back to article Space-cadet Schwartz blows chunks out of Oracle's Java suit

Google unveiled its secret weapon against Oracle this week: Jonathan Schwartz. The first third of the IP trial, which is expected to last eight weeks, deals with copyright. Patents and trademark claims come next. This week it was Google's turn to defend itself against Oracle's copyright infringement claims, and Schwartz was …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    For completeness...

    This is remarkably unbalanced and only shows Googles side of the arguement.

    Hopefully that will kill off all the complaints about bias.

    Now, how to sort out the Andriod/iPhone debate....

    1. Notas Badoff
      Headmaster

      Re: For completeness...

      "This is remarkably unbalanced and only shows Googles side of the arguement."

      Errm, the article quotes Schwartz, who doesn't work for Google. The article quotes McNealy, who doesn't work for Google. The article quotes "fake Steve", who doesn't work for Google.

      So, umm, for 'completeness', who do you work for?

      BTW: you do know how trials work, right? One side calls witnesses who testify, and the other side gets to cross-examine. Then it is the other side's turn to call witnesses. Multiple days can be spent on each side. As in this from the article "This week it was Google's turn to defend itself against Oracle's copyright infringement claims..." So the article is *about* this week's testimony. Google's turn this week. So, you know, you're basically saying the courts are biased because they let the defendent have a turn.

    2. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      Re: For completeness...

      Right, that's it. I've had enough. The gloves are off. You can only comment on trials if you understand trials from now on.

      Be aware that trials are 'he said, she said' affairs. One party argues their side. The opposition fires off their side. We can only fairly, accurately and contemporaneously report on proceedings as the trial progresses.

      Thus accusing us of censorship or bias implies your inability to read previous coverage, or appreciate the above point.

      tldr; No one's side has been omitted. It's an ongoing trial, if you can't keep up, be quiet.

      C.

      1. Real Ale is Best
        Facepalm

        Re: For completeness...

        Umm, I think the first poster was being sarcastic in response to previous comments that the reporting was biased towards Oracle.

        Some humor was missed, I believe...

        1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

          Re: "the first poster was being sarcastic in response to previous comments"

          Um, if he was the first poster then there were no previous comments, right ?

          Unless you're referring to comments from a previous article that discussed the same trial, but logically you should have worded that differently.

        2. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

          Re: Real Ale

          Ah perhaps, that'll teach me for posting comments out of work hours. Still, I had hoped the "gloves are off" quip would signal that I was being a bit tongue in cheek.

          C.

        3. Fibbles

          Re: Real Ale Is Best

          The first commentard may have been attempting humour but that doesn't mean his post contained any.

        4. Zippy the Pinhead

          Re: For completeness...

          "Some humor was missed, I believe..."

          Then maybe the author of the comment should of used the sarcasm tag or something. Cause it looks to me like a fanboi stating his distaste of anything Google.

      2. Tim Parker

        Re: For completeness...

        "Right, that's it. I've had enough. The gloves are off. You can only comment on trials if you understand trials from now on.

        ..and what about an understanding, however limited, of the matters being discussed - that could, possibly, be useful ?

        "Be aware that trials are 'he said, she said' affairs. One party argues their side. The opposition fires off their side."

        One party argues it's side, with the other party also questioning witnesses and the other counsel. Then it reverses. There is plenty of too and fro in both cases. There is also a large amount of prior knowledge and discussion about much of the detail. These things can be reported and discussed - if the author is willing and able.

        " We can only fairly, accurately and contemporaneously report on proceedings as the trial progresses."

        Then report accurately.

        "Thus accusing us of censorship or bias implies your inability to read previous coverage, or appreciate the above point."

        Hardly, that's logic stretched way beyond breaking point - there has been a lot of ranting (which can't help either way) but I don't think measured and/or legitimate queries about missing information or perceived bias is always out of order. '[T]he above point' is also not entirely correct.

        "No one's side has been omitted."

        Much of Google cross earlier, and a huge amount of pertinent background information, has been missing in the two previous articles i've read. Oracle cross is largely missing here... most of this part has been missed in truth.... previous days coverage has been largely AWOL as well.

