>>54577265

They may switch to swift now that it's open source.

>What is OpenJDK

>>54577265
I agree that google should move away from java on android
but I don't quite understand the copyrighted API's issue

Is this trial setting a precedent that if I were to write a large piece of code
in java and then I got popular I would have to feed oracle money to continue
selling it on the java platform?

What is the real issue here with Oracle v. Google (Other then oracle wants some android money)?

>>54577265
If you want Google to lose you're retarded.

Java may be shit, but Google losing would set precedent that using APIs isn't fair use. It'll be a legal nightmare for everybody trying to get a program out

>>54578673
>Google knowingly used copyrighted APIs without a license.

>google deletes J-words” — Java — from Android’s codebase alongside the terms [sic] sun, oracle, orcl, java, jvm, jdk, jre, jcp, jsr, patent* and licens*.

They deserve to lose and you're the retarded one here.

You want One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison (Oracle) to win? Really now?

>>54579046
Java is a trademarked term, in a 1:1 implementation of Java with slight changes (as the JVM license allowed) you can retain the java word.

If you're making an implementation that offers similar APIs but isn't 1:1 compatible as a Java runtime - then it's not "Stealing" or "wrong" to remove Java or related terms (jvm, jre, jdk, etc.) from API names when implementing similar APIs. As long as you did a true clean room implementation, it doesn't violate Oracle's rights either.

Oracle is well known for ridiculous lawsuits and actions and trying to crush their competitors with legal force.

This case was already heard once in front of a judge, William Alsup, who FUCKING LEARNED JAVA so he could understand the case better, and he ruled in favor of Google. Oracle appealed and an appeals court reversed it, namely because the judge did not have the same understanding of the Java language and how bad Oracle's argument was.

The whole thing is a shitshow and seeks to set dangerous precedent in the ability to copyright APIs. Wanting Google to lose is wanting to allow larger software companies to bully people who make compatible software:
http://blog.smartbear.com/apis/api-copyright-and-why-you-should-care/
>Oracle claims the APIs themselves – the way programs can interact with Java – is a matter of copyright. Not only do you need the right permissions to use the code, but just cloning the interface, which is public and documented, is stealing intellectual property. If Google+, for example, were to copy the Facebook API so that any 3rd party application could move to Google+ instead, it would be a sort of a cheat – but should that API be protected by law?

>>54579197 continued
Let's say you make a software, PizzaTime, and you have API calls for orderPizza, specifyToppings, takePayment, estimateDelivery time. This allows a third party platform (Facebook, Eat24, etc.) to connect to your store and electronically process orders. I make a different software, OrderPizza, and I have similar methods. The code that processes the actual order and such is different but the calls the third party makes are the same to me as they are to you. This enables the third party to integrate more easily. Oracle's argument is that this should be illegal - even though my implementation uses none of your code.

>“Ownership” of APIs, right now, could lead to “ownership enforcement, which could put the smaller players out of business. The part that was able to remain alive would need to slow down, to check if new API features were implemented by someone else first. That is exactly what happened with Microsoft in the early 2000’s, when fear that a small open-source module accidentally implemented into Windows would make Windows become free software due to “copy-left.” Anyone caught re-using someone else’s API would need to redesign and reimplement existing APIs, then convince trading partners to use those new APIs. In the same way that competition forces companies to either innovate and create new products for their customer base, APIs allow companies to spend less time recreating something that already exists.

It would be deadly for smaller competitors. Large software companies would use it to stifle/crush smaller competitors and extract large fees. Oracle would make more money though.

>>54579238 here
Let's take an example of Google getting their APIs re-implemented:
https://www.fastcompany.com/3048218/app-economy/heres-the-scariest-thing-about-the-oracle-google-software-copyright-battle
>The EFF, for instance, referred me to a 2013 court brief that mentions Feedly, a popular RSS reader for phones, tablets, and web browsers. The brief notes that Feedly built its audience after the demise of Google Reader, in large part by repurposing Google's APIs to support stranded Reader users. If that API was copyrighted, Feedly might have failed to take off. I figured Feedly would love to speak about this, but so far the company hasn't answered my requests for a comment.
>It's only when you look back in time that you realize the potential danger. An EFF court brief from last year gives several examples of non-copyrighted APIs that led to major software advancements. For instance, the Unix API—developed by AT&T's Bell Laboratories in the 1970s—was utilized by the Unix-like operating system Linux, which now powers more than a third of the world's web servers and provides the underpinnings for Android. The programming language C has an API that's been re-implemented countless times, making it easier for developers to target multiple platforms.

If the way Oracle's views on APIs applied four decades ago, we almost certainly woudn't have Linux or a lot of other things.

THIS is what the case is really about. Oracle getting a few billion from Google is icing on the cake. The real purpose is to set precedent in case law that APIs are subject to copyright and then Oracle can sue the shit out of tons of people and companies.

Just use python or C++ bro

>>54579270

If Oracle is going to patent troll, the I'm surprised more companies aren't filing a joint complaint.

Either way google needs to be cut down a peg. They've been trying to bruteforce their way into everything.

>>54579366
http://www.aipla.org/committees/committee_pages/Copyright-Law/Committee%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2fcommittees%2fcommittee_pages%2fCopyright-Law%2fCommittee%20Documents%2fOracle%20v.%20Google%20-%20AIPLA%20Primer%20on%20APIs&FolderCTID=0x0120002F8CB41CE81E514CA7508DB4ED795056

See how many submitted Amicus briefs urging for Affirmation of Google's victory before it was struck down in appeals court and why.

Google needs a certain amount of control but setting a dangerous precedent that hurts everyone is not the way to do it.

I would file this under reasons not to use Java, but it would get lost in the enormity of that folder.

>>54579046
The point he's making is that.
If you for example would write C# code for an application that suddenly makes billions.

Microsoft could demand a piece of your profit.
Which this kind of jewry is unheard of, until now.

Its not why this programming code is made for.

>>54579270
Time to burn my java books. Google should win this one.