Hacker News Reader

This article from 2007 might be of interest:

"How Google routed around Sun's IP-based licensing restrictions on Java ME": http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/110/

It's apparently not a complete surprise, this guy in 2007 predicted that

    ... in the future expect a shit-load of IP-related lawsuits
    on this.

Another interesting tidbit from the article you linked:

The trick is that Google doesn’t claim that Android is a Java platform, although it can run some programs written with the Java language and against some derived version of the Java class library. Sun could prevent this if they had a patent on the standard class library, but they don’t and, even if they did, I strongly doubt it would be enforceable since Android doesn’t claim to be compatible (and in fact, could very well claim that their subset/superset is an innovation on the existing patent and challenge Sun’s position).

If by "interesting" you mean "totally misunderstands patent law". What Google claims is irrelevant; either they use Oracle's patented techniques or they don't.

If only patent suits were so cut-and-dry.

In software, it's really easy to not know if you're violating IP.

"It'll be interesting to see Oracle's stance toward other alternate JVMs such as IBM's."

IBM could completely paralyze the entire computer industry with their portfolio. That they don't is a testament to how much money they earn in simply letting others do the "hard" PC stuff while they singularly engulf the big iron market.

IBM was the only company that I know of that actually outlasted the US government in antitrust litigation. The DoJ, after 15 YEARS of litigation, simply dropped the case due to lack of will and resources to continue. Oracle wouldn't dare try IBM in court.

IBM's JVM is licensed. They had a legal agreement with Sun over it and I have no reason to believe that it won't carry over with Oracle.

Also, as the article j-g-faustus linked pointed, Google did something special to avoid the GPL, so JVMs that followed the usual rules won't be affected.

This makes me think that cscotta's point on uncertainty is not so strong. It'll be certainly an unpopular measure among developers, but Oracle can say that the case against Google is similar to the one against Microsoft and use the usual "fragmentation" argument.

That's interesting. I wonder if Google could buy IBM and then have them drop the lawsuit?

I don't know if you're trying to make a joke, but that might be a bit difficult for Google to do since IBM is worth more than they are.

http://www.google.com/finance?catid=66529330&sort=MARKET... Cap

I wasn't trying to make a joke. I figured Google would have a very high market valuation compared to IBM. But my point still stands, why can't Google buy a company that owns some patents that Oracle is currently infringing on?

Jonathan Schwartz had a great article about patents and IP where he relayed some stories about the stand offs between companies with regards to patents. Seems very relevant here: http://jonathanischwartz.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/good-artis...

It's quite possible that Google already owns some. We will find out when and if they find a counter-suit. Counterclaims of patent infringement are a standard tactic.

I assume Oracle is angling for a settlement here. I can't imagine they want to make Android apps not be written in Java, they just want a piece.

I think the V8 technology in Chrome is based on much older Smalltalk VM technology that Google bought. Given that everything in software violates software patents, I think it is reasonable to assume that Java does.

There's no reason this comment should be voted down.

There's no reason your comment should be voted down either. I upvoted it at least.

For those of you who are relatively new here, meta-discussion is discouraged on hacker news. Now everyone quickly downvote me!

Oracle may claim that Google infringes on all those patents, but they'll never sue. Patents are just a nuclear deterrent.

Edit: Wow, -7 and dropping. I guess I should have included a sarcasm symbol. Spoiler: My point was that patents do get used, and this argument about them just being for defense is nonsense.

The first sentence in TFA:

    Oracle Corp. said Thursday it has filed a copyright-infringement lawsuit against Google Inc.

The article is by some moron journalist who doesn't know that there's a difference between patents and copyrights.

To be fair to the journalist concerned, if you read to the bottom of the complaint you'll find that there are 7 claims of patent infringement and 1 of copyright infringement.

Well they just sued based on those patents, so I guess it's nuclear war now?

A nuclear deterrent only works if both sides have nukes. Google is a pretty young company, with few patents. Oracle is a much older company, that bought many old companies along the way. Oracle's patent portfolio vastly outstrips that of Google.

We currently have enough nukes to destroy the world many times over. If you take the comparison between patents and nukes to its logical conclusion, the same probably holds. Google vs. Oracle == mutually assured destruction, regardless of how much bigger Oracle's portfolio is.

Google has no patents? I doubt that.

Well, there would be no reason to build a defense in the first place if NOBODY ever went on the offense.

FYI there was never a global nuclear holocaust; but people still built nukes. In fact there was never direct fighting between the US and Russia...

At the risk of being a pedantic jerk, the US did send troops to fight on the side of the Czar against the Bolsheviks. They were withdrawn when they found out how bad the Czarists were. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Bear_Expedition

I'm assuming he was talking about the cold war period. Russia and the US didn't have nukes 1918-1919.

Where in that link does it say that the Czarists were bad?

