back to article Oracle: 'Eight Android files are decompiled Oracle code'

Oracle has claimed that Google derived its Android code from the specifications for "hundreds" of Oracle's copyrighted Java files, and that at least eight Android files are actually decompiled Oracle object code. Last week, Google asked a federal court to consider dismissing the copyright portion of the patent and copyright …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

    US companies doing their Mickey Mouse lawsuit circlejerks again, I see.

    "Harm done? We don't need no stinking harm done. All these ideas, all that code and all the work of your developers formerly employed at my place belongs to meeee...... Me MEEEE!"

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Ho hum

    "The seven files - one identified by Oracle, six by Muller - were from the "unit test" area of the Android open source code tree. Unit test code doesn't typically ship with a final product, and the files have since been deleted from the tree. "

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward


      So are you saying that this means it's OK to copy and steal code if you're only using it internally?

      1. ~mico

        So, are you saying,,,

        ...that you never looked at others' code while developing and testing stuff? Even if it was your own code that you wrote earlier for another company?

        Let me get this straigh: Do you consider programmers to be incapable of performing jobs in another company after they worked in $Oracle, lest they reuse their own ideas in their new job?

        Let me put it even straighter: Do corporate employers intend to force programmers to go from their work at the company directly into retirement?

        Or maybe work as waiters?

        1. Version 1.0 Silver badge

          Excellent point

          Who "owns" the code? Who owns my mind?

          Let's say I sit down at home and write a little function, play with it, polish it a little and think, "That's neat" - and then a few weeks later I;m coding at work and find the same piece of code/method works well so I reuse it ... who owns that code? Did I just lose my "rights"? Did I have any "rights"? But this conundrum only exists because of the idea that code can be copyrighted.

          If you want to maintain your "rights" to the code then use the trade secrets method and keep your mouth shut .... sure - you can decompose the binary but that's generally not worth the hassle - it's way easier and a hell of a lot more robust to just write your own code.

          1. Ian Michael Gumby

            @ Version 1.0

            You have this concept... your code is a 'work for hire'. That is, depending on the wording of the contract, your client owns the code. Depending on the client's contract, you may have to surrender your notes or any physical copy of the code at the end of the project.

            But what the client doesn't own is what's in your head.

            Yes, you're right, you could always go back and write a better version of the code, but you will have to do it from memory. Going back to your previous client's notes or copies of the code for 'hints'... thats a no no. And yes, if you get caught 'reusing' your code for a different client... you'll get sued. (I've seen it happen.)

            But unless you have perfect recall, you won't recreate the same functional code using the same variables, like you would see if someone decompiled your code to reverse engineer it. This is why Oracle kind of has Google on this one.

            Google's other tactic is trying to get the patents overturned. And that's a different story...

            1. Tom 13

              Granted it's been ages since I touched code, and it was never real code only BASIC,

              but at the time I was taught to group certain variables and consistently use them for types of things I was doing. So if I worked at Oracle and wrote a piece of code, and then I worked at Google and was asked to write a similar piece of code, I would be likely to hit the same variable names. After that there tends to be an orderly progression of variable declarations. Where commutative properties apply, did Oracle reorder for purposes of comparison?

              Yes there might be actual copyright infringement. But it's not a slam dunk based on this single piece of evidence.

          2. /\/\j17

            Poor point

            "Let's say I sit down at home and write a little function, play with it, polish it a little and think, "That's neat" - and then a few weeks later I;m coding at work and find the same piece of code/method works well so I reuse it ... who owns that code? Did I just lose my "rights"? Did I have any "rights"? But this conundrum only exists because of the idea that code can be copyrighted."

            Umm, no. I'd say there is about a 10% chance of there being any conundrum as it will almost always be covered by the documents that make up your contract of employment.

            If you read this you will usually find something along the lines of "any IP you create as part of your work for The Company, or on systems and hardware owned by The Company belongs to The Company". So, do it at work -> theirs. Do it at home on your work laptop -> theirs. Do it at home on your own PC/laptop (and not SSHed in to/using software licensed by The Company) is your IP.

            In that latter case you should keep a verifiable copy o the code 'at home' to prove it was created there first and, unless you get a legal agreement with The Company otherwise you are giving them implicit global rights to that code if you re-use it as part of your work.

            See, not that hard really if you put your mind to it and actually read your contracts/know anything about IP law.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Thumb Up


          After years of software development, if my current employer (customer really) wants me to go straight into retirement, I say, bring it on!