        " It's an ongoing trial, if you can't keep up, be quiet."

        Well put. With the greatest of respect, please do one or the other.

        1. Tim Parker

          Re: For completeness...

          "With the greatest of respect, please do one or the other."

          For clarity, that was meant to be directed at El Reg and not you personally. Apologies if it caused offense.

      3. Robinson
        Thumb Down

        Re: For completeness...

        They aren't "he said, she said" affairs. That would be hearsay.

        1. Tom 13
          Devil

          Re: would be hearsay.

          No, hearsay would be:

          He said "She said,..."

  2. Bill Neal
    WTF?

    I must be missing something

    If Sun was "too open" and started failing because of it, then why does Redhat do so well? Did people just lose interest in Sun's servers? If so, Why did Oracle want that hardware business?

    1. BristolBachelor Gold badge

      Re: I must be missing something

      Oracle didn't want the hardware business; they wanted to conrtol the companies "giving away" competing technologies to theirs, like Java & mysql

      1. A Non e-mouse Silver badge

        Re: I must be missing something

        Oracle didn't want the hardware business; they wanted to conrtol the companies "giving away" competing technologies to theirs, like Java & mysql

        Oracle wanted Java ('cause they use so darn much of it, and so wanted full control) and to stamp out that annoying MySQL up-start.

    2. DrXym Silver badge

      Re: I must be missing something

      I suppose Redhat gets away with it because it's not really in the hardware business. People pay Red Hat for the qa, training, support and patches. The OS by itself is fine but most businesses need those other things.

      It raises an interesting side issue though. Oracle ripped off Red Hat's code for their own Linux and to sell support so it hardly says much of their business ethics. It's hard to feel sympathy that Google chose to work around their IP when implementing their own Java-a-like.

      1. Vic

        Re: I must be missing something

        > Oracle ripped off Red Hat's code for their own Linux

        No it didn't.

        Oracle has done many bad things, but rebadging RHEL is not only permitted, it is expected and encouraged. That's the whole point of Free Software - it remains Free even if you don't like what it's being used for...

        Vic.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I must be missing something

          Vic,

          I don't think people disagree with the statement that Oracle has the right to use RHEL code. The reason people are upset with OEL and OVM is that Oracle is providing two different levels of Oracle application support and functions (e.g. hard partitioning for OEL/OVM) for OEL and RHEL, even though they are practically the same OS. If you want to run Oracle applications on x86, it is really hard to figure out if your VMware, RHEL platform is supported and Oracle keeps rattling the sabre about discontinuing support for RHEL.... It wouldn't surprise me if they ditched support for RHEL.

          1. Vic

            Re: I must be missing something

            > It wouldn't surprise me if they ditched support for RHEL.

            It wouldn't surprise me if Oracle falls flat on its face. It clearly doesn't understand what Free software is about. I doubt OUL is long for this world...

            But that doesn't mean we can talk about Oracle "ripping off" RHEL; it didn't.

            Vic.

        2. DrXym Silver badge

          Re: I must be missing something

          "Oracle has done many bad things, but rebadging RHEL is not only permitted, it is expected and encouraged. That's the whole point of Free Software - it remains Free even if you don't like what it's being used for..."

          Use any word you like but Oracle took Red Hat's code lock stock and barrel, changed the branding, called it Oracle "Unbreakable" Linux and sold support for it under that name. IMO it qualifies as a ripoff whether its permitted or not.

          I raised it merely to highlight Oracle's malleable business ethics.

          Clearly Red Hat weren't happy about it which is the principle reason they stopped releasing discrete source patches for bug fixes and just concatenate all their patches into a single file to disrupt the leeches at Oracle passing off Red Hat's support as their own. I doubt RH care so much about CentOS because it's non-profit and doubtless more than a few CentOS users upgrade to RHEL in due course anyway.

          1. Vic

            Re: I must be missing something

            > IMO it qualifies as a ripoff whether its permitted or not.

            Then you don't understand Free Software either.

            Taking the current code pool and doing something with it is how the whole movement works. Sometimes that "doing something" will mean writing new code. Sometimes it just means getting it in front of customers. All this is both expected and explicitly encouraged.

