…

> All of these JavaScript implementations use the V8 JVM

V8 is not a JVM (Java Virtual Machine), but a virtual machine for Javascript.

Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

#92

Post by adamrezich »

gsnedders wrote: post #59
microtonal wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the early years of Google applets were already pretty much dead: https://www.javaworld.com/article/2076251/core-java/applets-... (Note that the article is from 2000.) Remember that Google was already doing AJAX in Gmail in 2004, years before V8.

And V8 was first released in 2008. Java applets were pretty much completely gone from the web by this point. The only competition on the web, from plugins, at that point was Flash (okay, Silverlight deserves a footnote, but little more).

V8 is ten years old?! How time flies...

Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

#93

Post by danjoc »

Good. Initially, I thought the API decision was a bad one, but now I think the courts got it right.

If you've ever wrestled long with getting a program to compile, you realize it's non-trivial to wrap your brain around complex types. The API is a language and the compiler is a runtime producing output. I can design my API in something like Java and return null from all the methods while I do it. The compiler will still produce expected results when I try to string bits of it together.

For most languages, this work is hard, because everything is a runtime error from the compiler. There are elegant and inelegant ways to solve certain problems. The API determines that. It is itself a creative endeavor.

Google was given the opportunity to license the API. They still can under GPL, but that means complying with GPL, which they evidently did not want to do. Ruling in favor of fair use here creates a vague double standard. Business models like that of MongoDB, who releases their code under GPL for open source projects and charges a license fee for private projects, would become questionable. "Well, you give it away already, so it's fair use to use it any way we like without paying you!"

Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

#94

Post by BoorishBears »

vijaybritto wrote: post #11
BoorishBears wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unpopular opinion: I feel Google should be punished for what they did to Java. Maybe the mechanism being used is wrong, but Android bastardized Java and as an Android developer I feel real damage has been done to the health of the Java ecosystem by having billions of devices run fragmented Java-but-not-Java. Google has started to make it right with the switch to openJDK and Desugar, but in a lot of ways it’s too litt…

They made billions of people access and use technology. Java was just a tool to help them achieve it. Sorry, your complaint is not really making sense here

It’s like I have a brand that makes widgets and gives out the plans to our widgets.

Larry finds plans to one of my old widgets and builds it into his awesome product and millions of people learn how to use the old version of my widget.

But my old widget kind of sucks and I’ve been releasing new widgets that fix a lot of issues.

Millions of people are gnashing their teeth over the old widget but Larry won’t update which version of my widget, he’s occasionally using parts of my new widget blueprint so now he’s creating Frankensteins of my widget that don’t even have a version.

But they’re still my widgets, Larry calling them by my brand name, people are conflating them with my widget, people making tools for my widget now have two diverging targets. People are saying my widget sucks because of issues I fixed ages ago.

It almost reminds me of J++ in a way, but with more subtlety.

Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

#95

Post by r00fus »

admax88q wrote: post #42
gsnedders wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

V8 has little to do with Oracle, fundamentally. V8 came about because they wanted a higher performance JS VM for their browser; the JVM was never in contention there.

Sure it does. Why did they want a higher performance JS VM for the browser? The language of choice to build interactive applications on the web before JS was really viable was Java. A high performance JS VM means we don't need to use applets anymore.

> The language of choice to build interactive applications on the web before JS was really viable was Java.

I find this amusing. No one ever built anything meaningful client-side with Java. There's a reason Microsoft laughed off Java as "write once, debug many".

Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

#96

Post by Justsignedup »

todd3834 wrote: post #5

I’m not sure if I have the timeline correct but I thought Java was owned by Sun Microsystems at the time when they made these decisions. I’m sure they rightly assumed Sun Microsystems would never do this. It is sad to see what Oracle is doing with Sun Microsystem’s creation.

The following is the fun history:

- Java is created / owned by Sun.

- Sun was fearful of MS's EEE approach (embrace, extend, exterminate) where MS took a thing, built their own, pushed their own tooling, added their own proprietary instruction, boom windows lock-in. So Sun basically made their contract: Java is free but only if you DO NOT introduce any new instructions, and implement a 100% compatible VM, nothing added or removed.

- Sun was making _some_ money out of mobile.

- Google introduced this pre-compiled java stuff. It used Java but compiled into binary. Sun was kind of excited. Java everywhere. Even though it violated the terms sun put out, sun was happy to get more java out there.

- Google / Sun had a more or less truce.

- Oracle bought sun. Sun didn't have much business left as Linux was obliterating their Unix business.

- Oracle saw the primary income from Sun as a lawsuit against google. And licensing on every Android phone period.

And thus today.

Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

#97

Post by ABCLAW »

wrs wrote: post #72
ABCLAW wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a bait and switch based on legalities. If Oracle made representations to Google that they didn't mind them using their software, Google would be able to claim that Oracle is estopped from pursuing a claim due to the prior authorization they received. What's being stated here is that Google's infringement improved Oracle's market position - that fact doesn't bar Oracle from pursuing their remedy against inf…

They did make those representations, and Google did claim that. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/suns-jonathan-sc...

No, they didn't.

If I hand you a bag of balls and say you're allowed to play with the purple and green balls inside, I haven't given you permission to play with any of the other balls.

In this case, the different balls are the different dismemberments/rights related to Java.

Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

#98

Post by wolfgke »

ABCLAW wrote: post #62
kodablah wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call me naive, but is a company being happy with what you're doing to the tune of them even saying so (or representatives thereof) tantamount to an implicit contract? I know it's been argued in this case, but it strikes me as disingenuous at the least and fraudulent at the most to change your mind. Sure we don't mind Google bearing the brunt of this because they can, but how would we feel were a smaller company subje…

This isn't a bait and switch based on legalities. If Oracle made representations to Google that they didn't mind them using their software, Google would be able to claim that Oracle is estopped from pursuing a claim due to the prior authorization they received. What's being stated here is that Google's infringement improved Oracle's market position - that fact doesn't bar Oracle from pursuing their remedy against inf…

> If you steal my software

Nothing was stolen (i.e. Oracle still has the software), it was an infringement of copyright (and perhaps patents).

Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

#99

Post by simias »

admax88q wrote: post #42
gsnedders wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

V8 has little to do with Oracle, fundamentally. V8 came about because they wanted a higher performance JS VM for their browser; the JVM was never in contention there.

Sure it does. Why did they want a higher performance JS VM for the browser? The language of choice to build interactive applications on the web before JS was really viable was Java. A high performance JS VM means we don't need to use applets anymore.

Not Flash? In my experience Java applets never got anywhere close to the level of adoption of Flash. I suppose it might've been different in corporate environments. I had Flash enabled in my browser long after I stopped using Java applets altogether, if only for video streaming.

Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

#100

Post by dagw »

dlanouette wrote: post #81
Spivak wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whaaa? I mean Java is undoubtedly more popular because of Android but it's not like it was hurting before. Sure, there aren't a lot of consumer-facing applications running Java but it's pretty much the standard on the enterprise side of things.

Java on mobile was (virtually) dead before Android. Now it's thriving and relevant again.

Java on mobile was (virtually) dead before Android. Now it's thriving and relevant again.

Perhaps, but is that a good thing if you're Oracle? Especially considering the fact that it's Google Java that's thriving and not Oracle Java.

Post reply on HN