3 ms·

Your comment isn't coherent, but I think you're asking, "What fair-use defense is Google asserting?" One approach is for Google to say, "Developers expect a re

Your comment isn't coherent, but I think you're asking, "What fair-use defense is Google asserting?" One approach is for Google to say, "Developers expect a reasonable platform that they are familiar with. To give them that, we had to use Java (or C# or similar)." In other words, it is an interoperability defense, but for compatibility with developers, not devices or software.

willtim 10y ago
IMHO such an argument from Google seems weak. Developers were more than happy to learn a new technology when the iPhone and Cocoa/ObjectiveC came along. And now these same developers all seem really keen on moving to Swift, a whole new programming language, because it offers compelling improvements.
- lmm 10y ago
  Some developers were willing to rush to the iPhone and Swift. Many weren't.
  - willtim 10y ago
    Well there are more than some iPhone apps, there are many high quality apps. So those unwilling to learn a new language weren't needed after all. Learning the Android API will also be just as hard, probably harder, as learning another curly brace dialect. I wouldn't be surprised if Google replaces Java with Dart at some point anyway.
sandGorgon 10y ago
you're finding it incoherent, because your reasoning (though interesting) is fundamentally untrue. The only reason Google went with creating its own implementation was that ARM, Samsung, etc would not have worked with the licensing of Sun Java. This is fairly well documented and actually came out during document discovery. Today Android has so much market dominance that it can basically whip everyone into submission. What I'm essentially saying is that at this point, it has already become much harder for something like a Wine for OSX to be created. Because developers will have to prove "fair use" in court... which is a huge huge intimidation stick. If Google and Android are finding it hard to prove fair-use defense - how easy it going to be for the rest of us. Thought experiment - what would be Wine's fair-use defense ?
- ktRolster 10y ago
  What I'm essentially saying is that at this point, it has already become much harder for something like a Wine for OSX to be created. Because developers will have to prove "fair use" in court You're wrong, that hasn't change at all as a result of Google vs Oracle. Thought experiment - what would be Wine's fair-use defense ? Interoperability, see for example Sony v. Connectix
  - farcical_tinpot 10y ago
    No, there is no exception here. Oracle is extremely desperate to create some distinction between its disagreement with Google and 'fair use' for everything i.e. those who it isn't suing.....yet. There is absolutely no difference between what Google is doing and what happens in the software industry every other day of the week. Using an API for interoperability and to reuse code developers have written backed by their own implementation. The thing is so laughable because the only reason you use an API...is to interoperate. Oracle knew fine well what can of worms it was opening here when it came up with the notion that everything else would be fine with 'fair use', but the definition of 'fair use' has to be defined - and thus far it hasn't. It exists only in the minds of Oracle's lawyers who know zip about software. Every legal troll in existence will crawl out of the woodwork on this one. No, Sony vs Connectix tells us nothing here, which shows just how clueless you are. This was all done and dusted in the 90s with DR DOS amongst other things.
- lmm 10y ago
  > Thought experiment - what would be Wine's fair-use defense ? Huh? Wine exists solely for interoperability, the defense is "I have this lawfully obtained program and I want to run it on my OS". Which doesn't and can't apply to Android, because Android won't even run standard Java programs.
  - sandGorgon 10y ago
    so why cant a defense "Oracle Java sucked on ARM... we built something better to help developers" work ? Does this mean that you can port.. but not improve ? My point is that the defense is very nuanced ....

willtim 10y ago

IMHO such an argument from Google seems weak. Developers were more than happy to learn a new technology when the iPhone and Cocoa/ObjectiveC came along. And now these same developers all seem really keen on moving to Swift, a whole new programming language, because it offers compelling improvements.

lmm 10y ago
Some developers were willing to rush to the iPhone and Swift. Many weren't.
- willtim 10y ago
  Well there are more than some iPhone apps, there are many high quality apps. So those unwilling to learn a new language weren't needed after all. Learning the Android API will also be just as hard, probably harder, as learning another curly brace dialect. I wouldn't be surprised if Google replaces Java with Dart at some point anyway.

sandGorgon 10y ago

you're finding it incoherent, because your reasoning (though interesting) is fundamentally untrue. The only reason Google went with creating its own implementation was that ARM, Samsung, etc would not have worked with the licensing of Sun Java. This is fairly well documented and actually came out during document discovery. Today Android has so much market dominance that it can basically whip everyone into submission. What I'm essentially saying is that at this point, it has already become much harder for something like a Wine for OSX to be created. Because developers will have to prove "fair use" in court... which is a huge huge intimidation stick. If Google and Android are finding it hard to prove fair-use defense - how easy it going to be for the rest of us. Thought experiment - what would be Wine's fair-use defense ?

ktRolster 10y ago
What I'm essentially saying is that at this point, it has already become much harder for something like a Wine for OSX to be created. Because developers will have to prove "fair use" in court You're wrong, that hasn't change at all as a result of Google vs Oracle. Thought experiment - what would be Wine's fair-use defense ? Interoperability, see for example Sony v. Connectix
- farcical_tinpot 10y ago
  No, there is no exception here. Oracle is extremely desperate to create some distinction between its disagreement with Google and 'fair use' for everything i.e. those who it isn't suing.....yet. There is absolutely no difference between what Google is doing and what happens in the software industry every other day of the week. Using an API for interoperability and to reuse code developers have written backed by their own implementation. The thing is so laughable because the only reason you use an API...is to interoperate. Oracle knew fine well what can of worms it was opening here when it came up with the notion that everything else would be fine with 'fair use', but the definition of 'fair use' has to be defined - and thus far it hasn't. It exists only in the minds of Oracle's lawyers who know zip about software. Every legal troll in existence will crawl out of the woodwork on this one. No, Sony vs Connectix tells us nothing here, which shows just how clueless you are. This was all done and dusted in the 90s with DR DOS amongst other things.
lmm 10y ago
> Thought experiment - what would be Wine's fair-use defense ? Huh? Wine exists solely for interoperability, the defense is "I have this lawfully obtained program and I want to run it on my OS". Which doesn't and can't apply to Android, because Android won't even run standard Java programs.
- sandGorgon 10y ago
  so why cant a defense "Oracle Java sucked on ARM... we built something better to help developers" work ? Does this mean that you can port.. but not improve ? My point is that the defense is very nuanced ....