SUN sues over Java trademark
See this. Anyone has read the Java GPL license?
Based on SUN's Java FAQ:
Q: What must I do to call my software based on code from the OpenJDK or phoneME projects "Java"?
A: The requirements for the use of the "Java" trademark and name have not changed with the open sourcing of the JDK and Java ME source code. The GPL v2 does not include a trademark license - no OSI-approved open-source licenses do. Sun does not currently have a licensing program that permits the use of the "Java" mark in your product or company name. You can use a truthful "tagline" however associating your product or company with Java technology, according to Sun's standard terms for use for trademarks. Please see http://www.sun.com/policies/trademarks/ for more details.
Based on this, the open source community will write the code, but they can't call it Java, or use the word Java anywhere in the product name. That's a cool idea indeed.
SUN's basic idea is to encourage people to use the Java language, and SUN owns the language. It's like someone owns the English language, and every American pays money to the owner.
Comparing to other languages, such as C++ and C, Java seems to be a trap. One can write a C++ compiler and call it MyFancyC++. But you can't do it with Java, you can't call your work MyFancyJava -- note this is the case regaredless of compliance with the Java specification. Suppose you are a genius and you write 10000 lines of code that makes Java 10 times faster, you won't be able to call that SuperJava, you may be able to call it DuperJ, but people who believe in the Java name won't buy it (For instance, GNU's Java implementation is caleld GCJ. Without the Java name, few want to use it). Only SUN can take advantage of that hard work, as it can take the code, put it in the Java core code base and call it Java... Thus, the so called open sourcing of Java seems to be only a way for SUN to exploit the work of the community for free.
posted by Sharikou, Ph. D. @ 1/09/2007 01:07:00 PM
52 Comments:
GPL concerns source codes, not trademarks. You can use the source codes of a RedHat Linux, but you cannot call your version of Linux RedHat.
And why would you criticise SUN for its protection of Java, which is afterall a neat language suite developed solely by the company? You seem to be quite ignorant of Java, blind to its performance enhancements over the years (it's within 2x of C++ in almost all apps now), and very biased on the subject.
Why don't you apply the same criticism to other languages such as C# and Perl? For example, see this:
"The Perl logo, the Perl Foundation logo, and the bare onion logo are available for use by Perl Mongers, Perl Monks, and Perl.org, which are part of TPF. These Perl marks are available for use on their websites and materials promoting Perl, TPF, and their projects (on t-shirts, mugs, flyers, etc.). This authorization to use the Perl logo is limited to uses by the organizations themselves, and doesn't extend to individual members. Representatives of the organizations should contact us at trademark@perlfoundation.org to obtain high-resolution versions of the Perl logo, and answers to any questions they have about use of the logo."
I guess TPF wouldn't sue if you call your language interpreter 'Perl' without their consent?
WHy not call it Jamma? It sounds better.
why would you criticise SUN for its protection of Java
I am not criticising SUN for protecting its trademarks. However, SUN's scheme is deceitful, by using Java as the name of a computer language, SUN lures people to use the Java mark. Imagine if AT&T registered C++ as a trademark, then "C++ journal" would be infringing. SUN's scheme is to exploit the open source folks: on one hand, they wrote code for Java(tm), on the other hand, what they produced can't be called Java. Then only SUN can commercially exploit the Java code.
[Will.I.Am]
It's funny how a man only thinks about the...
You got a real big heart, but I'm looking at your...
You got real big brains, but I'm looking at your...
Girl, there ain't no pain in me looking at your...
[PCD]
I don't give a...
Keep looking at my...
'Cause it don't mean a thing if you're looking at my...
Ha, I'm a do my thing while you're playing with your...
Ha, ha-ha, ha-ha, ha-ha
Every boy's the same
Since up in the seventh grade
They been trying to get with me
Trying to Ha, ha-ha, ha, ha-ha
They always got a plan
To be my one and only man
Want to hold me with their hands
Want to Ha, ha-ha, ha, ha-ha
I keep turning them down
But, they always come around
Asking me to go around
That's not the way it's going down
'Cause they only want
Only want my ha, ha-ha
Ha, ha-ha, ha
Only want what they want
But, na, ah-ah
Na, ah-ah
"SUN's scheme is to exploit the open source folks: on one hand, they wrote code for Java(tm), on the other hand, what they produced can't be called Java."