            > Clearly Red Hat weren't happy about it

            Well, someone wasn't. It is my opinion that RH over-reacted to this. I actually expect them to recant some time in the future.

            Nevertheless, all they've actually done is to remove some of the changelog. This makes things a *little* harder of Oracle, but not much. Bugzilla is still available, so the detail can still be found if someone is prepared to put a bit of work in.

            But none of what Oracle has done can be considered "ripping off". It doesn't really matter if you believe it should be - the licence says it is not.

            Vic.

            1. Tom 13

              Re: I must be missing something

              What Oracle did is exactly why Gates and Balmer referred to it as a cancer. They might be the lowest form of scumbags on the planet, but that doesn't mean they weren't right about how other scumbags would approach Linux: getting fat off someone else's work.

        3. Tom 13

          Re: not only permitted, it is expected and encouraged.

          Permitted, yes, but the way Oracle executed it, it still reeks of rip off. What is expected and encouraged is adding improvements and donating back to the code base.

          1. Vic

            Re: not only permitted, it is expected and encouraged.

            > What is expected and encouraged is adding improvements and donating back to the code base.

            No, absolutely not.

            Whilst new commits are always welcome, there is no expectation *whatsoever* that users/redistributors add anything to the party. Section 3 of GPLv2 controls redistribution - either verbatim or with modifications. It does *not* require that you do anything to improve the code base - only that you conform to the licence.

            And note that Section 6 explicitly prohibits adding any extra conditions - so that "expectation" of which you speak cannot exist, or else it would leave you in breach of the GPL...

            Really, there is far too much "lore" like this that has grown up around the GPL, and IMO it is a big part of why some people misunderstand just how easy it is to conform to the licence. Please, guys, let's stick to what is in the licence, rather than what we would like to be there.

            Vic.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I must be missing something

      True, Oracle never wanted the hardware business. The SEC filings demonstrate that they tried to keep various software assets, Java and MySQL, and sell the hardware business to HP. As HP's management team can't breath with their mouth closed, they did not realize that for a couple of billion dollars, which they then went and blew on Palm, they could limit the high end systems market to two companies (IBM being the other) and keep Oracle, their most valuable server software partner, as a partner instead of competitor. Oracle wanted Sun to stop open source threats to their lucrative database and application server businesses. Controlling Java allows them to control Apache.

      Red Hat charges a shed load of cash for support. Sun was not collecting licenses or support from the vast majority of Java users, e.g. Google.

    4. Tom 13

      Re: why does Redhat do so well

      Redhat has been stable because they are selling services to support the software. Sun sold hardware to support the software, and tried to make their money from that. Problem is, hardware became mass consumer product and Sun stayed in niche mode.

      And what little hardware business Sun had left, Oracle has pretty much killed. Never worked with their kit myself, but I have a friend who works in for a government contractor that use to be the sort of shop that was Sun's bread and butter - lots of complex calculations on massive databases (they get about 1TB a day in new data). Oracle tried to rejigger the contracts and they gave up. Now they buy commodity hardware and run Linux.

    5. Zippy the Pinhead
      Stop

      Re: I must be missing something

      Why did Oracle want that hardware business?

      Did they really want Sun for the hardware business or all the software and the potential to sue over it.. Honestly with the speed that Oracle used the legal option after acquiring Sun.. I would think it's the software and not the hardware.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I must be missing something

        Zippy,

        I would say neither (Java trolling or hardware) were the primary goals of Oracle acquiring Sun. They clearly had no interest in hardware whatsoever until they realized they were going to be stuck with it (see SEC filings on the Sun acquisition, they tried to sell hardware to HP). The Java patent cash was probably a nice bonus. I think the primary reason they want Sun was to cap MySQL to ensure that it never messed with their Oracle DB business and to control Java to ensure that Harmony never messed with their WebLogic business. It was primarily a defensive play.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Worst Sun Decision Ever ...

    ... making Schwartz CEO. WTF was McNealy thinking? Schwartz was an awful business person who damaged or destroyed all of Sun's margin producing businesses. But Schwartz apparently was also a narcissist who did not want to sell Sun. Today, he seems determined to destroy what is left of Sun (if I can't have it, you can't have it).

