5 ms·

you're finding it incoherent, because your reasoning (though interesting) is fundamentally untrue. The only reason Google went with creating its own implementa

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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 ....
  - lmm 11y 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 ? There is a specific defense for interoperability. So yes, you might be able to use someone else's design for something like a hose connector or an electrical plug but not improve on it - if you're using their design to interoperate with their stuff. IANAL.
    - farcical_tinpot 11y ago
      There is a specific defense for interoperability. Which means absolutely nothing. So yes, you might be able to use someone else's design for something like a hose connector or an electrical plug but not improve on it - if you're using their design to interoperate with their stuff. Again, total nonsense. There are countless implementations of various development software out in the world right now that renders that load of extremely wishful thinking null and void. Like I've said elsewhere, lawyers might think they can package these cases up into nice, neat boxes but they can't.
      - icebraining 11y ago
        Nah, it's rather that you think they need to package them in neat boxes, but that's not how law works. Edge cases don't prevent rough rules from being made.

ktRolster 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 ....
- lmm 11y 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 ? There is a specific defense for interoperability. So yes, you might be able to use someone else's design for something like a hose connector or an electrical plug but not improve on it - if you're using their design to interoperate with their stuff. IANAL.
  - farcical_tinpot 11y ago
    There is a specific defense for interoperability. Which means absolutely nothing. So yes, you might be able to use someone else's design for something like a hose connector or an electrical plug but not improve on it - if you're using their design to interoperate with their stuff. Again, total nonsense. There are countless implementations of various development software out in the world right now that renders that load of extremely wishful thinking null and void. Like I've said elsewhere, lawyers might think they can package these cases up into nice, neat boxes but they can't.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      Nah, it's rather that you think they need to package them in neat boxes, but that's not how law works. Edge cases don't prevent rough rules from being made.