Google: Oracle, Sun failed at Java smartphone now stop whining

Google: Oracle, Sun failed at Java smartphone now stop whining

Summary: The crux of Google's argument: Oracle and Sun failed to monetize Java on the mobile front and now is trying to use the courts to achieve what they couldn't do in the marketplace.

SHARE:

Google CEO Larry Page will take the stand again in the company's courtroom tussle with Oracle over whether Android infringes on Java patent and copyrights, but the story line for the search giant is set.

The crux of Google's argument goes like this:

  • Java code was available to the public free.
  • Google did nothing wrong developing Android.
  • And Oracle is annoyed because it and Sun failed to popularize Java based smartphones.

Those bullets are designed to counter Oracle's argument that Google ripped off Java and called it Android.

Google's pyrotechnics in its opening statement come as it argues that Java has been a failure in phones. Check out Google's money slides and the liberal use of the "Failed" stamp in bright red.

The takeaway here is clear. Oracle and Sun failed to monetize Java on the mobile front and now is trying to use the courts to achieve what they couldn't do in the marketplace.

Is Oracle merely whining or does it have a case?

More on Oracle vs. Google as Day 2 kicks off.

CNET: Oracle CEO Larry Ellison: I don’t know if Java is free

Topics: Smartphones, Google, Mobility, Open Source, Oracle, 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

18 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • The amazing part is....

    There is little to indicate Google is making much, if any, profit from their Android efforts. Most available data supports much less than a quarter (is in two dimes and a nickel) per month per handset. FAILED.
    Bruizer
    • google is making a better world

      by licensing android and its IP for free.
      The Linux Geek
      • Let the court decide...

        Why don't we let the courts decide whether "Android's" IP is really Android's, or stolen.
        ian.aldrighetti
      • god

        Do you ever stop? Your pathetic.

        They don't make money from it no, but they do make money by using your data and using google as default search.

        Again, using YOUR data, from the looks of other stuff to do with Google, in ways you wouldnt approve.
        danjames2012
  • The trial is not about Sun's failure.

    Googles argument is hollow. The trial is not about Suns or Oracles failure.

    I am may have a billion dollar under my pillow and I am not using it, but that doesn't mean somebody else can steal it and start a business with it.

    It???s time for google to shut up, license Java, and pay damages.
    owllnet
    • Google is not the thief

      The crook is oracle that wants to change the terms of the license after they open sourced it and gave the IP away.
      The Linux Geek
      • Open source licenses do not result in parting with ownership

        As the FOSS folks always assert, free does not mean "free as in beer" (though it sometimes does.) Freedoms for GNU-based licenses typically means that the derivative work must be licensed similarly.

        Oracle has put some of the Java code out under GNU licenses, but that would not create any freedoms to create a derivative work under the very different Apache license that Android is under.

        Google's argument does not relate to Java's open sourced status... Google is trying to make the point that Oracle/Sun did not have an ability at law to restrict attempts to emulate Java's APIs in an independent platform.

        it is worth noting that Microsoft's own Java foray touched on similar issues.
        Mac_PC_FenceSitter
      • This issue is nothing like Sun vs Microsoft

        MS tried to make an incompatible version of Java, [i]but still call it Java[/i]. Google has created Dalvik [u]and [b]not[/b] called it Java[/u].

        The licensing requirement not to create an incompatible fork of Java only applies to things called "Java".
        Zogg
      • Microsoft's Java Foray Was a Bit Different

        Microsoft's Java foray was a bit different. Microsoft did license Java from Sun. However, after doing so, they developed a not fully compatible version of Java exclusively for Windows, and continued to call it Java. Sun's problem with Microsoft was that their use of an incompatible version of Java for their operating systems completely defeated the purpose of Java, which was supposed to be, "Write once; run anywhere," not, "Write once: run only on Windows."
        CFWhitman
    • Bad analogy

      Google isn't touching the "money under Oracle's pillow". Not an apt analogy.
      cbstryker
    • That's Quite a Presumption

      As far as anybody's been able to show so far, there is no Sun/Oracle copyrighted code in Android. Sun also released Java as open source software, so it's rather a stretch to try to claim patent infringement related to Java.

      Google didn't claim that Sun/Oracle failing to make Java work as a smartphone platform gave them the right to use it. They said that they could use it because Sun made it available (except for the trademark, which Google didn't use). Then Oracle decided to come after them for something Sun had made available only after neither Sun nor Oracle could make Java work in a smartphone. To successfully sue Google about this, Oracle has to show that Google used Java in a way in which Sun had not made it available.

      This article isn't really about Google's defense for using Java. It's about Oracle's motives for bringing what Google claims is a baseless lawsuit.
      CFWhitman
    • They didn't use Java...

      From my understanding they didn't use Java, they used Apache Harmony which is a fully open source, clean room implementation of Java.
      30otnix
    • Inaccurate as usual

      No facts to backup your assertions. You can't even troll very well.

      Can Oracle convince a non-technical jury that reverse engineering is illegal? Do API's get copyright protection (currently they don't)?
      DonRupertBitByte
  • greedy Elli$on wanted to tax java

    and when he failed, he sued Google over fictitious 'IP'.
    Oracle's dog and pony show won't hide the facts.
    The Linux Geek
  • What Google said doesn't matter

    Court trials are not heated discussion on Engadget.

    Only legal concerns matter.
    illegaloperation
  • Java sucks

    Java sucks. Why they heck are these two fighting over it?
    nsainaney
  • Pay the Royalties Google!

    Can't profit from open source. Android phones are dependent upon free-java source code otherwise it would not have been utilized in the phone.
    Auna
  • Opps Oracle made a boo boo

    You can't start charging people for somthing that was free....
    It's like a public library that got bought by a private library and now asking you to pay it money for the research you did to make your killer online product that made you a multi millionare.
    Bakabaka