    Or maybe Schwartz is kissing Google's arse because he is hoping Google will buy his CareZone company.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Worst Sun Decision Ever ...

      Yes, and Larry pointed out in detail what a crap job he was doing at Sun after Oracle took over... so he probably has a score to settle.

    2. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: Worst Sun Decision Ever ...

      Which doesn't mean Sun doesn't have a strong claim on its IP case. Copyright claims do not have to be asserted continuously, as trademarks do. But if the jury concludes that Sun was relaxed about how its IP was used, it may limit the damages to a figure far lower than what Oracle wants. (That figure has already been halved).

      -=-

      While this is speculation on the authors part, it does prove the point that under Schwartz, Sun wasnt strong when it came to protecting their IP.

      IMHO, I don't know how much damage was done. It's a weak defense by Google.

  4. pcsupport

    What is it about IT nerds and long hair / ponytails? Don't they realize just how, quite frankly, twatish they look?

    1. FunkyEric
      FAIL

      What is this with short-haired PC nerds, have they never enjoyed how great it feels to have long hair?

      1. Graham Dawson
        Unhappy

        What is it with people who have hair arguing over whether it's long or short?

        Bastards, the lot of you.

        1. Martin 47

          exactly, its folicism at its worst!

          1. John Bailey

            Tonsilliary correctness gone mad even..

    2. Andus McCoatover
      Windows

      Like me, they use a rug.

      Take it off when you wanna meet a chick, keep it on at a biker's convention (and hope the wind ain't too strong)

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Long hair is twattish? I'm sure all those rock and metal musicians aren't getting any at all...

      Anyway, I need my hair this length otherwise my broadsword looks ridiculous.

      1. P. Lee Silver badge
        Trollface

        You can only get away with stupid looks if you are exceptionally good at what you do or are rich.

        IT nerds fall into the former, rock stars into the latter. No comment on Schartz.

  5. Carl
    Happy

    oh well. oracle has other problems too...

    (a) Ellison's blatant dissembling

    (b) Counsel's blatant refusal to elucidate

    (c) Rule 50 on copyrights in the works

    (d) Dismissal of 702 with prejudice

    Stick that in you pipe and smoke it. FLORIAN.

    1. Carl

      Re: oh well. oracle has other problems too...

      Replying to my own post(s). Oh well.

      This just in from Groklaw:

      "Oracle says it is no longer describing the copyright registration as a collective work"

      Looks like they finally chose their poison with respect to (b)

    2. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      Re: oh well. oracle has other problems too...

      Seriously; how the hell does Floeian Mueller still find work? I am not one to (often) disparage people I haven't physically met (some commenttards aside,) but this dude is pants-on-head retarded.

      1. ObSolutions, Inc
        Happy

        Re: oh well. oracle has other problems too...

        I have the opposite experience. I used to agree a lot with him and respect his views. Then I met him at a conference.

      2. fishman

        Floeian Mueller

        <<Seriously; how the hell does Floeian Mueller still find work?>>

        He now is working for Oracle. Seriously.

      3. Mikel
        WTF?

        Re: oh well. oracle has other problems too...

        For once El Reg leaves him out of the article and you guys have to bring him up in the comments?

      4. Real Ale is Best
        Meh

        Re: oh well. oracle has other problems too...

        Seriously; how the hell does Floeian Mueller still find work?

        Easily. He does, very well, what he is paid to do. He also does not lie about who he is being paid by.

        Sadly, too many news outlets give him publicity.

        1. Goobertee
          Meh

          "...does not lie about who he is being paid by."

          I suppose he hadn't literally lied, but it seems like he waited a LONG time and made a LOT of comments before mentioning Oracle and Microsoft are a part of his financial life.

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: oh well. oracle has other problems too...

        Silicon valley is full of FM types. There's a term Silicon Valley Syndrome where some people believe that their IQ, Talent, and over all tech superiority increase with respect to their proximity to Silicon Valley.

        I've seen it first hand, which is why I live in Chicago, close to. Peoria so that I remain well grounded in reality.

      6. Vic

        Re: oh well. oracle has other problems too...

        > how the hell does Floeian Mueller still find work?