        3. MyHeadIsSpinning

          Referring to work of others, and binding contracts

          If you include the work of others in a body of your own work then it is proper to include a reference to that work, and this helps avoid claims of plagerism.

          Also, when people start work with a company, they sometimes have to sign a contract which states 'anything you create during work hours on our money on our premises shall belong to us'.

      2. Martin Usher

        Its not about 'stealing', its about compatibility

        One reason for open source is that it enables transparent specifications and testing. When you're working in a not-so-open environment you need test vectors for your product, if you don't you'll end up with the traditional Windows "spray and pray" type of programming where you ship buggy code and wait for users to complain.

        Programmers typically churn out reams of code. Although its all technically "valuable IP" its really only so to an accountant. A lot of it has 'no commercial value' -- unless its used to fuel inter-company lawsuits.

  3. Frumious Bandersnatch

    looking at the code ...

    It's hard to see how the function (or do the call them methods in Java?) could really have been implemented any differently. All the interface definition lines have to be the same anyway in order to ensure compatibility, and the semantics of the function (what it's supposed to do) will also dictate in general terms exactly what the general flow of the code should be. Add to that the fact that the code is only four "if" or "if/else" statements plus a short number of assignments, and I can't see any wiggle room for doing things any differently. In fact, the function looks for all the world like it's nothing more than a constructor/initialiser for some sort of object. Just how many ways are there to write such things anyway? My guess: just the one.

    1. adnim

      The right code for the job

      A developer will write the most efficient code he can. He will write that code for the employer. The same developer finds another employer and as usual writes the most efficient code he can.

      If any of the projects of the two employers have anything in common it is highly likely that our roving developer will have written code that has much in common with the code he wrote previously for his/her last employer.

      One writes good, useful and reusable code for a reason.

      Petty and greedy, that must be why we all get along so well.

    2. Stephen 27

      looking at the code ... → #

      Its like saying every piece of C code with #include <stdio.h> is copied (which it is in my case). Soooo freaken WHAT!

    3. Sam Liddicott


      Maybe it is hard to write some functions differently, but when you have parameters called "set" and "set1" (both of which are sets) and "flag" and "flag1" (both of which are boolean) you start to think they must be de-compiled.

      Just because it's hard to write it differently doesn't mean you can copy it.

      1. Someone Else Silver badge
        Thumb Down


        I can't tell you how many times I've written:

        for (int i = 0; i < count; i++);

        I guess by your "logic" I must have decompiled that hunk of C++ each of those times.

        Puh-LEEEZE, already!

        1. Aquilus

          Why have you written that so often?

          Unless you've got a sneaky #define of count hidden somewhere that causes side effects, what possible effect would that bit of code have, aside from wasting a few CPU cycles?

          1. Someone Else Silver badge

            Typography is a skill...maybe I'll master it one day

            It was late, and my semi-colon finger spasm. Yeah...that's it...a spasm, yeah....

            (Good catch. Seems you were the only one who caught it, though.)

    4. Shonko Kid

      Missed the point

      Sure, it is a simple function, and sure, any implementation would likely be structurally similar. But the point is it has likely* been lifted from the Java Source and relicensed as if it were Google's IP to relicense.

      *The Android version has tell tale signs of having been produced by a code generator, in it's naming of the local variables, names which wouldn't have appeared in the final compiled .class file. If only they'd had the sense to mixup the declaration ordering of the member variables, that might have been the 'wiggle' room they need to get off the hook.

      1. Anonymous Coward

        Also, the private fields

        A decompiler will also duplicate the names of the private fields. That's also not generally regarded as part of the class interfaces, though it can be observed through reflection or JNI.

        The assignment of false to an instance variable in the constructor; that's also a decompiler artifact.

        Javac cheerfully converts those (unnecessary!) instance variable initializations to assignments in the constructor, and the decompiler faithfully renders them that way.

        Note that an innocent explanation is entirely possible, but it looks exactly like code that would come from a decompiler.

        1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

          @also the priovate fields

          If what you are saying is true, and the decompiler inserts assignments into the declarations, then surely the Oracle code is copied from Android in this case, as the Android code lacks the declaration/assignment.

          Reductio ad absurbum, QED, etc...