Of course not, with good reasons! SUN is not only protecting the Java trademark, but also the "Java" language integrity. One central philosophy (whether you like it or not) of Java is write once, run everywhere - at least within the same flavor, that is, J2ME/J2SE/J2EE. That is why SUN sued Microsoft for its (incompatible) Java implementation. For the same reason, since both PhoneMe and OpenJDK are likely to include extensions that are different from the official Java releases, they cannot be called Java.
"Then only SUN can commercially exploit the Java code."
This is balony. Everyone can commercially exploit the Java code, once it's GPL'd. You just can't call your codes "Java" if you modified the language interface. OTOH, it is perfectly fine to call your apps "Java programs" if they work 100% with standard JDK releases, whether from SUN or IBM or others. Go visit apache jarkata and you'll see.
Calling your language extension a different name doesn't change the source code it's based on. You still take advantage and benefit from Java's open source policy. Or do you think otherwise?
OTOH, it is perfectly fine to call your apps "Java programs" if they work 100% with standard JDK releases, whether from SUN or IBM or others.
No. That's untrue. If you call your apps "java programs", you get sued for trademark infringement.
"If you call your apps "java programs", you get sued for trademark infringement."
I wonder what is SUN waiting for than to sue FSF right away? Or as I said, you also find Java all over the places here. Just how many places SUN will sue all over the Internet?
SUN will sue you only if you write a JDK/JVM, call it Java, and make it incompatible with SUN's official Java specifications.
MS does almost exact same thing with .NET. It doesn't have it as open source thing but Mono implements basically the same thing but they can't call it .net directly.
'No. That's untrue. If you call your apps "java programs", you get sued for trademark infringement.'
Perhaps you should call them "Programs that run on the Java platform" :)
Looks like the doctor is losing his charm. Nothing like those glorious days when he would get more than 100 comments on each post. I guess people are tired of the crap he is spewing!!
Watch out Sharikou--AMD is keeping a close eye on you. If the situation continues, your next paycheck will be significantly lower...
Perhaps you should call them "Programs that run on the Java platform"
SUN folks are quite smart. They defined this language, inviting people to adopt it, but if you say the name of the language, you infringe trademarks, and are liable for treble damages.
Imagine at the end, if things go as SUN folks planned, everyone uses Java, but they can't use the Java word. It's like everyone in US speaks English, but English is a trademark can owned by Osama. Then every American would have to pay money to Osama. For indstance, a school can't teach English without a English trademark license.
"Imagine at the end, if things go as SUN folks planned, everyone uses Java, but they can't use the Java word."
Sharikou, would you please stop this nonsense? Everyone can use the Java word by fair use. While you can't put Java as part of your product's name, you can legally describe your program as "Java compliance" and note its trademark.
There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with it. Your example of English is bad because nobody alone invents English; natural languages are defined by all of their users. OTOH, programming languages like Perl and Java (Python, C#/.Net, among others) do have trademark ownerships, and your bashing on SUN alone is clearly out of some very biased attitude.
In the world of operating system, both Windows and Linux are trademarked. Yet you can still safely say "my program runs on Windows/Linux" and note the respective trademarks. Of course, analogous to YOUR "English" example, one could contend that if "America" was trademarked by Osama, then no American can say "I live/work in America" without infringing Osama's right. Does such argument make Windows/Linux trademark a evil thing? Does it make sense to you?
Windows and Linux are trademarked
Your example is invalid. Windows and Linux are products. Java is a language, which is a set of specifications. For instance, Microsoft has Visual C++, which is a product that supports C++ language. But C++ itself is not a product, it is a language. What SUN is doing is like trademarking "C++".
OTOH, it is perfectly fine to call your apps "Java programs"
No it's not! That's exactly (with reason) why they are sueing.
Some of you are getting confused. Sun does not prevent you from using the word Java. It is simply not allowing YOU to define a trademark with the Java word in it. And with good reason!
Sharikou, this is a bit hypocritical on your part because I remember YOU telling a certain someone (Sharikou180) to stop using your name in HIS name!! (And I believe you were right on this request!)
Nothing wrong with Sun protecting the integrity of the brand!
Your example is invalid. Windows and Linux are products. Java is a language, which is a set of specifications. For instance, Microsoft has Visual C++, which is a product that supports C++ language. But C++ itself is not a product, it is a language. What SUN is doing is like trademarking "C++".
I don't agree with your view!