        It's really easy - the media (this respectable organ included) tends to quote him verbatim and present it as factual.

        So from a PR perspective, he's a cheap way to get a point of view presented to the readership as if it were gospel.

        Vic.

        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge
          Unhappy

          Re: oh well. oracle has other problems too...

          I will admit to periodically having been swayed by someone with great credentials and experience presenting me with something a little off. But eventually, there is a massive history of just utter fucking bullshit behind everything someone says. Mueller has a highly visible public record of lies, damned lies and statistics.

          He even admits to being paid to utilise a reality distortion field on behalf of some pretty damned unscrupulous clients. Customers as the enemy, and in that war, this man is their general…

          1. Vic

            Re: oh well. oracle has other problems too...

            > Mueller has a highly visible public record of lies, damned lies and statistics.

            Yes.

            But I get moderated when I say so...

            Vic.

    3. Carl
      Thumb Up

      Re: oh well. oracle has other problems too...

      Oh and what do we have here.

      Johnathan Schwartz just tweeted (presumably in Scott MacNealy's general direction):

      QUOTE

      Jonathan Schwartz ‏ @OpenJonathan

      Under oath, u said my blog was personal, not Sun communication? Srsly? :) http://web.archive.org/web/20080416195557/http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/comments_on_q2

      /QUOTE

      So I guess he's off Scott's xmas card list.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: oh well. oracle has other problems too...

        Everyone else in Sun was toild that their blogs were personal, and didn't reflect Sun policy. Why should the ponytailed asshole be treated any differently?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @AC 19:17 GMT - Re: oh well. oracle has other problems too...

          Because that pony-tailed guy being a CxO, spoke with the inside counsel at SUN and notified SEC in a letter about his blog, as required by the law. How can you then call this a personal blog ?

        2. Carl

          Re: oh well. oracle has other problems too...

          Because he was a company executive.

          This is fairly basic stuff under company law.

          Executives are charged with the care of the company as a parent is the care of a child and are never "off duty".

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: oh well. oracle has other problems too...

          >Everyone else in Sun was toild that their blogs were personal, and didn't reflect Sun policy. Why should the ponytailed asshole be treated any differently?

          Oh dear, looks, like I should have put this in <sarcasm /> tags... Thought it was obvious...

  6. King1Con
    Unhappy

    @BristolBachelor Re: Re: I must be missing something

    BB> Oracle didn't want the hardware business; they wanted to conrtol the companies "giving away" competing technologies to theirs, like Java & mysql

    Oracle wanted the hardware business more than IBM & HP - Oracle makes a huge sum of money on SPARC and Solaris.

    Oracle bought Sun's hardware business - as IBM has been selling off pieces of their hardware business, as HP almost pulled the plug on a huge portion of their hardware business, and as HP is having the plug pulled on Itanium.

    HP buying SPARC, as it was originally offered to them, would have placed HP customers in a position of continuity by now, instead of in a place of decent with Itanium's road map coming to an end.

    1. Tom 13

      Re: @BristolBachelor I must be missing something

      Oracle NEVER wanted the hardware business. They just couldn't sell it to anybody because of anti-trust regs and the SEC - too few vendors in the square so they couldn't sell to another big iron vendor. And they couldn't sell to any of the small iron vendors because they all go 'we're in the commodity hardware business. [pause] scribble, scribble, scribble [end pause] And in about 3 years our stuff will outperform what you're selling today anyway.'

  7. Paul Shirley

    Schwartz - bad businessman but Oracle bound by his mistakes

    So no comment on Oracles desperate attempt to talk their way out of Schwartzs bombshell, when the lawyers described him as a bad businessman? I really wanted to see a 'yes I was bad but Oracle have to live with my mistakes' response but court reports suggest the smear failed all by itself.

    I'm a little puzzled on how going from $6billion (patents+copyrights) to today's starting point of $30-40million for the copyrights is describable as 'halved'. I know the lazier press keep reprinting Oracles $1bil fiction and ignoring the 30-40mil but even that's nowhere near 'halved'!

  8. Charlie Clark Silver badge
    Happy

    Time to call RCJ?

