Google should have found a Java alternative. But software should not be patented
Summary: You know what sucks worse than Java alternatives? Java patent infringement lawsuits.
[caption id="attachment_332" align="alignright" width="360" caption="Larry? Is that you in that tank?"]
[/caption]
There are two things I really hate: Software patents and software patent lawsuits. For those of you who don't know, Oracle, owner of Java, brought suit against Google for stealing some of its code for Android. If you want to know more about some of the suit's details, read Karen Friar's take on it over at ZDNet.UK. It seems to me that some people <Oracle> just want to spend time and money in court. Though, I'm not calling anyone <Oracle> out on this concept, I think that such lawsuits <Oracle> are frivolous and unnecessary. It kind of reminds me of another pointless and expensive lawsuit concerning software patents: SCO vs The World. That one turned out really well, didn't it?
I wonder what Richard Stallman would have to say about this? If you want to know, Google, "Richard Stallman software patents." You'll find out very quickly that he's against such nonsense.
First of all, isn't Java open source*, you ask? Well, yes, kinda, sorta, not 100-percent.
Sun did release Java as open source but made a special exception for closed source applications built with it.
Isn't that special?
Well, of course, Larry Ellison jumped on that like stank on rice. He loves to spend money on lawyers and make other companies sweat blood and money. I'm not sure what the point is but, hey, it's a free country. And, by free, you can sue anyone over anything and waste the court's time and make a spectacle of yourself in the process. I digress...but only slightly.
I really wish that Google had found an alternative to Java for Android. Java is a pain. It's sluggish, it's resource intensive and it irritates me in a lot of different ways. To say that I hate it, is an understatement. But, since I seem to be in the minority in that opinion, I'll not dwell on it. Google did apparently look for alternatives but decided that they "all suck." I would actually have debated that point but that's history now.
Now, here's where it gets sticky for me in this lawsuit. Mind you that I haven't read the 91 page document (nor will I) but I have some obvious problems with it from a practical standpoint.
- Android is open source.
- Java is open source.
- Code snippets are everywhere.
- There are programming standards.
- Programmers tend to use similar variable names.
I think that if you compare any two large applications you'll find areas that match up exactly. For example, if I have a particular problem in PHP that I'm trying to solve, I go to php.net, to phpclasses.org or to devshed.com. My point is that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to look at a page, block or snippet of code and say, "Yep, they copied and pasted that. Look, you can see they both used this loop with variable $Address that goes to a page named, thankyou.php."
Nonsense. Utter and complete nonsense.
This is why software patents are 'patently' stupid and without merit. And, the lawsuits stemming from them are too.
There are a lot of patents, besides software ones, that are equally stupid and pointless. Many patents are not stupid and they have merit.
For example, if I design a walking stick for visually impaired people that gives them feedback using a mixture of sounds, vibrations and audible instructions, then I have a right to patent that walking stick and my proprietary design and its function. I should reap the financial rewards from it--especially if it helps people with their mobility. And, I have the justified right to sue, if someone copies that design without paying me a fee.
But, software patents, for the reasons I've given, plus the reasons that Richard Stallman so eloquently states in his many discussions, shouldn't be allowed. No one should be allowed to patent software.
I believe that the courts should throw out such cases. If someone feels that their software patents, assuming we're going to allow them, have been infringed upon, then they should seek third-party arbitration instead of a lengthy, expensive and public lawsuit.
My best advice to Google would have been, "Don't use Java at all. Really." You shouldn't have used Java. You should have used something that "sucked less" in its place. But, hindsight is always 20-20.
Everyone's watching this one to see what happens. Maybe this lawsuit will have the positive effect of ridding the world of software patents. At the worst, we could have a new reality TV show called, "Patent Slapdown" or "The Infringement Chronicles."
I wouldn't watch it but I'm just saying it would be better.
What do you think of software patent litigation? Is it stupid and pointless or totally justifiable? Talk back and let me know.