Sorry, missing reference. I probably overstated the cause and effect, but it does seem to me that it contributed to the morale problems of the American troops.

>> The American commanders in the field reported that the Czarist reign of terror was far more horrific and disturbing that the actions of the Reds. The American forces also discovered that the vast majority of Russians sympathized with the Bolsheviks and supported the revolution. In the end, the American troops were brought home without any fanfare, and the ordeal was considered one of the most ill-conceived interventions in American history up to that time.

From http://rationalrevolution.net/war/russian_revolution.htm

> Interpreting functions utilizing a hybrid of virtual and native machine instructions

Are they serious? Unless I'm missing something this is a fantastic joke, JITs far predate Java.

Careful. The name of a title and its actual claims are two very different things.

Well, here's claim 1:

In a computer system, a method for increasing the execution speed of virtual machine instructions, the method comprising:

- inputting virtual machine instructions for a function;

- compiling a portion of the function into at least one native machine instruction so that the function includes both virtual and native machine instruction; and

- overwriting a selected virtual machine instruction of the function with a new virtual machine instruction, the new virtual machine instruction specifying execution of at least one native machine instruction.

You think that sounds like an idea worthy of a patent? Probably depends if you're a programmer or a patent lawyer.

I'll leave you to judge the merits of the other 46 claims, the next of which are:

2. Claim 1 in a box

3. Claim 1 with a fox

It sounds like the sort of stuff that Smalltalk implementations were doing before Java existed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-in-time_compilation#Histor... for more. (I wonder whether Sun's patents were filed for Self?)

Sun bought several of these, especially the developers of Strongtalk, a compiled, statically typed dialect of Smalltalk. So if there is any prior art on this, chances are that all the related patents are now in Oracle's portfolio.

sigh

A patent isn't an idea. It's the specific method for implementing an idea. If there is a way to get the same end result using a completely different method, the patent doesn't apply.

A "method" which is not being acted out physically, but instead is in someone's head or written down on paper is a type of idea. So some ideas are patentable, others aren't. The mantra that ideas aren't patentable presumes some other category of thought completely apart from ideas. Besides, what could be more purely and precisely methodical than machine-readable source code, in this case Smalltalk source code?

Yes!

And the first few claims generally paint way over the lines. It's in the later claims that you talk about the unique stuff that you did.

How does that relate to my comment that the patent in question sounds like it could have come out of Sun's work on optimizing Smalltalk instead of their later Java implementation? (Note that even if Sun could have worked around their own patents, they would have had no reason to bother.)

Again, as tptacek already said: careful. The summary isn't the actual claim either. The devil is in the details.

The above is the actual first claim from the patent. Of course it's subject to interpretation in context, but that is the text of the first claim.

Careful. Google's implementation and the patent itself are two very different things.

I'm guessing, but I suspect working around this & other patents was why a JIT took so long to ship in Android.

You can't write a good JIT overnight. You can't adapt an existing JIT for a JVM-like VM to Dalvik either. I don't think working around patents had much to do with it, especially since they got sued anyway.

Careful. Hotspot compiling was introduced with the JVM.

There is prior art in Smaltalk and Self ... the Hotspot compiler itself is an old Smaltalk implementation that Sun bought, open-sourced recently by SUN btw ... http://www.strongtalk.org/

I'm pretty sure the prior art was just with Self. Smalltalk had polymorphic cache tables, but it was Self that was doing really aggressive in-lining of those caches (e.g. in-lining the method and all code the method called right into the cache). Strongtalk was a Smalltalk implementation of the result of the Self research (plus optional H&M type checking) but before they released anything they got bought by Sun to get the expertise for their up coming HotSpot VM.

So bottom line: Oracle may actually own all prior art via Sun (Self research was done at Sun).

> it raises some fairly serious questions around Java's future development as a platform vis a vis the uncertainty recently resolved between Microsoft and the Mono project

Microsoft's "Community Promise" does not cover the whole .NET stack - it covers only the ECMA standardized parts. It has "It's a trap" written all over it.

I would also think twice before relying on promises from a convicted monopoly abuser.

Now I am not advocating that MS should be given a free hand. But what does being a convicted monopoly abuser have to do with patent traps?

> But what does being a convicted monopoly abuser have to do with patent traps?

It has been already demonstrated they are willing to place profits above ethical and responsible (not to say lawful) behavior.

I think he stated that to indicate that we shouldn't just take Microsoft at its word that it won't attempt to litigate Mono et al. They'll find a loophole in the "Community Promise" (possibly the loophole described above) and try to hurt their enemies.

The complaint as a PDF:

http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadget/files/oracle-google.p...

I shouldn't still be surprised by this shit, but the claims of patent 5,966,702 are basically "There was some data and we normalized it". Seriously. WTF?

Can we start putting questions like these on 1st year bachelors exams, so we can finally prove that someone "reasonably skilled in the arts" can figure it out?