4 ms·

Many of the quotes in the article suggest that the Sun people really thought that there current system was a credible solution for the mobile space. Anyone who

by ender7 14y ago

Many of the quotes in the article suggest that the Sun people really thought that there current system was a credible solution for the mobile space. Anyone who has ever used Java on mobile is going to have a hard time swallowing that one. If their argument boils down to "well, they should have agreed to make their system just as shitty as the rest of our systems so that they could be crappily compatible" then it's not hard to see why Google went a different direction.

shareme 14y ago
its been done before how do you think Nokia became industry leader? Ask Ericsson how screwed up Symbian became just so Nokia could manipulate its 'lead'.. This about Oracle seeing its JavaME license money going bye bye.. But the icing is that the Copyright case may give us what Apache org wanted Java finally open soured free and clear via Oracle miss-judging copyrights and IP law.
jimmyvanhalen 14y ago
But with his closing argument, Google counsel Robert Van Nest insisted that the search giant was well within its rights in building its own version of Java, claiming “fair use” of Oracle’s copyrights. