3 ms·

I keep seeing this as Oracle's defence, but it is neither here nor there. It doesn't make sense to you because you misunderstood the case, and the legal argume

I keep seeing this as Oracle's defence, but it is neither here nor there. It doesn't make sense to you because you misunderstood the case, and the legal argument. Oracle doesn't need to make a defense, it's already been ruled that Google is infringing. Now Google has a chance to offer a fair-use defense, and a reasonable fair-use defense is to say, "Google infringed for purposes of interoperability." If they could demonstrate that, then they would win the case. So when people say Android won't even run standard Java programs, they are giving evidence that Google's interoperability defense will not work in court.

farcical_tinpot 10y ago
It doesn't make sense to you because you misunderstood the case, and the legal argument. Nope, it's Oracle's lawyers making technology judgements they are out of their depth to make. Oracle doesn't need to make a defense, it's already been ruled that Google is infringing. ....and it will be shown to be nonsense and overturned, as it has been decades ago. You can't copyright or be defensive with APIs. If this is true there is no software industry, despite your desperate protestations that this is all about Google and Oracle and everyone else is fine. "Google infringed for purposes of interoperability." Ha, ha, ha. The problem is if this is true then the 'infringement' doesn't actually mean anything. It is up to Oracle to define why this infringes fair use, not the other way on I'm afraid. Why you use an API is very, very clear. So when people say Android won't even run standard Java programs, they are giving evidence that Google's interoperability defense will not work in court. Again, you keep repeating this crap. There are countless developer tools and compilers out there that implement subsets of APIs and build on them for code reuse and interoperability. What you compile won't necessarily be transferable between implementations. Your desperate wish for this not to be so will not make it so I'm afraid.

farcical_tinpot 10y ago

It doesn't make sense to you because you misunderstood the case, and the legal argument. Nope, it's Oracle's lawyers making technology judgements they are out of their depth to make. Oracle doesn't need to make a defense, it's already been ruled that Google is infringing. ....and it will be shown to be nonsense and overturned, as it has been decades ago. You can't copyright or be defensive with APIs. If this is true there is no software industry, despite your desperate protestations that this is all about Google and Oracle and everyone else is fine. "Google infringed for purposes of interoperability." Ha, ha, ha. The problem is if this is true then the 'infringement' doesn't actually mean anything. It is up to Oracle to define why this infringes fair use, not the other way on I'm afraid. Why you use an API is very, very clear. So when people say Android won't even run standard Java programs, they are giving evidence that Google's interoperability defense will not work in court. Again, you keep repeating this crap. There are countless developer tools and compilers out there that implement subsets of APIs and build on them for code reuse and interoperability. What you compile won't necessarily be transferable between implementations. Your desperate wish for this not to be so will not make it so I'm afraid.