>>10
Oracle's intent is to get money somehow, not to shut down Android. That money might be from Google, or it might be (indirectly) from Microsoft if you believe this is another round of dirty pool.
Name:
Anonymous2010-08-19 20:22
I think Android were stupid to use Java in the first place, and part of Google's conditions for purchasing them should have been a transition away from it.
Not that it matters, because the patents basically apply to any VM, but I don't think they would have sued if Google hadn't stiffed them by using Harmony and writing Dalvik.
Based on how fucked up these patent cases are, my guess is Oracle wins $500mil, Google pays them out of pocket, and the world keeps going as if nothing ever happened.
>>13
The choice of Java for Android wasn't as bad as you think, nor as good as Google thought. They need to be told twice on everything, which is why they eventually compromised and supported some limited non-Java. They've beaten with the cluebat enough that they've got their head on straight viz. Java now, which means they'll be making a completely different set of entirely foreseeable mistakes, no matter how much forewarning they receive.
OTOH, even if they do insist on making avoidable mistakes, Google at least manages to learn from them in time to turn a profit... or at least keep the project in Beta and eat the cost as 'funged 20% time' or what have you.
>>13
If $500m < royalty fees Google would pay for licensing J2ME, then it's still a net win.
Name:
Anonymous2010-08-19 21:41
>>13
The point of Java was because of the VM. Do you have any suggestions for better VM technologies that are either well established or in the process of being well established?
>>13 Android were stupid to use Java in the first place, and part of Google's conditions for purchasing them should have been a transition away from it
What should they have used instead? Java's popular, which means lots of developers who can write apps for their platform. It's also got a shit load of libraries available and a good set of tools/IDEs already written. Get rid of Sun's stupid J2ME licensing, the gay ass class libraries, their crappy VM, and you end up with something pretty decent.
Name:
Anonymous2010-08-19 22:46
>>17 The point of Java was because of the VM
What, why? Google seem to
Name:
Anonymous2010-08-20 0:25
>>17 The point of Java was because of the VM.
And what is the point of the VM exactly? The iPhone does not have a VM.
>>17
The regular Java VM was obviously not that important, since Google has made do with their own, and done all right with it (legal issues aside).
Name:
Anonymous2010-08-20 1:16
>>17
Completely wrong. Having a VM is irrelevant, and clearly unnecessary for mobile software, as the iPhone, Windows Mobile, Symbian, BREW, etc. all demonstrate. Having the Java VM even more so; they wrote their own!
I'll tell you why they chose Java. It's because Android is going after the J2ME market, and so they want to pull all those developers over to Android. They figured the best way to do that is to give them the same old programming language so they have an easier time adapting to it and porting their apps.
It's also because they made the decision in 2005, where there weren't really any other serious compiled languages than C and C++. (There almost still isn't; not much has changed in that regard.)
Name:
Anonymous2010-08-20 1:19
>>12
Of course Oracle wants money, that's the whole point for them. But the court case is going to drag on for years, and in the meanwhile Android is going to be a risk for any device manufacturer as if Oracle actually win they may well decide to go after all Android users for license fees as well. It is only to be expected that other manufacturers like Microsoft will want to capitalize of this risk to push their own products as a risk-free solution.
Name:
Anonymous2010-08-20 1:21
>>23 where there weren't really any other serious compiled languages than C and C++
I would have bought a Lisp phone.
>>29
They're trying to create more fear and pressure Google into settling the lawsuit. If Android was wiped from the face of the earth there'd be no way for them to rake in the cash money Larry Ellison so desperately wants.
Name:
Anonymous2010-08-20 9:25
>>33
Forgot to add, if the suit goes to court and Oracle lose, I wouldn't be surprised if they axed Java completely.
>>34
HotSpot is open sourced now, and there's Apache Harmony for the class libraries. Oracle can axe it all they want, and it won't make any difference to the existence of the Java "platform".
Name:
Anonymous2010-08-20 9:52
Oracle rapes your freedom.
Uninstall your Java Runtimes.
Name:
Anonymous2010-08-20 10:38
>>35
It will matter if no organization takes responsibility for it and continues development. No, your open-sores club won't cut it.
>>37
Harmony is already self-sustaining. As for HotSpot, there's still enough Java shops around that would be interested in maintaining it, even if Oracle pulled out.
Name:
Anonymous2010-08-20 11:22
>>37
PROTIP:The open handset alliance governs the direction of Android. Google is the originator of the Android platform.
Name:
Anonymous2010-08-20 12:20
This lawsuit can be summed up in two points:
- Oracle wants to show that it won't let Google take over their platform.
- Google should've seen it coming. Technically, Google made the same mistake Microsoft did when it got sued by Sun.
>>40 Technically, Google made the same mistake Microsoft did when it got sued by Sun.
Well, no. Microsoft actually had a contract with Sun to ship a standard JVM with Windows/IE, and they were in violation of that contract by making their "Microsoft Java Runtime" incompatible with Sun's Java (embrace, extend, extinguish).
Google has no contract with Sun/Oracle. The only connection to Oracle (besides patents) is that they use the Java name and the Java compiler as an intermediary. The Java compiler is open source though, so they are legally within their rights to use it.
This is a patent infringement case, nothing more.
Name:
Anonymous2010-08-20 16:43
>>39
PROTIP: Your post has nothing to do with the post you replied to.
Anyways, >>1, please listen to me. That it's really related to this thread.
Yesterday I found some of my father's old magazines. There was a 1986 computer magazine. Talked about a newfangled printer that cost as much as car. Ads for computers displayed the price for bundles with monochrome displays in large type, with the price for the color display in small type.
Some editorial lamented that software was not patentable in my country. The author was earnestly thinking that computing would never outgrow the professional and hobby markets to become ubiquitous unless we urgently enacted some patent reform.
Reminded me that every belief we hold as self-evident about IT today will be laughable in 25 years.
What this all really means, though, is that actually I'm not sure what it means, I just felt like sharing my cool story!