Java - yet another computing trap?
OneFlewOverTheCuckoosNest
lets you develop portable software. But 2 companies - Marimba and Novadigm
seem to have patented the delivery of Java content over the Net. The patents
have been awarded for pretty much all aspects of client - server computing
using Java. So, are we getting into another Microsoft-style stranglehold on
software built with Java? Whereas we cried foul at Microsoft for charging PC
makers for Windows even though they did not install it, why are we
promoting Java when some friends of Javasoft seem to have patented the
delivery of Java software through networks? Now that Marimba is bent on
enforcing its pan-Java-computing patent, do we have to beef up Marimba's
coffers with royalty whenever we need to distribute any Java software?
One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest
jakdaemon
> All this time we have been told that Java is the great open platform that
> lets you develop portable software. But 2 companies - Marimba and Novadigm
> seem to have patented the delivery of Java content over the Net. The patents
can you post some references for the uninformed?
--
jakdaemon << console jockey
vjosu...@hotmail.com
"OneFlewOverTheCuckoosNest" <OneFlewOverT...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> All this time we have been told that Java is the great open
I don't know if you've noticed but the Java language is owned lock,
stock and barrel by Sun. It is in no way an 'open' platform since only
Sun an make changes to the language. They even recently booted out the
pretence of giving the language an independent ISO standardization as
soon as they discovered that they couldn't control ISO. Sun's
ownership and control of Java is no different to Microsoft's control of
Visual Basic in that respect.
VOS.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Tony Dahlman
millions influencing ISO. The rules changed in ways that
Sun could no longer live with.
Hmm... Money talks, doesn't it?
Chris Kelly
>When it looked like Sun would go with ISO Microsoft spent
>millions influencing ISO. The rules changed in ways that
>Sun could no longer live with.
Exactly what was the change?
Dave
standardization method they were going with (a rapid method, unfortunately
it is late and I am at a loss for acronyms) included allowing Sun to retain
control of the language specification, mostly because the specification and
core APIs are still growing and changing, so allowing them to retain control
while the standard is going through the processes will accelerate things and
also allow it to mature (and have the matured product be the final
standard). Basically, Sun claims that Microsoft influenced the ISO to change
the rules so that Sun would lose control of the language as soon as the
standardization period started. Many ISO people claim Sun is on crack, that
there was no such conspiracy and they were completely out of line.
Sun is actually still trying to get it standardized, but now through a
different group, not ISO. I can't remember the group's name however.
I think if you search news.com you'll find it pretty quickly.
-Dave
Chris Kelly <ilp...@innocent.com> wrote in message
news:37a916e8...@nntp.best.com...
vjosu...@hotmail.com
ilp...@innocent.com (Chris Kelly) wrote:
> Tony Dahlman <adahlman-d...@jps.net> wrote:
> >When it looked like Sun would go with ISO Microsoft spent
> >millions influencing ISO. The rules changed in ways that
> >Sun could no longer live with.
>
> Exactly what was the change?
>
simply Sun's spin on the situation and a smokescreen for their own
activities.
What actually happened was that ISO was already fed up with not being
able to get the documents and assurances it wanted from Sun. The final
straw was when Sun refused to allow ISO to approve/refuse changes to
the language unless authorised first by Sun. ISO decided, quite
reasonably, that if Sun's only use for ISO was to rubberstamp Sun's
decisions then it had no business being involved with the language.