Java is a programming language, but it is still a product!
Windows/Linux are OS's, and they are also products.
The word 'Java' is a trademark and the API is copyrighted.
Just like 'C++' is (I assume) trademarked and the API is also assumably copyrighted.
Visual C++ is a product which has licensed the API and trademark, so why wouldn't they market it as such.
There goes Intel again with its usual "the world doesn't need this new technology" statement when AMD comes out with new products to a press release highlighting its new products as thought they were the ones who invented it.
Which product is it this time? Well its the V8 (or also known as 4x4).
Get a life Intel! So how are these 2 quad processors going to communicate with each other? Through the FSB of course! How will these 8 cores access RAM? Through the FSB of course!
At least I'm glad that Intel is going this way! At least now we will have a product to compare to and put to shame!
Hey Sharikou, a little off topic and maybe old news, but its new to me and I'm excited!
I was at Walmart this weekend and ended up going into the electronics department. I saw 3 AMD laptops and 2 AMD PC's... and NO Intel products to be seen anywhere!!!
Is this new? Does Walmart have an exclusivity deal with AMD? Comments please!
"Your example is invalid. Windows and Linux are products. Java is a language, which is a set of specifications."
As a matter of fact, both Windows and Linux are sets of specifications, too. Even if you use a completely different implementation (of the same system calls API), you still can't call your OS Linux without infringing its trademark.
You also completely ignore the examples of Perl, Python, and .Net, all programming languages. ADA was a registered trademark before DoD released it; there are versions of Fortran and Cobol and LISP programming languages that are trademarks of their inventing companies. In fact, SUN's Java suites are as much a set of products as Visual Basic, AppleScript, or Matlab, all of which are registered trademarks and are also programming languages.
The fact that C/C++ are not trademarks is not because nobody wants to, but nobody can. I wonder what's your background agenda in holding such attitude against SUN?
As a matter of fact, both Windows and Linux are sets of specifications, too.
That's completely untrue. Linux is definitely not an interface definition, neither is Windows. Win32 is an interface definition, though.
Java is a programming language, but it is still a product!
SUN's implementation of Java programing language is a product, but Java language itself is not a product. A trademark is used to describe a distinctive product made by a producer. Java, when used as the name of a language, is not associated with SUN -- even though SUN designed the specification for that language. For instance, when one says "I wrote some Java code", the use of Java here has nothing to do with SUN's products, but merely indicating the code conforms to the grammar of Java language. SUN threatens people that they can't call their programs "Java applications", they must instead call their programs Java-based applications.
"OTOH, it is perfectly fine to call your apps "Java programs"
No it's not! That's exactly (with reason) why they are sueing."
You misunderstood me. When I said "call your apps" I didn't mean name your apps, but rather describe them. For example, ASF can describe Jakarta Tomcat as a Java web server, but it cannot name the web server by Java. Or IBM can describe Eclipse as a Java IDE, but it cannot use Java as part of the project's name.
The same goes with all programming languages that are registered trademarks, not just SUN's Java.
When I said "call your apps" I didn't mean name your apps, but rather describe them.
See this.
"
"As a matter of fact, both Windows and Linux are sets of specifications, too."
That's completely untrue. Linux is definitely not an interface definition, neither is Windows. Win32 is an interface definition, though.
"
Any software is a set of specifications. p.e.r.i.o.d.
Any software is a set of specifications. p.e.r.i.o.d.
You are confusing implementation and specification.
And you have ph. D confused with G.E.D. Congratulations.
"When I said "call your apps" I didn't mean name your apps, but rather describe them.
See this."
That's not infringement, it's "potential misuse". I doubt SUN would win a case if it went ahead to sue others claiming they write "Java programs".
OTOH, SUN is perfectly free to decide whether to renew a advantage partner application.
You are purposely mixing up different scenarios to make prejudise against SUN.
"
"Any software is a set of specifications. p.e.r.i.o.d."
You are confusing implementation and specification."
Any software implementation is also a set of specifications, which consists of a set of statements.
Any software implementation is also a set of specifications, which consists of a set of statements.
You are confusing yourself. In software, they are layers of abstraction. Java is a high level concept, you may call one particular implementation a specification, but that's at a lower level.
For instance, SUN designed Java as a language with certain grammar, then a group of coders start implementing it, with a spec for that particular implementation. However, that specification is the specification of that implementation only, and is not the specification of Java. Understand?
