Initial Thoughts on Oracle vs Google Patent Lawsuit(tirania.org)
tirania.org
Initial Thoughts on Oracle vs Google Patent Lawsuit
http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2010/Aug-13.html
2 comments
> I'm not sure this latest patent warfare will convince anyone that Mono is a safe bet, quite the opposite in fact.
I disagree. See Patents section:
http://www.mono-project.com/Licensing
The part Mono inherits from MS (C#, CLI etc.) is "irrevocably promised" by MS (see http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx). Other parts, libraries for example, are re-written from the ground, omitted or already open sourced (see ASP.NET MVC).
Microsoft's Developer Division is doing great things for being open lately.
I disagree. See Patents section:
http://www.mono-project.com/Licensing
The part Mono inherits from MS (C#, CLI etc.) is "irrevocably promised" by MS (see http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx). Other parts, libraries for example, are re-written from the ground, omitted or already open sourced (see ASP.NET MVC).
Microsoft's Developer Division is doing great things for being open lately.
You haven't explained why that's any different from what Sun was saying all along, right up until they had a change in management and started suing people. And even if there are actual differences, then they're not clear even to above average engineers, so the mob will be swayed by gut instinct.
Fair enough, but I doubt Microsoft will get bought out by a sue-happy company anytime soon.
It all comes down to who has money. Mono isn't really making anyone much of a profit, so it can go on being relatively safe. If it were bundled into the next release of iOS however, I'm sure we'd say policy changing quite a bit.
Oracle isn't also suing Apache's Harmony project from which Dalvik is derived, as there isn't much in the way of money in it. But Dalvik itself? EVIL infringement of over 9000 patents and the copyright on the documentation defining static variables!
Oracle isn't also suing Apache's Harmony project from which Dalvik is derived, as there isn't much in the way of money in it. But Dalvik itself? EVIL infringement of over 9000 patents and the copyright on the documentation defining static variables!
This analysis hints, and another [http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/?p=478] suggests more explicitly, that Google might be OK going forward if they recast/relicensed their Java implementation as a derivative of Sun's GPL'd OpenJDK.
So this fellow says that they should link Android to pieces from OpenJDK that cover those patents, such that it is then considered a derivate work.
IMHO that's a stupid suggestion.
Judges aren't stupid, Dalvik is not a derivate of OpenJDK in its current form.
And even if it would hold, pretending that it is would destroy their chances if Oracle pulls another batch of patents out of their arsenal that aren't covered by the implicit grant in OpenJDK.
It is also unclear whether Dalvik infringes or not. And this discussion is moot anyway ... Google will do what big companies are doing, settle or counter-sue.
IMHO that's a stupid suggestion.
Judges aren't stupid, Dalvik is not a derivate of OpenJDK in its current form.
And even if it would hold, pretending that it is would destroy their chances if Oracle pulls another batch of patents out of their arsenal that aren't covered by the implicit grant in OpenJDK.
It is also unclear whether Dalvik infringes or not. And this discussion is moot anyway ... Google will do what big companies are doing, settle or counter-sue.
Which would basically destroy Android performance; OpenJDK is too bloated to run on phones.
What term of the GPL or other OpenJDK distribution would require them to use the whole thing?
Adding a few lines, or even just saying "we peeked at OpenJDK as a model, so Dalvik is a derivative work" means they'd be relying on the OpenJDK's GPL, and relicensing Dalvik as GPL as well. At that point, OpenJDK patent grants (either explicit or implied) could make further alleged infringement moot.
Adding a few lines, or even just saying "we peeked at OpenJDK as a model, so Dalvik is a derivative work" means they'd be relying on the OpenJDK's GPL, and relicensing Dalvik as GPL as well. At that point, OpenJDK patent grants (either explicit or implied) could make further alleged infringement moot.
And, despite the smug tone and schadenfreude, I'm not sure this latest patent warfare will convince anyone that Mono is a safe bet, quite the opposite in fact.
Why should anyone take his word at greater value than the various Java boosters (and Sun employees!) that previously said basically the same things about Java?