    Surely someone with Mr Schwartz's vision is exactly what the Magic Roundabout needs to launch Shoreditch into orbit? If so, can I be the one to light the touch paper?

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So, no Florian Mueller but instead

    we're getting quotes from Mr. Dan Lyons. I believe I heard of him once in the past during the SCO anti Linux battle.

    I would change his quote [quote] If you’ve got something that for whatever reason nobody is willing to pay you money for, that’s the world’s way of telling you to go do something else [/quote]

    by replacing "willing to pay" with "forced to pay". That's the proper anti-FOSS way.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Gimp

      Re: So, no Florian Mueller but instead

      Gotta agree.

      Who is that Lyons guy (some kind of stand up comedian pretending to know about business?) and why is he relevant?

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hewlett-Packards homebrew Java.

    Feb 2001: HP's Java clone heads to gadgets

    Aug 1999: Head of HP's Embedded Java VM Project Speaks Out

    March 1998: Hewlett-Packards homebrew Java

    "Hewlett-Packard announced that it has developed, licensed, and shipped its own version of Java for so-called "constrained environments" such as printers, and that Microsoft is its first licensee"

  11. Adrian 10

    Oracle are almost as evil as Apple

    well, they are working towards the goal anyway...

    1. Tom 13

      Re: Oracle are almost as evil as Apple

      I'd say it was the other way around, but we're sort of in the 'who was worse: Hitler vs Pol Pot|Ghengis Khan': beyond tolerable either way.

  12. Tim Parker

    API to be assumed as copyrightable

    It looks like Judge Alsup has deleted an earlier notation, that he would decide the copyright status of the Java API, and instead there will apparently be an instruction to the jury to assume they are copyrightable - i've not seen the wording yet, so it's hard to know what that could lead to, if anything, outside of this case. That said, whatever anyone feels about Google, this has at least the potential to be the start of something generally rather nasty.

    1. Vic

      Re: API to be assumed as copyrightable

      > Judge Alsup has deleted an earlier notation, that he would decide

      > the copyright status of the Java API

      I don't think he has.

      I'm a couple of days behind with the case, but ti appears that he';s actually played a blinder here.

      > there will apparently be an instruction to the jury to assume they are copyrightable

      Note that that is a jury instruction to assume it, not a case law precedent.

      It appears that Judge Alsup wants the jury to decide first if there is any infringement *if* Oracle's position on copyrightability is assumed correct. If the jury says there is no infringement, then that is that - he doesn't have to make a ruling.

      If the jury finds that there could be infringement under that theory, then he can still rule on the copyrightability issue - there can be no infringement if the material is not eligible for copyright infringement.

      So this actually looks like an attempt by the judge to avoid grounds for appeal. That's a good thing.

      Vic.

      1. Paul Shirley

        Re: API to be assumed as copyrightable

        I think it's more subtle than heading off an appeal. Both sides will fight hard for one wwhatever happens anyway, with or without valid grounds.

        I think he's trying to avoid setting a precedent on the API copyright issue. Having a hard yes or no is almost certainly the wrong result, needs to be some consideration of specifics in future cases.

      2. Tim Parker

        @Vic : Re: API to be assumed as copyrightable

        > Judge Alsup has deleted an earlier notation, that he would decide

        > the copyright status of the Java API

        I don't think he has.

        I've not seen the records, so i'm going by second hand news here, which I had no reason to doubt.

        "Note that that is a jury instruction to assume it, not a case law precedent."

        Oh absolutely, however at face value it had me starting to feel a tad nervous in conjunction with the notation removal. It would always have to have been backed up by a ruling one way or the other.

        "It appears that Judge Alsup wants the jury to decide first if there is any infringement *if* Oracle's position on copyrightability is assumed correct. If the jury says there is no infringement, then that is that - he doesn't have to make a ruling."

        ..I was coming to that way of thinking while mulling things over this weekend..

        "So this actually looks like an attempt by the judge to avoid grounds for appeal. That's a good thing."

        Good point - hadn't considered that at all.

        Cheers

  13. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Unhappy

    Bah! Humbug! to the lot of them. Worse than kids fighting over the last sweet.

    What's more important is when this damn rain is going to stop so I can clear my head with a walk in fresh air.

