3 ms·
Almost certainly IBM was a major contributor to the SQL standard. Since the entire point of a "standard" is to encourage third-party adoption, so it would rathe
by flomo 7y ago
Almost certainly IBM was a major contributor to the SQL standard. Since the entire point of a "standard" is to encourage third-party adoption, so it would rather difficult to sue anyone, imo.
Sun set up a certification process for Java, but specifically had different rules for mobile applications, because that's where they were trying to make money. Not that I agree with Oracle's argument, but it was very willful on Google's part to avoid licensing.
tldr; SQL is not analogous to Android.
- gpm 7y agoI'm not sure, but as far as I know there isn't any way to accidentally grant a license to copyrighted material. Even if there is it is almost certainly all sorts of things that everyone but IBM really won't like, for instance, revokable. And of course no one thought to ask for a real license, because no one thought it was copyrightable. Willful on Google's part to avoid licensing is sort of synonyms with saying Google willfully complied with the law... I'm not sure how it's relevant.
- flomo 7y agoIt is the most relevant thing when judges started disagreeing with Google's take on the law. Sun wanted money for X, Google didn't want to pay for X. (And IBM didn't want money for SQL.)
- gpm 7y agoThe only thing it could possibly be relevant for is if Google tried to argue that they accidentally copied the sequence structure and organization of the API. No one is arguing that. Of course that was intentional. It definitely isn't relevant to the rest of this discussion... you're comparing the attitude of the producer of the allegedly copyrighted material in one case to the attitude of the infringer of the allegedly existing copyright in another.
- flomo 7y agoWell, Google is probably going to have to pay Oracle a lot of money, so I guess you can wander around mumbling about relevancy, despite whatever facts are noted by the courts.