3 ms·

Today, Google is using the Oracle-approved form. They already switched Android from Harmony to OpenJDK in a previous release. Since then, this suit has been a

Today, Google is using the Oracle-approved form. They already switched Android from Harmony to OpenJDK in a previous release. Since then, this suit has been about (a) deciding whether Google is guilty of wrongdoing in the past, and (b) what the extent of the damages should be for that historical wrongdoing should be, if any. The outcome here doesn't really have any impact on the future of Android (except if Google wanted to factor the suit into their decisionmaking for their own reasons).

kodablah 9y ago
> The outcome here doesn't really have any impact on the future of Android While most of your point is true, I disagree with this part. Using lawyers to tackle companies that succeed with only parts of your technology may send a chilling effect towards future uses. Also, knowing that you are not allowed to partake certain independent directions in the stack you choose for your devices is a legitimate reason to fear the continued use of that stack. Some are OK to them (e.g. conforming to the GPL on Linux) and some may not be (e.g. not being able to write portions of the stdlib without dealing w/ OpenJDK stewardship). I don't think these are their own reasons as much as they would be the reasons used by anyone who fears technologies stewarded by litigious outfits.
- carussell 9y ago
  So you cut my comment off right at the part where I've pre-emptively addressed your entire criticism, and then you write out a paragraph detailing this criticism anyway because your position is contained squarely within the very part of my comment that you chose to leave out?
  - kodablah 9y ago
    > (except if Google wanted to factor the suit into their decisionmaking for their own reasons) > I don't think these are their own reasons as much as they would be the reasons used by anyone who fears technologies stewarded by litigious outfits.
    - carussell 9y ago
      You don't get to define "for their own reasons" to mean something else just so that you have a something to argue about. Doing something for one's "own reasons" means that the decision is theirs to make, in contrast to being legally compelled to act in a certain way. It doesn't mean acting in a way that nobody else would, nor acting in a way that nobody else would agree with.
      - kodablah 9y ago
        Ah, I took "doesn't really have any impact" as "doesn't really have any practical impact" instead of "doesn't have any legal impact". I thought you were making a point about it being Google's personal reasons they might justify moving on as opposed to reasonable ones based on precedence of the decision.

kodablah 9y ago

> The outcome here doesn't really have any impact on the future of Android While most of your point is true, I disagree with this part. Using lawyers to tackle companies that succeed with only parts of your technology may send a chilling effect towards future uses. Also, knowing that you are not allowed to partake certain independent directions in the stack you choose for your devices is a legitimate reason to fear the continued use of that stack. Some are OK to them (e.g. conforming to the GPL on Linux) and some may not be (e.g. not being able to write portions of the stdlib without dealing w/ OpenJDK stewardship). I don't think these are their own reasons as much as they would be the reasons used by anyone who fears technologies stewarded by litigious outfits.

carussell 9y ago
So you cut my comment off right at the part where I've pre-emptively addressed your entire criticism, and then you write out a paragraph detailing this criticism anyway because your position is contained squarely within the very part of my comment that you chose to leave out?
- kodablah 9y ago
  > (except if Google wanted to factor the suit into their decisionmaking for their own reasons) > I don't think these are their own reasons as much as they would be the reasons used by anyone who fears technologies stewarded by litigious outfits.
  - carussell 9y ago
    You don't get to define "for their own reasons" to mean something else just so that you have a something to argue about. Doing something for one's "own reasons" means that the decision is theirs to make, in contrast to being legally compelled to act in a certain way. It doesn't mean acting in a way that nobody else would, nor acting in a way that nobody else would agree with.
    - kodablah 9y ago
      Ah, I took "doesn't really have any impact" as "doesn't really have any practical impact" instead of "doesn't have any legal impact". I thought you were making a point about it being Google's personal reasons they might justify moving on as opposed to reasonable ones based on precedence of the decision.