3 ms·

There's a lot more going on here than just implementing an interface. If Google had just used OpenJDK, there wouldn't have been a problem. I fail to see how wha

There's a lot more going on here than just implementing an interface. If Google had just used OpenJDK, there wouldn't have been a problem. I fail to see how what they were doing is any different from what Microsoft tried to pull with Visual J++.

wtallis 7y ago
> I fail to see how what they were doing is any different from what Microsoft tried to pull with Visual J++. That's because you're repeatedly failing to see the distinction between trademark law and copyright law. The Visual J++ lawsuit that was settled was a trademark infringement suit, because the Java trademarks are what Sun had locked behind license terms mandating compliance to their compatibility test suite. Google was more studious about avoiding use of Sun trademarks in Android, and chose to not seek a license for those trademarks. Now they're being sued over copyrights, not trademarks.
- papyruskaleido 7y ago
  I'm not failing to see any distinction. They were sued over a bunch of things. Copyright is what stuck. Lawyers are going to use every tool in their belt. And since there's a lot around software licensing, copyright, and fair use that haven't been established by case law because no one really wants to find the limits of it, now the lawyers get to duke it out. At the end of the day, Google wanted to use Java and not really be compatible with Java, so they tried to skirt around it and got called out for it. This was evident by pages they had that stilled referred to it as Java and by passages of code taken in whole. So, yes, I'll contend that Google tried to get away with something and hoped they were big enough to come out of it unscathed. It's not like this was unforeseen. And it's not like Sun or Oracle has sued any compliant Java implementations. They could have just used OpenJDK, but didn't want to play by those rules either. If you don't like how this is shaping up in the courts, it's fair to say that it could have all been avoided by Google being a better actor.
  - wtetzner 7y ago
    I think you're missing the bigger picture. I personally don't care if Google is punished or not. But I don't want Google's punishment to come in a form that will break the entire software industry.
    - papyruskaleido 7y ago
      I agree, it sucks. All I was saying is I think Google is also at fault for setting the stage for this. It looks like their gambit was litigation would be cheaper than licensing and now we all get to deal with the blowback from that.
  - monocasa 7y ago
    > They could have just used OpenJDK OpenJDK didn't exist at the time. And the only reason that Harmony (the base used in Android) isn't compliant is that Sun changed the terms of the TCK in a way that was in conflict with open implementations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Harmony#Difficulties_to_obtain_a_TCK_license_from_Sun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Harmony#Difficulties_to...

wtallis 7y ago

> I fail to see how what they were doing is any different from what Microsoft tried to pull with Visual J++. That's because you're repeatedly failing to see the distinction between trademark law and copyright law. The Visual J++ lawsuit that was settled was a trademark infringement suit, because the Java trademarks are what Sun had locked behind license terms mandating compliance to their compatibility test suite. Google was more studious about avoiding use of Sun trademarks in Android, and chose to not seek a license for those trademarks. Now they're being sued over copyrights, not trademarks.

papyruskaleido 7y ago
I'm not failing to see any distinction. They were sued over a bunch of things. Copyright is what stuck. Lawyers are going to use every tool in their belt. And since there's a lot around software licensing, copyright, and fair use that haven't been established by case law because no one really wants to find the limits of it, now the lawyers get to duke it out. At the end of the day, Google wanted to use Java and not really be compatible with Java, so they tried to skirt around it and got called out for it. This was evident by pages they had that stilled referred to it as Java and by passages of code taken in whole. So, yes, I'll contend that Google tried to get away with something and hoped they were big enough to come out of it unscathed. It's not like this was unforeseen. And it's not like Sun or Oracle has sued any compliant Java implementations. They could have just used OpenJDK, but didn't want to play by those rules either. If you don't like how this is shaping up in the courts, it's fair to say that it could have all been avoided by Google being a better actor.
- wtetzner 7y ago
  I think you're missing the bigger picture. I personally don't care if Google is punished or not. But I don't want Google's punishment to come in a form that will break the entire software industry.
  - papyruskaleido 7y ago
    I agree, it sucks. All I was saying is I think Google is also at fault for setting the stage for this. It looks like their gambit was litigation would be cheaper than licensing and now we all get to deal with the blowback from that.
- monocasa 7y ago
  > They could have just used OpenJDK OpenJDK didn't exist at the time. And the only reason that Harmony (the base used in Android) isn't compliant is that Sun changed the terms of the TCK in a way that was in conflict with open implementations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Harmony#Difficulties_to_obtain_a_TCK_license_from_Sun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Harmony#Difficulties_to...