"You are confusing yourself. In software, they are layers of abstraction. Java is a high level concept, you may call one particular implementation a specification, but that's at a lower level."
You don't understand. On every layer, softwares are programs of statements, which are specifications that tell the hardware what to do. There is no clearer specs than a piece of codes - there is simply no ambiguity allowed.
Windows and Linux are also used by people to refer to the operating systems that define a set of interfaces not unlike Java. An OS implementation is a interpreter between compiled program and the computing hardware; a programming language implementation (i.e. compiler) is a interpreter between high-level statements and the machine codes. There is conceptually no difference between them.
The fact is, the Java programming language is a great invention and neat design from SUN, which will guard its trademark when there is possibility of confusion regarding this fact. For example, the statement
"Our Java software are freeware. If you use them and enjoy them, donations are a great way of saying thanks."
is ambiguous. What are the "them" it refers to? Java or Java software? What are the "Our Java software", are they different from SUN's Java? While SUN's complaint may not win a court, IMO it is perfectly reasonable for SUN to detest such ambiguous terming, which is precisely the what trademarks are for.
OTOH, if you say "this cool game is a Java program, and it is free," I doubt SUN would make any expression at you if not smiling.
And you are still ignoring the fact that most other programming languages are registered trademarks, too. Your bashing on SUN/Java trademark issue and SUN/Java alone is totally unfounded.
Our Java software are freeware
Can in fact be misleading! Sun is only protecting its investment!
SUN's implementation of Java programing language is a product, but Java language itself is not a product.
I 'think' your wrong!
If Sun would not have produced a compiler to its language, libraries, binaries, nor any tools! It could still have marketed, sold, licensed and serviced Java which can only mean that it is a product!
You really went far on this one! Most posters told you (and I agree) that your English language anology isn't a very good one, but you still went and put it on the main page?
Suppose you are a genius and [...] you won't be able to call that SuperJava, you may be able to call it DuperJ
If you call it [ANYTHING] Java, you are NOT a genius but a marketing idiot! Look, you have a product that uses the Java specifications, why not brand yourself properly! Believe me, if you make it that fast, EVERYONE will know about it and be buying it!!
For instance, GNU's Java implementation is caleld GCJ.
GNU's implementors are by far marketing geniuses! Let's asume that Sun called them up tomorrow and gave them an exclusive rights to use Java, I'd bet you that they would NOT use it! Why? Because linux people like insignificant short (assembly like) names! Since the 70's they've been naming their compilers (and most commands) with one, two or three letters! (gc, cc, gcc, g++, etc).
Without the Java name, few want to use it
Last I knew, it was total crap! Besides, last I heard about it it wasn't even a Java compiler, it was an object-code to native translator. Just like I'd never use a GNU Java compiler anyway because 'most' of these people think they are too smart and usually don't adhere to the Java specifications properly.
Thus, the so called open sourcing of Java seems to be only a way for SUN to exploit the work of the community for free.
That comment proves that you know nothing about working for the community! When a programmer spends a week of his own time on Java code there is a sense of pride, achievment and many, many other sentiments. It's not all for nothing, because most licenses say that Sun now owns the copyright, but cannot prevent others from using it either. So in the end, the community all wins.
You really went far on this one! Most posters told you (and I agree) that your English language anology isn't a very good one, but you still went and put it on the main page?
The English language and Java language are isomorphic. You don't have to have excuses for SUN. SUN tries to monopolize the Java market and SUN restricts people's freedom by using Java trademark as a tool, while at the same time painting itself as the greatest contributor for the open source community. You have to remember SUN opened Java only after failing to make money on it. Now, it's attempting to exploit the community for its own commercial benefit.
I don't have to refute many of the frivolous arguments made by others. Just ask a simple question: why does SUN prohibit people from using the Java name in product names while AT&T allowed everyone to use C++ in product names?
When a programmer spends a week of his own time on Java code there is a sense of pride, achievment and many, many other sentiments.
I once read some sad words about Larry Wall, the great Perl creator. He had to spend so much time on PERL and did not have enough income....
The open source community is being exploited by capitalists. Look at Red Hat, their founders rake in millions while open source coders are starving. SUN is just trying to take advantage of the same starving people..
Sharikou, Ph. D said...
I don't have to refute many of the frivolous arguments made by others. Just ask a simple question: why does SUN prohibit people from using the Java name in product names while AT&T allowed everyone to use C++ in product names?
