3 ms·

> Google has to prove and convince the jury that they obtained a license or a legally binding agreement to use Java Their contention is that they don't need on

> Google has to prove and convince the jury that they obtained a license or a legally binding agreement to use Java Their contention is that they don't need one. Besides, they don't use Java- They use Dalvik and a JVM bytecode-to-Dalvik translator.

jimmyvanhalen 15y ago
>Their contention is that they don't need one. Besides, they don't use Java- They use Dalvik and a JVM bytecode-to-Dalvik translator. Google's lawyers are going to have a hard time convincing the jury. Check out Oracle's slides. http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/features/opening-slides-1592541.pdf http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/features/opening-slides-1... slide 90: What Google Said Before Lawsuit Jul 26, 2005: “Must take license from Sun” Oct 11, 2005: “We’ll pay Sun for the license and the TCK” “We are making Java central to our solution” Feb 10, 2006: “helping negotiate with my old team at Sun for a critical license” Mar 24, 2006: “Java.lang api’s are copyrighted” Sept 28, 2006: “Leverage Java for its existing base of developers” Nov 6, 2007: “Is Android Java compatible?...No.” Nov 17, 2007: “Scrub out a few more J’s” Mar 24, 2008: “Please don’t demonstrate to any sun employees or lawyers” Aug 5, 2009: “How aggressive do we scrub the J word?” Aug 6, 2010: “technical alternatives…to Java for Android…suck” “we need to negotiate a license for Java under the terms we need” Oct 13, 2011: “Android is hugely profitable”
- ajross 15y ago
  Juries decide on facts, though, not laws. They can determine whether or not Google thought a license was required, but it's the judge (or more likely an appellate court) who will decide whether it actually was.