          1. Anonymous Coward

            You have it backwards

            Original has the "boolean field = false;" instance variable declaration. There is no direct equivalent in the bytecodes. Instead, the bytecodes have the assignment in the constructor, and the decompiler reflects this in the generated Java -- in exactly the way you see it in the Android version.

    5. Charles 9

      But LINE FOR LINE?

      I mean, you would expect two different programmers working independently on the same thing to do at least SOME things differently. If nowhere else than in the private declarations, which IIRC are mostly order-independent. Yet the two examples are shown to match line-for-line, including the declarations.

      1. Steven Knox

        @LINE FOR LINE?

        Well, they match line for line partly because the person doing the comparison removed all the comments and adjusted the spacing. Since all that's left is the functionality (and has been mentioned, a very small amount of functionality), the odds that two good programmers (or the same one working for two different companies) would produce the same code are not actually that low.

        1. Charles 9

          You forget the declarations.

          Those declarations are order-independent. Different ways of thinking can EASILY result in a different arrangement to an order-independent grouping because it's less a matter of objective logic and more a matter of subjective style.

          It's like taking the four queens of a deck of cards and having people arrange them in whatever order they feel. The odds of two different people putting them in the same order starts to drop because each person can think differently and may have a different sense of arranging things (in other words, a different style). The end result will still compile the same no matter how you arrange them (just as quad queens are still quad queens no matter how you arrange them).

          1. Ammaross Danan


            "Those declarations are order-independent. Different ways of thinking can EASILY result in a different arrangement to an order-independent grouping because it's less a matter of objective logic and more a matter of subjective style."

            As for as Unit-Test code goes, I'm unsure, but the actual Java APIs are quite thoroughly documented, including private variables, etc. so one can extend them and use them properly in your own Java code. The need for 100% compatibility with Java forces the Android developers to completely whole-sale rip off the Java docs so custom extends and be supported. The easiest way to do this? Duplicate the Java API classes and member variables then write code that utilizes them. As far as classes such as Array and Iterator are concerned, there's not much leeway in how to implement the code utilizing only the member variables (and functions!) listed in the Java Docs. Given a very small set of pre-moulded Legos and told to build the same simple structure, it's no surprise programmers came to the same conclusion (code). Although, as a side note, they likely did just decompile UnitTest code. What better way to test compliance and compability of their own Java build than to use the actual Java Unit Tests? Bad? Likely. Good to ensure complete compatibility? Definitely.

        2. Renato

          Re: @LINE FOR LINE?

          If you read the text right above the Android code, you will see it wasn't stripped of its comments.

          And a non-commented piece of code with such variables as s, set, flag etc on a function declaration is a good indication of decompilated code.

    6. James Anderson


      These are implementations of a very simple interface. There are thousands of ways a poor programmers or a room full of monkeys could implement this. But a good programmer using best practice and following the very detailed Java style guide would always come up with something very close to Suns original code.

  4. Anonymous Coward

    Its that FM man again

    Quote "Well-known open source watcher Florian Muller"

    wtf? He's a paid shill.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      surely looks like it

      Certainly a able self-publicist. Refused to deny he was paid by MS when accused of it on slashdot. He's getting onto the reg just a bit too often these days.

    2. Rob Dobs

      open source watcher...not Monk

      People, unlike software are not usually happy living purely off the donations of others.

      How exactly can a person be opensource? Other than being a beggar or laborer for hire who will work for food (e.g. a monk)

      Being paid to do a job certainly does not preclude you from watching and observing on the opensource market, or even offering your opinions on it.

      Now if you said WTF? he works for Oracle that might carry weight and make sense.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Gates Halo

    That is pathetic...

    Even Microsoft writes its own bad code. No need to copy from anyone. Google just dropped the ball, again.

  6. Anonymous John

    All your source are belong to us"

    See title.

  7. James 47

    @looking at the code

    It's not just down to the algorithm. They are remarkably similar, down to variable names

  8. bazza Silver badge

    Reap what you sow

    All this was completely unnecessary. I suspect that Google only built Dalvik to try to create a closed app market place so that they collect more revenue. I doubt that any claimed technical benefits are worthwhile from an end users point of view. It's just another virtual machine on an ARM not terribly different from any other.

    If they'd just done a normal Java setup, just like everyone else has ever done (apart from Apple), or a just allow native apps, then none of this would have occured. Instead there is this legal question mark hanging over Android. Just imagine the consequences to Android and all those who have bet on it if the US courts put some sort of sales blocks on it? If this court case starts swinging Oracle's way, what are the manufacturers supposed to do?

