Former Sun CEO: We would have paid Google for Java phone

Former Sun CEO: We would have paid Google for Java phone

Summary: In what could be a major blow to Oracle's case against Google, former Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz defends openness of Java language and APIs at court.

SHARE:

SAN FRANCISCO -- In what might be one of the most anticipated appearances of the Oracle-Google trial thus far, former Sun Microsystems CEO Jonathan Schwartz testified on behalf of Google at the U.S. District Court on Thursday morning.

See alsoGoogle: Sun, Oracle couldn't bring Android competitors to market

Schwartz served as chief executive officer of Sun from 2006 until 2010. Schwartz is now the CEO of San Francisco-based startup CareZone.

Schwartz described eagerly that when Java was initially developed in the mid-1990s, it came about during a time when there was one company "dominating" computing: Microsoft.

Thus, with the development of web servers and web languages, these newer technologies offered opportunities "to write all kinds of magical things." Schwartz added that "what was important for Sun at the time" was to open up new markets to basically "get away from Microsoft."

Furthermore, to promote Java, Schwartz commented that it was "critically important that we not simply market to businesses, but also the seeds of all future businesses," which he defined as universities and high schools around the world.

Schwartz also confirmed to Google counsel Robert Van Nest that Sun promoted the open use of Java APIs as well.

"You had to if you wanted to see that language broadly accepted," Schwartz explained. "Those APIs enabled people to write full, complete applications that leverage all the technology underlying the platform."

He added that the distribution of those APIs across the world enabled the adoption levels that Sun was seeking.

To further boost those adoption levels, Sun had to find a way to be bigger than Microsoft, and Schwartz said that was made possible with the open Java community. Partners included Oracle, SAP, Sybase, and many other Silicon Valley giants.

"It would give us something to pull together that was bigger than the monopoly itself," Schwartz remarked.

Schwartz described that the community talked about open APIs and competing implementation. He affirmed that basically everyone would have the same set of APIs, but each company would create its own products, the virtual machines specifically, to go off and perform.

Getting into what is at the heart of Google's case -- that the 37 Java APIs in question were free for its engineers to use on Android -- Van Nest asked Schwartz if the Java APIs ever sold or licenses separately from the language." Schwartz replied instantly, "No, of course not."

Van Nest also asked Schwartz if the Java APIs were considered proprietary to Sun, to which Schwartz also replied no, adding that "we would have worked very hard to say that wasn't true."

When Sun started partnership negotiations with Google as far back as 2005, Schwartz commented that the goal here was to create an even bigger market for Sun.

He also explained that Sun was looking for two things. First, Schwartz said that the "one that mattered" was revenue.

"We wanted a big license and a big fee so they could call it a 'Java phone,'" Schwartz explained."

The second benefit would be compatibility and wider support for the Java community because Java developers could then develop their apps for anyone from Nokia to Ericsson to potentially Google.

Nevertheless, Schwartz admitted that "like almost all companies, Google wants to control their destiny." He acknowledged when you take a license, you can't control your own destiny, and that can slow things down.

"You're now married, and you have to find out a way to get along," Schwartz said.

While Sun wanted to "find ways to make Google comfortable," Schwartz acknowledged that "they felt they could better execute on their own and didn't need what we had to offer."

However, even though Schwartz said that Sun wanted to get revenue from Google if a partnership could be hammered out, Schwartz said that the deal did not fall apart for money.

"We probably would have paid them to work with us on a Java phone," Schwartz admitted.

Ahead of the announcement of Android in 2007, Schwartz told Van Nest that Sun was aware of a few things about Android, including that Google would be using the Java languages and APIs.

"They were not subtle about it," Schwartz commented.

Thus in his November 2007 blog post, which has been bounced around as a piece of evidence repeatedly in this trial, Schwartz had congratulated Google on the production of Android.

Although Schwartz admitted that Sun wishes things happened differently, he said on the stand that this could have gone one of two ways: either Sun could have sued Google, or embrace it and get onto the value chain.

"We didn't like it, but we weren't going to stop it by complaining about it," Schwartz said.

But really, Schwartz and Sun might have had another enemy in mind.

"Imagine for a moment if Google selected Microsoft Windows," Schwartz said, explaining that was the only other option at the time besides an open source Java implementation.

Thus for Schwartz, the silver lining for him was that at least this way, Google could be a part of the community.

Image via Google

Related:

Topics: Open Source, Hardware, Mobile OS, Mobility, Oracle, Security, Smartphones, Software Development

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

16 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • The ex CEO of Sun supports Google's position to the hilt.

