Re: Oracle sues Google over Java patent infringement in Android
 

That's alright. It appears that you didn't quite understand. I answered your metaphors with direct answers to what the metaphors were addressing. I'm sorry that you weren't cognizant enough to detect that.

You and I don't know that either way. They might have. On the other hand, they might not have. I'd rather wait to see the evidence rolled out and read their arguments to see the details before I presume anything either way. Call it a quirk, if you must, but I prefer to do things that way.

We both can agree with that statement.

I'm not entirely certain, but I'm pretty sure that the EU has actually managed to begin granting a few EU-wide patents on some software but that they haven't been enforced. I can't find anything on it now but I seem to remember reading something about that a year or two ago.

Oops.. it seems you put the parenthesis in the wrong place and left that whole sentence fragment laying out naked, covered in hickies somewhere under a bridge in Amsterdam. Now I'm just being silly, though.

If you're against the patenting of software, I'm not sure you want Google to lose this one, though.

Re: Oracle sues Google over Java patent infringement in Android
 

Nobody is talking about bytecode conversion at run-time - the conversion happens when the applications are compiled.

I really doubt that - creating a Java compatible language compiler that keeps pace with each new version of Java would be a serious undertaking and one that is completely unnecessary when you can just convert the bytecode.

And since being able to convert the bytecode is a necessary requirement in order to assist with the porting of native Java classes to Dalvik it makes no sense to go down the language compiler route when instead you can just convert the bytecode at the end of the compilation process. There really is no need to re-invent the wheel.

Seemingly anyone who creates an app for Android that runs in the Dalvik VM would end up using the dx tool during the creating of their application. This would mean Google, device manufacturers, third-party developers all use the dx tool.

If that were true it would open Google up to all sorts of accusations from their partners since the playing field would no longer be level. All Android developers should have access to the same SDK and development tools, I'm sure the partners would be pretty hacked off to discover that Google were building their apps with other (better?) tools that were denied to them.

Highly doubt that would be the case.

Re: Oracle sues Google over Java patent infringement in Android
 

I think is the complete Charles Nutter piece
http://blog.headius.com/2010/08/my-t...-v-google.html

It is a long read but a great one.

Re: Oracle sues Google over Java patent infringement in Android
 

I very much doubt Google will base their defence on the "wrongness of software patents", so why the hell should supporters of no software patents care whether Google wins or not?

Re: Oracle sues Google over Java patent infringement in Android
 

I didn't say or even imply that they would. I was referring to his and my personal interest in the wrongfulness of software patents as a reason not to want want to see Google lose their case in this particular lawsuit.

Wow... that IS an incredibly good article, btw. THANK YOU!

Re: Oracle sues Google over Java patent infringement in Android
 

I did fast but unclear statement, sorry, reformulating it -

Actually, bytecode conversion in compilation phase is much less efficient at run time.

I wrote one compiler from scratch, ported 2 compilers to different architecture and a lot of small stuff. I have no doubts - the bytecode is actually some sort of assembler language and translation of one to another is simple for 90% instructions but is a BIG problem with 10%. The main point is in absence of critical high-level information. Without that it would very inefficient.

Of course, if 2nd bytecode has the same structure (just replaced bytecode ops) - it is not a problem, but I doubt that they follow this way. It should be a serious reason besides Sun's holding rights to have an another bytecode.

Translating your language - "it is much simple to steal then develop". Yes, but in this case anybody understood this from the beginning and if Google went this way then they have a solid legal background, I believe. This product (Dalvik/Android) was created then Google became big, reach and powerful years and they have a lot of legal experts.


... or may be not (Google).

And what? There are many cases then this is a reality. Look around - you have a scarce description on almost any product and brief-and-unclear interfaces but vendor has a much better internals. And in many cases you should pay to get access to this info, not tools! (that is an exact reason why UNIX/Linux is good - open sources)

In my experience I created a package with some 3rd party compiler which we can't ship to customer but provided them header files and some tools to create their applications on top of that. I think it is a perfect match.

But just reminder - it is only a speculation and we don't know - has Google another tool or not.

Re: Oracle sues Google over Java patent infringement in Android
 

I had to come back to share this EXCELLENT article published on Groklaw today that summarizes Dalvik with specific detail with an eye toward understanding it well enough to follow the Oracle USA case against Google:

What is Dalvik? by Mark Murphy
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...00915143729255

Re: Oracle sues Google over Java patent infringement in Android
 

thanks for the link. Article started nicley but where are the rest of it? Guy just did introduction and did not give any answers to questions what were first put on table. Or actually he answered only to one question.