    If Google ultimately lose it will make them look quite careless. Android updates are a joke. Being found to have copied large chunks of someone else's work would be ridiculous. Android's anarchy will ultimately cost end users.

    1. Paul Shirley

      G built Dalvik because Sun wouldn't play nice

      If Google had licenced Java, Android *could not exist as a useful OS* because Sun absolutely refuse to certify anything above ME for mobile devices. In that scenario Android would be just another Java phone, with its own new set of incompatibilities with every other 'standard' Java phone.

      Dalvik exists because of Sun (and now Oracles) intransigence, Sun wouldn't play nice so Sun got bypassed in the Android ecosystem. Oracle is a near step for step repeat of SCO vs IBM, new guy asserts claims that the history does not support and spends years blustering on, hoping the rising costs will force a settlement.

      Only this time it wont fizzle out in an engineered bankruptcy with nothing important decided and Google have more than enough time to remove Java completely if things start looking bad. In about 9 years time this will be decided, either Google wins or Oracle gets a chunk of cash but there's nothing left to tax. The beauty of Dalvik is: it's not Java, it doesn't need Java source and the VM patents aren't likely to survive.

      1. Ian Michael Gumby

        ahh. No.

        G built Dalvik because they didn't want to pay Oracle for licensing Java ME.

        Just follow the money and your questions will be answered.

        1. alisonken1

          Actually - Sun (and Oracle) refused to license

          So if Sun/Oracle refuse to license java for android because of their stance on mobile phones, how is it Googles fault that they had to rewrite a compiler to use a different vm than java?

        2. Charles 9

          Not true.

          Java ME wasn't what Google wanted. It was too limited. It was Java SE that they wanted: the Java that's gotten supported enough and mature enough to have common ground. But Sun/Oracle said, "No way! Full-blown computers only!" So Google was in a lose-lose. Java ME was too finnicky, and Java SE was Verboten. So they went to the third option: since Sun/Oracle didn't want to play, they took their ball elsewhere.

        3. vic 4
          Thumb Down

          ahh No.

          Why would Google have had to license ME (apart from the nexus)?

          They built Dalvik because ME is, quite frankly rubbish and only fit for purpose in a few small niches (relatively speaking). Trying to write fully featured and portable in ME is in most case not worth the effort.

  9. Version 1.0 Silver badge

    So what's patented here?

    Are Oracle saying that they own the right to use Java and that if you want to use Java (as in write a module that accesses a Java-like module in the same way as Java at a low level) then their Patent applies?

    Let's face it Larry - you're kinda late to this party - although personally, if he want's to take his ball and go home, I for one would pay his bus fare.

    P.S. Damn, how I wish I'd patented the MOV instruction...

  10. Do Not Fold Spindle Mutilate

    Source is GPL 2


    Just because the code is the same does not mean Google is using copyrighted Oracle code. The "" seems to from a standard called X.500 PKI. I Googled "private static final String ANY_POLICY = ;" and found two exact source codes under GPL 2 released by Sun. To me this means that Google could have used the GPL version not Oracle's version.

    The code looks like stuff GPLd by Sun many years ago.

    1. Yeik
      Thumb Up

      enough for "prior art"

      Those do look very similar. I would say that the code provided for comparison was modified from the GPL code. I wonder if they are breaking the copyright by not posting the GPL 2 license with that small piece of code or by removing it after it was modified if it isn't in the full Java version.

      Java/sun wouldn't rewrite the code, they would modify it. With the header/copyright notice saying it cannot be removed or altered.

      If android did not have that header/copyright notice then I would say they are looking for trouble. Other than that It looks like what anybody else would have come up with.

    2. Jolyon Smith

      2 problems with this excuse...

      1) if Google are going to argue that they used the GPL'd version, then they have to admit not complying with the terms of GPL - the fact that they could have complied doesn't alter the fact that they didn't

      2) to support the argument that they used the GPL code and simply "forgot" to comply with the GPL terms, they would then have to explain why there code looks LESS like the GPL'd version and MORE like a decompiler product


      Google - Don't get caught doing evil.

      1. Steven Knox

        Did not comply?

        How did they not comply? by not including the GPL copyright? Remember, the shot we're shown here has had COMMENTS REMOVED -- so it's quite possible that the GPL copyright was there and was removed by the person comparing the code (if not, there was a GPL violation, if so, there was a good faith violation by the person removing the comment.)