  14. IGnatius T Foobar
    FAIL

    android

    It's pretty clear from reading this article that Android is winning and iPhone is irrelevant now.

  15. Carl

    tips on how to be a journalist

    https://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/oracle-vs-google-dead-lawsuit-walking/10843

    QUOTE

    Part of the reason for this popular misconception [the idea that Oracle would prevail] came about because many people took the word of Florian Müller, a patent lobbyist, as an objective reporter on the case. If you cover intellectual property law issues for years, as I had, you knew that while Müller started as an anti-patent activist, in recent years hes been an analyst for hire for Microsoft and Oracle. Essentially, he’s a lobbyist for Oracle. Never-the-less, many reports used his pro-Oracle/anti-Google takes as facts in their news stories.

    /QUOTE

  16. br14

    And pigs might fly

    "Schwartz's strategy was to give away the software assets – like Java – in order to drive interest in Sun's high-margin computer hardware"

    That takes some believing! And in any case isn't correct. Schwarz must stand to gain if he's willing to be humiliated by Google in this way.

    Sun opened up Java SE (suitably licensed - and suitably patented to avoid use .... ), but did NOT release Java ME - the mobile version of Java.

    No mug Mr Schwarz. He knew mobile was where the money is.

    So they patent key components of the Java to mobile interface, and make sure Java ME has to be licensed (as numerous companies other than Google have done).

    Google however, created Dalvik and then "blatantly" exploited Suns patents (to quote from an earlier judge in the case). Bearing in mind they're awash with ex Sun executives perhaps they thought they'd get away it.

    Plus as demonstrated by evidence at the trial, what Schwarz may have publicly blogged was contradicted in his personal email.

    1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: And pigs might fly

      I don't believe that Schwartz was responsible for the decision to license ME differently from SE.

      Yes, Sun did want to use software to sell more hardware.

  17. br14

    "Essentially, he’s a lobbyist for Oracle"

    But does that automatically make him wrong? No doubt the jury will decide (having been suitably not directed by the judge).

    Major corporations like Google, Oracle and Apple do not leave media comment to chance.

    Up to you to decide which marketing budget dictated the editorial comment you're reading.

    Unless you're a complete idiot and think media is unbiased.

    1. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      Re: "Essentially, he’s a lobbyist for Oracle"

      "Up to you to decide which marketing budget dictated the editorial comment you're reading."

      Always amuses me when people accuse others of corruption, bribery and dishonestly offhand with absolutely nothing to back it up.

      C.

      1. Vic

        Re: "Essentially, he’s a lobbyist for Oracle"

        > Always amuses me when people accuse others of corruption

        ...Particularly when you look at someone's posting history...

        Vic.

      2. Tom 13

        @diodesign

        In some ways his comment is to be expected. Too many in the media make similarly offhand assertions with nothing to back it up. It seeps into the culture and soon everybody is doing it.

        But you are correct. That still doesn't excuse it.

      3. br14

        Re: "Essentially, he’s a lobbyist for Oracle"

        "accuse others of corruption, bribery and dishonesty"

        So you didn't think negatively of Mueller despite him being an adviser to Oracle? Mueller was pro-Oracle even before he became a "consultant" for Oracle. Probably why they hired him.

        And I'm not accusing anyone of anthing. Simply that we're all biased one way or another to a greater or lesser degree for all manner of reasons.

        News Corporation for example, has an exclusive deal with Apple. Is that why their publications rarely write anything negative about Apple but are not always complimentary about Apple competitors (in my subjective opinion of course)?

        And Boy Genius Report is "advised" by Steve Wozniak. Whether that has anything to do with their often apparently pro-Apple stance I can't say.

        Other tech publications have similar relationships with the major players.

        It's too strong to suggest a conspiracy, but if lobbying doesn't work, why hire lobbyists?

    2. Carl

      Re: "Essentially, he’s a lobbyist for Oracle"

      Groklaw have no marketing budget.

  18. Ross 7

    A *proper* soap!

    Really interesting story, and I like the reporting. So nothing like a soap opera really, but nicely done anyhoo.

    I await further episodes (stupid slow court system...)

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019