    So where does that leave Oracle's case?
    Zogg
    • It might end up with

      Oracle paying Google for the service they did to java!
      The Linux Geek
      • Geebus

        That would be sweet for damages to be awarded to Google.
        droidfromsd
      • No; this former Sun's statement has nothing legal in it to enfluence the ..

        ... the case.

        I mean his thoughts about what Sun would theoretically want at the time or not do not come from 2000s, and neither those are related to IP legal matters.

        The trial is not about PR war.
        DDERSSS
      • Maybe you should read a little better...

        @DeRSSS This guy was the CEO when Android was released, you have no idea what you are talking about, as usual.
        slickjim
    • Hopefully in the toilet!

      Along with Larry!
      The Danger is Microsoft
    • Up Poop Creek without a paddle (nt)

      :)
      NotMSUser
    • Doesn't affect the case at all...

      [i]"Although Schwartz admitted that Sun wishes things happened differently, he said on the stand that this could have gone one of two ways: either [b]Sun could have sued Google[/b], or embrace it and get onto the value chain."[/i]

      In the guys starement he actually says quite plainly that back then they were in a position to sue.. they just chose not to for strategic reasons NOT legal reasons.. JAVA'S new owners are still in a position to sue and have new strategic and economic rationales.. this changes nothing in the legal case.. absolutely nothing..
      theFunkDoctorSpoc
  • Mr Schwarz

    If you wanted to make Java so popular and open then why didn't you hand the whole administration of the standard to ANSI?

    That way anyone could build a java run time that met the standard specification.

    Java is a proprietary language.

    If Java is so good why do you need all these APIs before you can do anything useful with it?
    jorwell
    • Mind to elaborate on "Java is a proprietary language." phrase?

      I did my homework and Google for Java language license - GNU GPL(unless you modify the language).

      Could you give a reference to a different license?
      Solid Water
  • Larry Ellison quote: We can't be successful if we don't lie to customers.

    Weird thing to say? Double negation?

    [quote]http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/01/larry-ellison-hearsay-we-cant-be-successful-if-we-dont-lie-to-customers/
    Larry Ellison Hearsay: "We Can't Be Successful if We Don't Lie to Customers"

    Long before Mark Pincus talked about making revenue any way he could, there was Oracle???s Larry Ellison. Brash, funny, ladies-man-playboy and intensely competitive, they don???t make tech entrepreneurs like Ellison anymore. Bloomberg???s Game Changers series is taking on Ellison in a special airing tomorrow at 6 pm pacific time on Bloomberg TV. It sounds like it???ll be a juicy send up of my favorite eyebrow-less mogul, and I???m setting my TiVo now.

    They wouldn???t send me a transcript before it airs, but I did get a few teasers out of them. Here are some quotes from the show by some of the people who worked the closest with Ellison:
    Bruce Scott, the co-founder of Oracle says, "I remember him very distinctly telling me one time: Bruce, we can't be successful unless we lie to customers." And adds: "All the things that you would read in books of somebody being a leader, he wasn???t. But he was tenacious; he would never give up on anything."
    [/quote]

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=we+can%27t+be+successful+if+we+don%27t+lie+to+customers+quote+larry+ellison
    The Danger is Apple
  • The Schwartz Torpedo

    I think Jonathan's commentary on the stance of Sun at the time Google was going to market with Android puts a huge gaping smoking hole in Oracle's legal dreadnought. It will be interesting to see what Oracle does as their ship takes on water.

    The perspective of competing with the Microsoft hegemony through freely available programming environments is a plausible and laudable strategy for a corporation to make. They did enable a whole new universe of enterprise capabilities and put Microsoft on the back burner of many organization's spreadsheets.
    rcasey101
  • Jonathan Schwartz holding grudges

    Jonathan Schwartz is still holding his grudges with Microsoft even though he was sodami**ed buy google with android...what a looser.
    owllnet
    • Can't even spell, can you?

      Pay attention wanna-be troll: "LOSER."
      DonRupertBitByte
  • Huge hit to Oracle's case...

    That is the single, most significant testimony in the case so far. If I'm on the jury, I think I've already made up my mind.

    http://www.tech-thoughts.net/
    sameer_singh17
  • Sun CEO = Yeah we gave Java to google for free but...

    Though it's not quite exaclty what he said this is what I think he ment.

    "We thought that google's android was gona be the platform to develop java into the best smart phone platform and it would be made bank. Had it come to fruition as planned we would have paid Google for it. We never thought that android it's self would become that said platform. Had we known then what we know now we would have sought compensation. Too bad Oracle, we gave Java away to google scot free.
    Bakabaka