    3. Ian Michael Gumby

      If it looks like a duck... smells like a duck... squacks like a duck...

      must be a duck.

      The point is that if you're looking at code that appears to be 'de-compiled' the odds are it is.

      Apply Occam's Razor.

      Coincidences like that aren't likely to occur by accident....

      The other area in discovery is to see what the svn servers contain.

      Soon Oracle will own Google. Either that, or we'll start to see Google charging $$$ for using its ad service.

      1. Paul Shirley

        my theory of what happened with PolicyNodeImpl

        No need to wait for discovery, we know about PolicyNodeImpl and friends because the repository has already been looked at. It tells a rather obvious story: engineer does bulk checkin (2500+ files), 8 weeks later engineer reverses the checkin, some time later a corrected checkin happens.

        That suggests to me simple error, an engineer committing more files that (s)he was supposed to, an error quickly fixed by Google. Remember, this all happened more than a year before Oracle started alerting Google. My own daily battle with SVN tells me how easily these tools will stab you in the back if you aren't constantly vigilant.

        Changing the licence is a serious problem, even if done accidentally (running automated search&replace on copyright&licence headers is fairly common), but if Google can establish this was a corrected error de minimus neuters the penalties.

        The other half of the issue is the nature of copyright: copyright controls *copying*, it does not directly control *use*, that's what licences are for. And that's how its possible to legitimately have copyrighted source in a working copy that cannot be distributed, because it's possible to have a licence to use without a licence to copy. The source for these particular files was available under a variety of permissive licences (including direct from Sun), severely reducing the scope of Oracles complaint to just dumping them into a public repository with a changed licence for a couple of weeks.

        Oracle may be able to win on the fact that the files were made available for distribution, they can't win on Google *using* these files, cant establish Android needs or uses them and cant establish any meaningful damage was caused. So good Google bashing PR that leads nowhere.


      Source is GPL, or ASF?

      @Do Not Fold Spindle Mutilate err, you've got the whole thing backwards. Is the original code GPL of ASL? If it's GPL, then why is the Google code under the ASL?

      It's ironic that you use the "fail" icon, because you've failed completely in understanding the problem: you can't just take GPL code and slap an ASL on it. If thats what Google did, if, as your statements indicate happened, then the code is really GPL. When you remove the GPL boilerplate bad things happen.

      Once you break the conditions of the GPL, you lose patent protection as well. That's, basically, Oracle's argument. You may think you're supporting Google, but your argument *actually* supports Oracle's contention: that the code was copyrighted. All Google had to do was to keep the GPL boilerplate and there wouldn't be a problem.

      Which raises the bigger question, of why Google didn't just fork OpenJDK -- much easier. However, any such fork would, naturally, be under the GPL and *not* the ASL.

      I think this is just a case of a business (Google) deciding that the ASL is preferable, and then a mix-up. However, the facts, as you present them, make that a really expensive case of copyright infringement (and patent, as well, because when you drop the GPL you lose patent protection).

      Penguin for the GPL :)

  11. brale
    Thumb Down

    Who's Florian?

    "well-known open source watcher Florian Muller"?

    Can we be a bit more down to Earth when describing Florian?

    Such quotes make people stop reading these articles.

  12. SilverWave

    Muller is working for who exactly?

    I mean at the moment, as obviously his employer will change from time to time.

    So... is it a large software company for instance?

    Any idea which one?

    I have asked Muller but he wont tell...

    Nothing wrong with that of course but it does make one curious.

  13. Rob Dobs

    Not like Apple at all

    Big difference in the cases here. Apple did not invent or own the GUI idea. MS, HP and the rest had all seen this demonstrated at Xerox palo alto research center (the mouse and other neat ideas shown off there too).

    Prior Use totally blows apples attempted theft of these inventions out of the water.

    Now I don't agree at all that software code should be patentable... like the EU sees it.

    These are instructions, and part of a language, they can only be assembled so many ways when trying to efficiently create a program to perform a common task.

