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

211–220 of 643 posts

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

#211

Post by AnimalMuppet »

sangnoir wrote: post #88
djsumdog wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the thing is Google didn't use the Oracle Java engine. They implemented their own runtime environment that's mostly API compatible with Java (and getting further from that as the years go on). This gets into really critical concerns around APIs. If commercial product A sucks and I'm in a shop where we made our own drop in replacement that implement's A's APIs .. then we open source that drop-in replacement and pu…

> They implemented their own runtime environment that's mostly API compatible with Java (and getting further from that as the years go on). That's not quite right - Google adopted Apache Harmony[1] (an open source project, and if you want to attribute an organisation responsible for Harmony's success - such as it was - it would be IBM). Apache Harmony would have been 100% API compatible with Java had Sun (and later O…

I don't think that's quite right, either (though I could be wrong). IIRC, Android first was done based on Sun/Oracle Java. Then (and maybe even after the lawsuit started?), Google shifted to Harmony.

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

#212

Post by monocasa »

throw_away wrote: post #128
djsumdog wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the thing is Google didn't use the Oracle Java engine. They implemented their own runtime environment that's mostly API compatible with Java (and getting further from that as the years go on). This gets into really critical concerns around APIs. If commercial product A sucks and I'm in a shop where we made our own drop in replacement that implement's A's APIs .. then we open source that drop-in replacement and pu…

And yet Oracle ships an S3 compatibility API: https://docs.us-phoenix-1.oraclecloud.com/Content/Object/Tas...

Hell, Oracle got started by cloning the SQL API.

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

#213

Post by cromwellian »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #194
cromwellian wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, “stealing” an API and open source, building a successful mobile UI platform (unlike personal/embedded java and Sun’s own failed attempts at fragmentation) and contributing it free back to open source where it has been used as a base OS for thousands of new products from TVs to drones.

You mean the platform where one of only very, very few conditions on it's use was to make sure that your implementation was compatible with others?

The first smartphones had only 128mb of RAM and very slow performance. To remain compatible means supporting Swing, Java2D, CORBA, and a ton of other non-optional APIs included in the JDK. This was not really technically feasible in 2007.

For decades, people had been producing Java forks which weren't compatible, Sun didn't do much about them, and even encouraged them. Their main idea was to charge for the TCK and the right to use the Java(tm). Remember Ghost and WabaVM for PalmOS? Remember Kaffe +Classpath?

I'd argue that the idea of write-once-run-anywhere with a one-size-fits-all UI layer from mobile to server is a pretty bad idea. Apple seems to understand this, which is why iOS differs from NextSTEP.

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

#214

Post by BenoitP »

Justsignedup wrote: post #96
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 add…

It is sad that us developers -actors in the very resource they are fighting for (our mindshare)- do not get any say in this.

Java belongs in a Foundation.

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

#215

Post by pcwalton »

danjoc wrote: post #93

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 sti…

Would you apply your reasoning to JavaScript, so that Safari and Chrome would be illegal due to failure to obtain a license for the JS APIs?

What about Linux? Linux copied the Unix syscall interface.

What about Wine?

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

#216

Post by stephen »

I agree it seems that way, but IMO JavaScript/v8 only exists (or is only the defacto client-side runtime) because Sun/Oracle messed up the Java/JVM trajectory at least twice.

1) was Sun making applets suck so bad, e.g. the JVM itself was too slow pre-JIT, classloading over the wire sucked, DOM interaction was hard (AFAIU/IIRC), etc.

I don't think any of these problems were fundamental to "put a VM in the browser", as conceptually Java & JS VMs aren't that different: the trade-offs JS/Brendan picked just worked better.

2) was Oracle being so lawsuit happy, as I think Dart could have been "just a faster/better browser-based JVM" (basically applets done right/with a great pre-JIT JVM) and not the combined "new language + new VM + new ecosystem", had Google felt comfortable using the Java language. It would have made a ton of sense, to reuse all their existing/internal Java tooling/knowledge/etc. But not with Oracle already breathing down their neck re Android.

Anyway, agreed it doesn't seem that way, but I think v8's success is actually more related to Sun/Oracle/Java's mistakes/missed opportunities than is initially apparent.

Not complaining, as we're in a great place now with v8/TypeScript/React Native being basically "the VM + type-safe language + framework that Java could have been", but with legitimately awesome features e.g. TS's type system, RN hot loading, etc.

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

#217

Post by erikb »

redm wrote: post #28

I think the part that gets lost in all of this is that Sun offered to license Java to Google previously for $100M. [1] Google turned that down and bypassed Sun because they didn't want to pay (or license). At the time, Sun was happy to see Java being used by Google, even without the license. Still, Google knew exactly what they were doing. [2] My point is, they did this to themselves and they knew what they were poss…

It's also very standard enterprise thinking: Save 100 mio now, get a bigger bonus check, and worry about the consequences later. Maybe all consequences can be avoided even.

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

#218

Post by Ajedi32 »

treis wrote: post #180
alex_young wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you apply this view to all APIs, the computer revolution would never have happened. The PC was a clone of IBMs API. They fought this battle and lost and now we can argue about it on little handheld clones all day long.

There's a fundamental difference between: Blackbox testing -> API Specification -> Implementation and Copy API Specification -> Implementaton In the first case, you will come up with something similar but ultimately original. In the second case you are blatantly copying someone else's work.

...I don't really see what the difference is. In both cases Google would end up with exactly the same API specification. There's no room for them to come up with an "original" API, because if the API they end up with is not an _exact copy_ of Oracle's, then software written for Oracle's Java implementation would not be compatible with Google's Java implementation (and vice-versa).

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

#219

Post by geodel »

pjmlp wrote: post #67
redm wrote: post #28

I think the part that gets lost in all of this is that Sun offered to license Java to Google previously for $100M. [1] Google turned that down and bypassed Sun because they didn't want to pay (or license). At the time, Sun was happy to see Java being used by Google, even without the license. Still, Google knew exactly what they were doing. [2] My point is, they did this to themselves and they knew what they were poss…

To complement that, here is the most recent Gosling´s interview at Triangulation about how Google screw Sun and was aware of their monetary situation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYw3X4RZv6Y&feature=youtu.be...

Well, first Sun treated Apache like shit over Harmony issue which had such big role in popularizing Java. Later Sun was was on receiving side.

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

#220

Post by treis »

djsumdog wrote: post #199
treis wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Java API is hundreds of classes and thousands of methods. It is far beyond something as simple as the height of a door.

I don't see how the size of the spec has anything to do with it. It could be the standard height of doors or the standard interface/protocol between every sensor and smart component in a smart home. What if I create my own smart home server that can be a drop in replacement for some commercial product using just what I've gather from their public API? Is that infringement, when the underlying implementation is entire…

You can't copyright trivial work so the size of the spec matters.

It depends on how you create your server. If you go to their website, look at their API, and start typing identical code then that's not ok. It's pretty clearly copying. If you do black box testing and then write your own API that's fine. It's clearly not copying but a new original work.

Post reply on HN