The big lawsuit between Google and Oracle going on right now is as important as any in the history of computing.
Unless you've been lost in the deep woods in recent weeks, you're aware that Oracle has accused Google of misusing certain intellectual property. What you may not know is that, if Oracle won its case, software developers could well be in for some major changes in how they do their work.
In a nutshell, Oracle is arguing that application programming interfaces, or APIs, can be protected by copyrights. It argues not only that a specific list of software instructions that implement a particular API (instructions written in, say, C++) is protectable, but also that the abstract definition of the API itself can be protected.
What is an interface? That's the almost philosophical question at the heart of this trial. It has been a tricky one ever since the word first showed up in a courtroom. The antitrust suits filed against IBM in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s may have been the first battles over interfaces. I don't know. But I do know that there was much at stake for IBM back then, because it was aggressively fiddling with interfaces on its mainframes to shake off makers of plug-compatible disk drives, tape drives, and other peripheral devices.
At first, IBM's box-to-box interfaces seemed fairly straightforward, involving certain types of electrical plugs and cables and the signals those cables moved from processor to disk drive, for instance. But as competitors grew more sophisticated in their ability to clone its interfaces, IBM started changing the logic of these connections -- logic embodied "further back" from the actual interface plug. Almost at a whim, the company could add a new protocol that was designed, so it seemed, only to add complexity and thus keep competitors off balance.
Today, Google and Oracle are fighting over interfaces defined only in software. These interfaces are more complex and more widely used, too. I think of APIs as highly structured exchanges of words, each one chosen from a strictly limited vocabulary and used according to highly specific rules: If he says X, I should say Y, and then I should expect him to do A, B, or C.
Threat to Linux?
The question is where -- or what -- this kind of interface is. Is it the code or words that its originator has used to describe it, or is it the abstract, noncoded specifications of the exchanges that should take place? More specifically, can the company that owns the copyrights to various Java libraries (i.e., Oracle) block others, such as Google, from building its own libraries that do the same thing as Oracle's in a different way with different code? (Could Plato have copyrighted the cube and thereby controlled all other, less perfect cubes?)
If Oracle won and the right to protect APIs in the abstract were established, there would be some serious ramifications for the software industry. Think, for instance, what this might mean for the future of Linux, which solely in terms of APIs "looks" and acts almost exactly like AT&T's Unix operating system, even if it doesn't use any actual code from Unix. In theory, the current owner of the Unix copyright, Novell, could demand royalties from everyone supplying or even using Linux.
Likewise, a win for Oracle might mean many dialects of many computer programming languages could be in for similar trouble. Users of Objective-C, such as Apple, might have to pay up -- again, to AT&T, whose people created the original C language. Andrew Binstock, writing at Dr. Dobb's, warns of the "end of programming as we know it." That's about as dire as it gets, no?
I'm not sure which company is right -- Oracle or Google -- but I am quite sure this is a lawsuit worth watching. What about you? Any thoughts?
I think declaring APIs copyrightable could be trouble for developers in the future. Rewriting code will cause all sorts of delays if Oracle wins. There's a lot of speculation in the development community about the results and plenty of folks worrying about the future of Java as well. I don't know which team I want to win this fight. I'm curious how it will end, especially considering how little our judicial folks seem to know about technology. This could end really badly for tech companies...
Android is mostly open. Google doesn't release everything for public use. The portion released to the public is open source. I'm concerned about the future of Android after this trial. I hope the judge will declare mistrial, as Google has requested based on the jury's initial findings.
I really have no idea what Oracle intends to gain from this mess. There may or may not be cash in buckets for them.
We'll see what happens going forward; there are still two more phases to this trial. Oracle appears to have won the first one, and Google has promised to appeal. It ain't over till it's over.
Gigi 5/10/2012 1:14:22 AM User Rank Management GUI
Re: Oracle
Henrish, Oracle knows that Android is using such JRE and API's from the beginning itself, I mean for the last 4-6 years. So far they keep mum because at that point of time, if they are raising any objection it may get easily resolved for a less compensation. Now Android gets flourished and about 45% tablets and Smartphones are running over it, so the claim can be a big sum. It's all a type of dirty business tricks.
Gigi 5/10/2012 1:08:53 AM User Rank Management GUI
Re: Android
"I assume there will be some kind of compromise, or payment that would enable Android to move forward"
John, again the question comes "How Google is able to pay". Android is an open source OS, if it's a paid one then obliviously they have to pay royalty. For an open source software, how they can pay royalty and if they are paying, what's the benefit Google is going to get out of it? Any business thoughts..
Henrisha 5/9/2012 10:47:14 PM User Rank Basic Coder
Re: Hung Jury
Seth raised a fine point here. Would Oracle have raised the issue and filed a case, had Google not been successful? I doubt it. I guess it all boils down to the money, which Google is overflowing with nowadays.
SethGB 5/8/2012 5:10:21 PM User Rank Management GUI
Re: Hung Jury
It is interesting to note that these patent lawsuits infringements happen when the the alleged abuser's product has been succesful. I think that needs to be looked at. Was the alleged owner aware of the infringement and when? And if they knew very early on, did they just wait for the cow to get fattened up to claim the profits?
I think you're probably right, @Toby. Oracle faces some tough times - though its earnings keep defying that forecast. I haven't really followed the case that carefully, but I do know that there are some very important issues at stake, including the business of protecting APIs to the point of crippling others.
There actually is a fascinating and tragic story about the patenting of FM. A man named Edwin Armstrong came up with the idea before the war. It proved very successful, more immune to noise and interference than AM. But RCA, where he worked, was not interested because it was still bulding out its AM empire. During the war, FM patents were offered to the gov't, at no charge. After the war, Armstrong saw a great oppty to use war-developed tubes and other technologies to create a new form of broadcasting, and he got FM technology off the ground. But RCA, and specifically David Sarnoff, the boss, lobbied the FCC to move the FM band to a new, higher frequency, which effectively clobbered Armstrong's fledgling network. Meanwhile, RCA fought Amrstrong over the FM patents. Long story short, the man fought and fought, never gave up, went broke, lost his wife, and finally, completely shattered, he threw himself out of a window in despair.
To save this item to your list of favorite IT Software Community content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This