    That said, as the law currently stands Sun (read Oracle) created and developed JAVA, and patented it. That means they own it, and Google may have to go back to the R&D lab or pay bucket loads of cash to Oracle (i would bet on the latter one in the short term, with them remaking a new OS without using JAVA for the next version)

    People were foolish to trust in the good nature of a corporation. In fact shareholders can sue a US corporation if they are too charitable, generally nice, or just not seeking the Maximum dollar for their shareholders (unless you are a new type of special benefit corp). Oracle's buy of SUN will go down as one of the best bargains in business history. They are still making money off the hardware, and JAVA, open office and other "open source" software that is OWNED by Oracle will keep cranking out the money for years due to the entire markets heavy borrowing and liberal using of Sun's previously unprotected code.

    The only real chance that Oracle doesn't make a bucketload is if the JAVA community can argue a bait and switch type trick where Oracle is trying to charge now, for things that were allowed liberal public use by SUN previously. (boils down to them not enforcing the rights earlier and thus loosing the right to complain now)

    we will see....

    1. Anonymous Coward

      Re: Not like Apple at all

      "That said, as the law currently stands Sun (read Oracle) created and developed JAVA, and patented it."

      JAVA, eh? As in "I'm shouting! It's JAVA!"?

      In fact, Sun filed for patents on certain principles used in their implementation of the Java virtual machine, some of which were quite probably described in academic papers, at least in some earlier form. So whether they "own" anything in the sense of having a monopoly on something remains to be seen.

      As for people deserting Oracle, it's happening already. That may explain why Oracle has to go for a patent shakedown so quickly, as the earning potential evaporates from all those other open source projects that they have completely failed to manage in any reasonable fashion.

      It would be hilarious if the eventual value in the Sun acquisition came from the SPARC end of the business - the bit nobody wanted to buy.

  14. Charlie Clark Silver badge

    How much?

    That's what the final question will be, how much money does Oracle want. Preceded by how long? ie. how long can Google get the case to drag on before it replaces Dalvik with something that doesn't need Java at all. Something based on NaCl or Flash perhaps? Android has a lot of momentum and Oracle should be sweet-talking developers into using more Java and buying tools and training not antagonising them with threats. That's like kicking the goose that lays the golden eggs.

    Oracle's PR is seriously fucked up at the moment. Which is fine as far as I'm concerned - Oracle fucks up MySQL and it's a win for Postgres, they fuck up OpenSolaris and it's a win for FreeBSD, they fuck up Java and it's a win for every other bytecode runtime. Adobe and Google tie up anyone? It's fine Oracle trying to improve the bottom line that Sun seemed to have forgotten how to monetise but increasing fees is one thing, totally screwing customers over quite another.

    1. Goat Jam
      Paris Hilton

      "Oracle's PR is seriously fucked up at the moment"

      I'm confused.

      There was a time when they weren't fucked up?

      On another note, wasn't this the exact sort of thing that the various competition bodies were concerned about when they were blocking the sale of Sun? There I was assuming that they had received all the necessary assurance from Crazy Larry.

      Silly me!

  15. Pete 8


    to watch such troll on troll action.

  16. Anonymous Coward

    The emphasis is Oracle's... oh yes it is indeed.

    >"Google derived its Android code from the specifications for hundreds of Oracle’s copyrighted Java files," the letter reads. The emphasis is Oracle's."

    Well, yes. Because any remotely neutral observer would have put the emphasis in that sentence where it really belongs: on the word "specifications", not the word "hundreds". See, Oracle is deliberately conflating two things here: the fact that Google's Java implementation implements the same APIs, which is something that should not be copyrightable, versus whether or not they actually directly copied the source or reversed the binaries for a handful of files in the testsuite. Stealing someone's code is of course disallowed, but implementing the same APIs - which of necessity will have the same function/class prototypes/definitions - is entirely legitimate and with precedent since the earliest days of PC-compatible manufacturers implementing their own BIOSes that used the same INT definitions as IBM's one.

    These are two entirely different matters, and it is utterly specious and frankly fraudulent of Oracle to try and pretend that they are the same.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: utterly specious and frankly fraudulent of Oracle

      Absolutely. And their lawyers will have earned their bonuses if they successfully pull it off.

  17. Loki 1

    Oracle got their code from Google

    You see, while it blatantly looks like it was decompiled, what really happened was some Oracle/Sun engineer used Google search to find some code to do what he needed to do his work. This was the same code that was already in use and open sourced by Google.

    The Oracle engineer thought, hey, those variable names are a bit crap, i'll rename them to look better and impress my bosses.

    So, you see, its quite a simple explanation. Google should be suing Oracle for stealing their code!

