3 ms·
> code they stole from Oracle (which has caused them years of legal nonsense) Oracle wasn't accusing Google of using "stolen" code in Android. They were claimi
by Someone1234 8y ago
> code they stole from Oracle (which has caused them years of legal nonsense)
Oracle wasn't accusing Google of using "stolen" code in Android. They were claiming that Google's complete re-implementation of Oracle's Java APIs was a copyright violation.
The case itself will have long lasting impacts since it has established in US law that API interfaces themselves are a copyright/protected concept. That means that even complete clean room re-implementations or compatibility layers could be threatened.
The ruling is quite problematic, but there's nobody technically literate enough in congress or the courts to do anything to stop it.
- ocdtrekkie 8y agoIt's pretty off-topic to pick a fight about this here, the point that I've made, that their fight with Oracle could've best been avoided, stands reasonable regardless of your opinion on the details of the case.
- max76 8y agoI think Google legitimately believed nothing was wrong with their implementation of Java and that implementing a language with so many developers was a smart move.
- pjmlp 8y agoGosling stated otherwise on his interviews, and Rubin emails also prove they were trying to do something fishy. As it stands, Android has pulled a J++ and is a pain for any Java library writer, that now is forced to either write two versions or keep using a common subset.
- curt15 8y ago>it has established in US law that API interfaces themselves are a copyright/protected concept Only in the Federal Circuit, which adjudicates cases involving patent law. Copyright cases are typically decided by the other courts of appeal, and there is precedent in those courts (like Lotus v Borland) against the copyrightability of interfaces.