The act of being over protective is a quickly dying behavior in the age of technology. With the advent of the internet, knowledge moves so quickly that attempting to limit it, even to protect it, will hinder adoption. We are no longer separated by distance and alternatives are plentiful. To succeed, your product must be quick, agile and have no limitations which would make someone look to the alternative.
Adoption is power. Without it you have nothing.
The act of being over protective is a quickly dying behavior in the age of technology.
I read a blog entry written by Jonatha Schwartz, he seemed to regret that SUN sued Microsoft and forced Microsoft to remove Java from Windows. Now, SUN is making an even more ridiculous mistake, open sourcing its Java implementation but hold tight on the Java name.
What I see is a struggle between two conflicting forces inside SUN. A progressive one led by visionary people and one reactionary force led by SUN's conservative factions, and you better SUN's legal department belongs to the latter. I predict that SUN will suffer dearly from being in a self-inconsistent state internally. You simply can't be self-contradictory and expect people to trust you.
As I pointed out long time ago, besides Solaris 10, SUN has nothing distinctive left. As PENIX correctly pointed out, in the information age, technology gets reinvented very quickly. Speed of adoption is everything. SUN's success solely depends on perception of the market. SUN needs to have a mature business image.
The open source community is being exploited by capitalists. Look at Red Hat, their founders rake in millions while open source coders are starving. SUN is just trying to take advantage of the same starving people..
I completely agree with that statement. As I have said before, and I repeat my statement: the open-source framework is flawed and does not work!
1. It's clear that companies such as Red Hat, MySQL and many others make big money. But yet they share so little to none with the 'community'. There should be a fund created 'The Open Fund' (TOF) which would be used for further development, marketing, protecting IP's (lawyers), education (books), and most importantly product SERVICE.
2. Authors of books, web sites which publish open-source content and subjects should contribute a small portion of revenues to the TOF also.
3. About 95% of all companies I've ever worked for that use open-source code, DO NOT submit fixes and enhancements back to the community. This is the disgusting and should be reinforced any way possible.
4. A non-profit institution should be established in order to redistribute the millions of dollars from the TOF back to the community based on a democratically established web-site voting system, etc.
5. A system should be established so that when your code/update/enhancement is used you somehow get paid (be it pennies) by the TOF. This would be hard to do, but doable.
6. All open-source projects are owned by the TOF, so when Red Hat buys JBoss for billions, THEY get the money! I really don't understand this deal? Where did the money go?
why does SUN prohibit people from using the Java name in product names while AT&T allowed everyone to use C++ in product names?
I'll ask you a question! What if you developed a co-processor for whatever purpose. Do you actually think that AMD would allow you to name it ANY of the following?
AMD CoChip
AMD SpeederUpper
Opteron Helper
Sharikou 4 Opteron
Athlon Enhancer
Athlon 2 Opteron Booster
AMD wouldn't allow it nor would any other company on the planet!!
Bah, I leave this blog forever. Fews or none at all interesting, cool arguments, only "death to Intel" or "death to SUN" and perhaps soon also "death to AMD" attacking too often, if not ever, with inconsistent or silly arguments the one in "misfortune" with the blogger.
Have a good time, goodbye!kntlab
I'll ask you a question! What if you developed a co-processor for whatever purpose. Do you actually think that AMD would allow you to name it ANY of the following?
Your analogy is not valid. Java is a language, as such, people use Java to describe their code and even their apps. There is no confusion there and no intent to ride on SUN's name.
Sharikou, stop disguising your prejudise against SUN/Java as arguments on open source vs. corporate. SUN opens the source of Java even while the latter is almost 100% its corporate property. This is only a good thing from the company. This however doesn't mean SUN has to release the Java trademark. Many other companies hold tight to the trademarks of the programming languages they "own" (sometimes much less than SUN owns Java). Yourself had tried to discourage others from using "Sharikou". Is "Sharikou" more a product than Java?
Your argument of SUN having nothing but Solaris is also self-conflicting. "Java" is certainly something SUN has, even being open-source (like MySQL is something mysql.com has). OTOH, if you think the "Java" trademark worths nothing, then nobody else should want to take advantage of it or confuse/play with it; then what's the big deal if SUN keeps the trademark to its own?