    1. Paul Shirley

      you think you're joking....

      ...but Google already told the court 2 of the 14 files Oracle identified were written by Google and contributed *TO* Java.

      Suing the real copyright holder didn't work out too well for SCO. Wont work out too well for Oracle.

      1. Tom 13

        There is one big difference between Sco vs Novel and Oracle vs Google;

        Google isn't a company that has been teetering on the edge of solvency like Novel was. Instead they practically have a license to print money. Which means the sue them until they can't afford it ploy isn't going to work at all.

        I think I'd also be careful about suing a company that knows more about me than I do. That seems likely to hurt in the end.

  18. Wang N Staines

    Sh!tty Java

    That'll will teach them to use sh1tty tech.

  19. mikebartnz


    Oracle are coming across like SCO and alienating too many people. They better watch out else they will go the way of SCO.

  20. Leo_yvelines

    Java ME vs Android future ?

    One think that puzzles me is that I saw nowhere any connexion had been made between the Nokia/Microsoft deal on WP7 and the future of Java ME.

    This is evident. With the rapid rise of smartphones under Android and iOS (perhaps in the future WP7 and webOS), none of which uses Java ME, and the abandon of Symbian, the market for Java ME apps will shrink to almost desappearance within less than a year. I would bet that already no reasonnable devloper is still coding for Java ME platforms.

    So, unless Oracle wins thiscase, which to me seems very unlikely or at least will need a very long time, it will be unable to make any money from Java ME any more.

    Looks like Oracle is fitting over wars of the past and already lost battles. All it will win in this lawsuite is utter disregard.

    1. Anonymous Coward

      Java ME

      Is and will be used in Nokia S30/40 mobile phones.

      And there were over 120 million sold during Q4 2010 only.

      Java ME application market is huge and any reasonable developer is using Java :-)

      1. Leo_yvelines

        Java ME

        Nevertheless it is a rapidly shrinking market.

        Android smartphones are cannibalizing feature phones and even dumb phone markets very rapidly.

        Today, Java ME is perhaps a huge application market but within less than two years there will be almost no new phone sold with Java ME. Considering that users are replacing their phones every 18 to 24 months, this means that within 3 to 4 years there will be no more market for Java ME apps.

        This doesn't mean Java will no more be used as a programming language, but almost all Java phone apps will be compiled for Dalvik and running on Dalvik VM, not Java ME.

        1. Anonymous Coward

          Java ME

          There will be over billion Java ME enabled mobile phones in near future.

          Android will never reach those numbers.

          1. Tom 13

            Android sales have gone from 6.8 million to 67.2 million in a single year

            according to the latest sales statistics ( Sounds to me like that might be the real reason Larry is going after Google: They're eating his lunch in the expansion of the phone market. If he can just FUD up the water like Balmer does, maybe he figures he can get more protection money out of his mushrooms.

          2. Leo_yvelines

            Java ME

            I don't know how many Java ME enabled mobile phones there are out there. Perhaps not far from a billion, but it will not grow for a very long time now that Java ME has been abandonned on the most récent smartphones OS, perhaps for one year with about 150 million more Java ME mobile phones.

            Then it will start to decrease at a very rapid rate as those phones are replaced by the new smatphones, mostly under Android if Android keeps growing at the same rate.

            The smartphone global market capacity is estimated at about 4 to 5 billion units, of which Android phones could get more than 30% within less than five years if it keeps selling at the actual rate. So it is most likely that Android phones will outnumber by far the number of Java ME phones that have and will ever be sold.

  21. screaminfakah

    Here ya go

    Burn them all.

    Actually don't.... I came up with the code Java is based off of along time ago. Don't burn them till I sue.

  22. Simon B


    Nokia keep Symbian alive! it may be needed!

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    Now that's an operating system with a gui that really works

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Paris Hilton

      Sybian - wow

      Might I suggest that this is the funniest spelling error so far this year. I commend to you all to type sybian into scroogle, and see what the number one hit is.



      Paris: She knows what a sybian is for sure ;)

  24. Mordan

    J2ME still a powerhouse

    J2ME phones and app will not disappear.

    New phones are eletronic shit that break, too big and cumbersome, a little moisture and you got to buy a new one.

    niche app on J2ME phone is a viable option. I still have a 5 years old SE phone and I would not trade it for an iphone.

    small phones with lots of keys are an asset in some situations.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like