Re: Oracle sues Google over Java patent infringement in Android
 

sounds like something a politician would do?

Re: Oracle sues Google over Java patent infringement in Android
 

Google is the new Microsoft

Microsoft’s old tactics were:

1. Embrace: Development of software substantially compatible with a competing product, or implementing a public standard.
2. Extend: Addition and promotion of features not supported by the competing product or part of the standard, creating interoperability problems for customers who try to use the ‘simple’ standard.
3. Extinguish: When extensions become a de facto standard because of their dominant market share, they marginalize competitors that do not or cannot support the new extensions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace...and_extinguish

Re: Oracle sues Google over Java patent infringement in Android
 

Where exactly is Google doing this, and how? Really, just stating that "Google is the new Microsoft" and explaining EEE doesn't lend a whole lot to your argument.

Re: Oracle sues Google over Java patent infringement in Android
 

I think that's a bit much (FUD?). As I understand it, in general Google opens A LOT of its code both for public scrutiny, adoption, as well as push forward standardization of good technologies. If they had a closed-source model, I could see this being more relevant, but it seems more like condemning Google for innovating but only because of their size.

What's the alternative? To stop making new things, introducing new ideas, or improving on existing things? Or are you suggesting that Google taper its innovation in some proportion to its bottom line?

Re: Oracle sues Google over Java patent infringement in Android
 

Android is all HYPE and the definition of lipstick on a pig.

It claims to be Linux yet none of its apps work on Linux or benefit the GNU/Linux ecosystem due to running a private fork of the upstream kernel. It claims to be Java yet none of its apps work in standard Java. It claims to be Open yet the development happens behind closed doors until Google hands the code to handset makers.

Android is the new Microsoft and an enemy of the GNU/Linux ecosystem and Open Standards.

It has followed Microsoft’s tactics:

1. Embrace: Development of software substantially compatible with a competing product, or implementing a public standard.
2. Extend: Addition and promotion of features not supported by the competing product or part of the standard, creating interoperability problems for customers who try to use the ‘simple’ standard.
3. Extinguish: When extensions become a de facto standard because of their dominant market share, they marginalize competitors that do not or cannot support the new extensions.

Re: Oracle sues Google over Java patent infringement in Android
 

*Just jokes of course...* So what happens if Oracle wins, does this means Google rolls with Meego? Meego FTW!

Re: Oracle sues Google over Java patent infringement in Android
 

It claims to be Linux yet none of its apps work on Linux or benefit the GNU/Linux ecosystem...

Android is Linux, just as Redhat is Linux. All Linux distributions include out-of-tree patches, and Android is no different.

...due to running a private fork of the upstream kernel.

This is because Android doesn't use a standard C library, however, most embedded Linux solutions don't either. It has little to do with wakelocks.

It claims to be Java yet none of its apps work in standard Java.

Android doesn't claim to be Java, it claims to use Dalvik which uses Java syntax but not the bytecode or VM.


It claims to be Open yet the development happens behind closed doors until Google hands the code to handset makers.

I don't see how this different from Maemo or Meego. But, I think the existence of cyangenmod and nitdroid lend to the openness of Android.

Android is the new Microsoft and an enemy of the GNU/Linux ecosystem and Open Standards.

I'm not sure how much contribution Google has made in terms of lines of code, but Summer of Code projects have contributed enormously to free software in general and GNU/Linux specifically.

It has followed Microsoft’s tactics:

1. Embrace: Development of software substantially compatible with a competing product, or implementing a public standard.
2. Extend: Addition and promotion of features not supported by the competing product or part of the standard, creating interoperability problems for customers who try to use the ‘simple’ standard.
3. Extinguish: When extensions become a de facto standard because of their dominant market share, they marginalize competitors that do not or cannot support the new extensions.

You've described Microsoft, but I don't see how any of this applies to Google. In fact, their actions--like webm for example--suggest quite the opposite. To validate your argument, you'll need to offer specific examples.

Re: Oracle sues Google over Java patent infringement in Android
 

You don't see how it is different than Meego?

Do you know difference between hacking and developing open source while being able to submit code to upstream?

If I were almighty I would use so much tar and feater...

btw.
Do you want to know different things what I see? It´s this weird feeling in my head.