You have some very serious SUN/Java bashing mentality, and that translates to your FUD-spreading against these two entities lately. On one hand, you down-play the importance and significance of the Java programming language, despite thousands of successful (open source or not) projects with high quality and performance are now based on Java; on the other hand, you up-play the fear factor of SUN holding the Java trademark, despite numerous other popular programming languages also have their registered trademark holders.
On one hand, you say SUN doesn't care about the open source community even when opening the source of Java; on the other hand, you say that bcause SUN doesn't allow others to capitalize on the "Java" name. Just when was the "Java" name crucial to the open-source community? Have you ever visited Jakarta website and met the hundreds of thousands Java program developers? Do they care about whether their project names can contain "Java"? A "Java-based" description is good and enough for all pruposes there. Only those corporate basters you pretend to critisize (ironically by bashing SUN) would like SUN to release its rightfully holding Java trademark.
Your argument of SUN monopolizing Java is even more rediculous. Only SUN will sell products with "Java" in their names, because it holds the trademark. Yet anyone else can and will come up with successful competing products. Just look at Eclipse vs. Netbeans. Both of them are Java and Java-based IDEs. Besides, it is perfectly okay for another company to make a JVM/JDK that is 100% compatible with SUN's; can you imagine another company making an OS 100% compatible with Windows?
"Java is a language, as such, people use Java to describe their code and even their apps. There is no confusion there and no intent to ride on SUN's name."
Java is a language designed, maintained, and improved by SUN. People can use Java to describe their code and apps.
Jeach's example is totally valid. Another example is HyperTransport, which is a totally open standard now managed by a consortium. Tens if not hundreds of companies are using it to develop their next generation products. Yet AMD owns the HyperTransport trademark. Are you going to bash AMD because it won't allow others to market products with the "HyperTransport" name? Welcome!
Somehow I feel your SUN/Java bashing arguments are lamer than your "Intel BK" prediction. That latter at least might be possible (who knows), whereas the former is completely false.
Are you going to bash AMD because it won't allow others to market products with the "HyperTransport" name?
It did notice that Jonathan Schwartz wrote in his blog about SouJava without accusing trademark infringement. I think that's positive way of thinking. As for your question, I think it will be odd for someone to use Hypertransport in product name, it's too long. But if one develops a torrenza Java chip and want to call it HyperTransportJava, I think both AMD and SUN should be happy. There is no confusion here, and the name is merely descriptive of the functionality of the chip.
IMHO, a name for an open standard should not be trademarked. Otherwise, the owner of the trademark becomes a monopolist. SUN's legal people are definitely trying to do that.
You can always return to the AT&T's C++ and compare that to SUN's Java.
"You can always return to the AT&T's C++ and compare that to SUN's Java."
So in your mind the only programming language worth being used is C/C++ (and perhaps Pascal and Ada)? Because AFAIK, most other programming languages are also registered trademarks themselves.
You should also learn that Java and C/C++ are more complementary than competing.
Because AFAIK, most other programming languages are also registered trademarks themselves.
Had AT&T registered C++ as a trademark and prevent others from calling their implementation C++, I bet C++ would not be so popular today.
I wrote this for the good of SUN. They should really examine their strategy. IMHO, SUN has some very bright and visionary folks, but as in anywhere, most of their folks are not so bright.
"Had AT&T registered C++ as a trademark and prevent others from calling their implementation C++, I bet C++ would not be so popular today."
This is not convincing at all. Who would infringe the "C++" trademark anyway? Have you seen any product marketed by the name "C++", now that the term is wonderfully trademark-free? OTOH, it is perfectly legal to say a program is "written in C++" even if the term is a registered trademark.
The fact is C++ becomes popular not because it's trademark-free, but because it requires no license fee. Same as Java (though via different legal approaches).
Again, Java is more than a programming language; it is also an SDK and a RT/VM. It is best for SUN to make sure the clean meaning of Java than to invent different names for each that confuse everybody.
Who would infringe the "C++" trademark anyway? Have you seen any product marketed by the name "C++"
Visual C++, C++ Builder, Digital Mars C++, Open Watcom C++, Turbo C++, MinGW C++, Intel C++...
Visual C++, C++ Builder, Digital Mars C++, Open Watcom C++, Turbo C++, MinGW C++, Intel C++...
Note that Microsoft had to call its product Visual J++, instead of Visual Java. IBM's compiler is called Jikes. GNU's compiler is called GCJ.