*Speaking of Stallman and his views. If you ever meet him, say the words, "open source" and GPL in the same sentence as I did during an interview. Depending on his mood, you could get an earful or a faceful. Enjoy.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Pretty Typical for Oracle
The Evolution of the Trial; In Defense of Java
Java is certainly verbose, but your criticisms seem more aimed at the jvm. And while it suffers somewhat in comparison against the metal running machine code compiled from C or C++, it is actually good tech, as endorsed by the Scala, Clojure, and JRuby folks. Hadoop is doing well, and it's written in java.
As for the language, if the application or service's latency is based on networking speeds, then the speed issues raised by sections of the code that cannot be JIT compiled are irrelevant.
It is not always the best choice as a language, but it does all right in many problem domains.
Courts get to resolve patent disputes, you don't.
Sort of like saying
Allow me to generalize even more
And, I'm referring to software and other patents here. Thomas Edison had a lot of patents. He patented everything--even concrete furniture. No one said that they have to be good ideas.
Some guy named Hess patented a vacuum cleaner system over 100 years ago. He probably never got a payoff for the infringement. But, like that patent, all patents suck.
@khess you are overgeneralizing!
* You can't patent an idea, only an invention
* The holder of a patent gets exclusive rights to the invention, for a limited period
* After that period expires, the details of the invention are on the public record, free for anyone to learn from and use
The purpose was to both reward inventors and also to spread detailed information about inventions for everyone's benefit, instead of everything being kept as a "trade secret". There may be issues with the way the system is operated, but patents are not inherently evil.
Hmmmm....
You believe that patents would prevent SE's from the evil swiping of 'code to their hearts content'? What universe do you live in? Do you understand the laws and what is involved in such matters- what can be copyrighted, patented, etc?
If you really don't want people swiping your code- you go proprietary and spit out blobs (which even then are not immune to "de-compilation" and stripping) or choose licenses that are more closed.
And for that matter, it's becoming more-so apparent that the open-source route benefits many including the originators of the code. Businesses can actually run successfully without major hindrance or 'patents' (outside of defense, needless to be said).
It's like Ken stated and implied: Patents do very little outside of stifling innovation. Google "patent trolling" and see what the benefits are of these little nuggets of ammunition in ones 'business arsenal'.
Perhaps...
In a democracy (or other representative-type government), public opinion matters.
Reply to ultimitloozer:
Public opinion counts for more than you might think. Lobbyists are most effective when either the public isn't looking, doesn't understand the issue, or doesn't care about the issue.
As we saw with SOPA and PIPA, when the public is paying attention, understands the issue, and cares, lobbyists lose.
But...
What is the point of your article??
Its your article that is complete non-sense.
Go and read the 91 page oracle document first. Its just a presentation, take only 5 minutes.
Taking some other companies IP without licencing is utterly stupid, there is no free lunch.
If Google didn't choose to pirate Java, then Android V 1.0 would have been released only in 2015. They took a shortcut, and must pay the price.
Accusation?
So I can decompine Microsoft Windows and resell it?
So everyone should Open Source (like google to open source search engine)
The Fastest Software Development Happened Before Software Patents
You do realize that the fastest software development took place when there were no software patents. Remember that there is still copyright. However, Oracle has yet to show that any code was copied from Java to Android. Dalvik appears to be reverse engineered from the Java spec (which of course is perfectly legal, and half the point of having a spec).
C++
Hadn't thought of that...
Patents?
Did you ever hear of patents on java
GPL is not free
On GPL
Java is available in both LGPL (the desktop/server version) and GPL (the embedded version).
The difference is that with the LGPL license you can use the licensed code without having to make your own code licensed under GPL.
With the GPL code, you MUST make your ENTIRE code that you link with the GPL code licensed under GPL. That is, publicly available, open source etc. GPL is viral. For the record, Android is NOT open source.