Didn't see *that* coming... Nope... Uhh-unh... (/sarcasm)
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| BernardSwiss Aug 08, 2015 8:25 PM EDT |
We need a new term, stronger than the typical, relatively pissant expression, "Patent Troll". Perhaps "Patent Pirate"? Yes, I think that might fit the bill... Nathan Myhrvold and his Intellectual Vultures must be getting sick and dizzy, trying to figure out whether to be green with envy over Larry Ellison's "venture" into the world of Intellectual Property scams, or pissed-off at being so thoroughly schooled in how a real Patent Pirate conducts the trade. Larry Ellison looks to be conducting an enterprise not unlike a pirate of past centuries -- pillaging openly and boldly upon the sea of Intellectual Property Law, while convincing the distant, poorly informed authorities that he's in truth but an honest Privateer, simply defending the realm and his own property against thieving corporate buccaneers... And I wonder how bad this is going to get, before something finally gets done about it. |
| penguinist Aug 08, 2015 9:52 PM EDT |
So if I'm understanding this correctly, Oracle claims that the java API is copyrighted and Google wrote and distributed code that implemented that API and application code that attached to that API and therefore Google is threatened with copyright violation. Did I get that right? If that is the case, then Java is dead. Why would anyone risk using that language (when there are numerous alternatives) if writing a Java app puts one at risk of a suit from the Patent Pirate de Jure? I miss Sun. Why is it that the good guys often loose. Software freedom is more important than ever. It must be protected. |
| JaseP Aug 09, 2015 3:52 PM EDT |
It's more complicated than that... Basically, Java was open sourced,... but when it was, it was done under a license that excluded mobile devices (because we all KNOW that a MOBILE computer is completely different than a non-mobile computer,... uhm, yeah,... NOT...). Furthermore, the group that created Android (and later bought by Google), created a clean room implementation of the APIs, so that Java programmers could easily adapt to writing Davlik (their clean-room version of the Java API) code. So, Oracle, having bought out Sun, wanted to capitalize on the fact that Android has a dominant market share in the mobile segment. As a result, they sued, saying that duplicating the API was a copyright infringement. Up to that time, nobody would say that an API was copyrightable (the source code,... Yes! Of Course! ... But not the API, which is essentially a description of the various functions, essentially like a list... and lists aren't subject to copyright). The original trial judge learned how to code, so that he could understand the technical aspects of the case, and therefore render reasonable judgments as to the law. In doing so, he held that APIs were not copyrightable, since they are effectively lists (not unlike the names in a phone book). The appeals court, a rather un-technical bunch, ruled that copyright DOES cover API (an illogical decision), and remanded the case back to the trial judge. Now, the judge has to rule on whether the API is governed by fair use,... and on damages. Now, Oracle is upping the ante,... saying that there are a bunch of new devices which infringe, and asking the court to enjoin Google from further using "their" API... effectively pulling the plug on Android, and rendering millions of Android phone and Tablet users without their devices. What Oracle is asking for is a "hail Mary" play,... There's no way the trial court would issue an injunction covering the devices (they didn't in the first instance, either). That would run contrary to public policy (the correct measure of damages would be money,... not an injunction). But Oracle is looking for any leverage to gouge more money out of Google. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!