"Visual C++, C++ Builder, Digital Mars C++, Open Watcom C++, Turbo C++, MinGW C++, Intel C++..."
This is yet another lamest argument I see so far. All you listed are compilers. That's about one single market. What about the millions programs written in C++? Do they have C++ in their names? Do they need to?
Fine, C++ compiler makers do not need to worry about putting C++ into their product names. What's a big deal? Do you really think JRockit or Blackdown would be more successful if they could put "Java" into their product names? They can still rightfully call their products VM/SDK/library for Java, though. Isn't that proper and clear enough to you?
Microsoft cannot call their JVM/JDK Java, not only because SUN has the Java trademark, but because Microsoft doesn't comply to the Java standards. Microsoft was trying to hijack Java using its monopoly on OS. Had there been no trademark protection for Java, Microsoft would've succeeded. Is that your hidden agenda in this series FUD against SUN/Java?
"Note that Microsoft had to call its product Visual J++, instead of Visual Java. IBM's compiler is called Jikes. GNU's compiler is called GCJ."
And the most popular C++ compiler in the open source, gcc/g++, community has C++ in it? Or does IBM's VisualAge for Java, a Java development tool/environment that does have the term "Java" in it, is more popular than any others?
The Java trademark has almost no effect on Java's popularity, while only protects Java's integrity. I'm waiting for you to admit wrong and stop your FUD-ing.
Note that Microsoft had to call its product Visual J++, instead of Visual Java. IBM's compiler is called Jikes. GNU's compiler is called GCJ.
Even if Microsoft had the choice, they would never use the word Java in its .Net platform.
If I was to summarize this blog, it almost sounds as though you firmly believe that if a product is NOT marketed with the word Java in it, it is doomed for failure.
And given such failure of all Java projects, Sun is thus selfish and abusive of its own technology!
But, to summarize MY opinion...
I completely disagree with you! A Java product should be uniquely marketed... if it is a good product, it WILL SUCCEED and so will Java alongside!!
Microsoft cannot call their JVM/JDK Java, not only because SUN has the Java trademark, but because Microsoft doesn't comply to the Java standards.
The only standards Microsoft allegedly broke is the JNI. But, how many people are writing JNI code?
Even Jonathan Schwartz admitted SUN's mistake:
"But the Java platform itself was never listed in that lineup - because its license was more restrictive, designed to enforce community compatibility above individual freedom. (Our motives were pure, but we'd been burned in the past.)"
"The only standards Microsoft allegedly broke is the JNI. But, how many people are writing JNI code?"
I take from your simple response above that you admitted you were wrong (about SUN/Java) and are trying to shift the focus of discussion (again).
As for your comments above, you should better know that had Microsoft had its way, many if not most Windows-Java developers would be using a JNI version now that's incompatible with JVM on other platform.
SUN was burned because Microsoft decided to burn it, and Microsoft could because it held the monopoly in x86 operating system.
As for your comments above, you should better know that had Microsoft had its way, many if not most Windows-Java developers would be using a JNI version now that's incompatible with JVM on other platform.
The question is why can't we use a Windows enhanced Java if it's fast and good. Even SUN has given up fighting Microsoft. The attempt to kill Microsoft died with Judge Jackson's not so perfect conduct.
Many of us have the perception that Microsoft is evil and SUN is against Microsoft the evil, and then reach the logically invalid conclusion that SUN is a pure heart good guy. Not true. Stalin was against Hitler, but that doesn't make Stalin a saint. We have to understand SUN is just a commercial entity trying to max its profits by all means neccessary. SUN only openned Java after failing to monetize it, and SUN is still holding tight to the Java name, in an attempt to exploit starving open source coders for free.
"The question is why can't we use a Windows enhanced Java if it's fast and good. Even SUN has given up fighting Microsoft. The attempt to kill Microsoft died with Judge Jackson's not so perfect conduct."
Why? You ask why? Because it's against Java's philosophy of universal runnability. If you so want to use some "Windows-enhanced" version of stuff, use ASP (or later .Net) instead. Don't pollute Java and its vision of write once run everywhere, whether you like it or not.
And when you do so, note that the Microsoftian "innovation" on WWW died when IE killed off Netscape, until recently challenged again by Firefox. There are very good reasons for us NOT to want Microsoft domination, on its crappy operating system, on its self-incompatible office suites, and on its Windows-specific programming languages.
Post a Comment
<< Home