Google are still at war with Java

google-plus-logo Google have been at war with Oracle for ages now. It has been going on so long that it is almost a battle of Biblical length. They've been fighting over the incredibly exciting thing of Java implementation on Android and it might get all the way to the US Supreme Court.

When it does, take stock of where you are and what you're doing because future generations will ask: "Where were you when everyone died in the Google-Java conflict?"

The Supreme Court has listed Google's request to have the US Court of Appeals' decision reviewed.

If you aren't aware of what's been going on (seriously? You're that jaded by warfare?), Oracle said that Google owed them "billions" because Android's class libraries replicate the functions and code of some of Java's copyrighted API packages.

One of the big arguments is whether or not you can copyright an API (that stands for 'application programming interface', just so you're aware).

In May, the Court of Appeals said that you could indeed copyright APIs, but then handed the case over to another court so the argument of 'fair use' could be thrashed out.

And now, the Supreme Court is listening to Google's argument that; "Early computer companies could have blocked vast amounts of technological development by claiming 95-year copyright monopolies over the basic building blocks of computer design and programming."

If Oracle win this case, then it will mean a whole load of trouble for more companies than just Google. For more, the case has its own Wikipedia page. We can't wait for the Hollywood blockbuster that is made of this dispute.

1 comment

  • OldGit
    Replicate the functions, a very lose term. In software, there are a finite number of ways of achieving an action. There will always be a 'best' way of doing something, and many people can come up with this code - does'nt mean you pinched it. Just very expensive lawyers chasing their 'ambulances' to make a dishonest dollar. And Google is right, I bet there is a lot of Java code that can be found in years old computer code - but not necessarily in eactly the same form.

What do you think?

Your comment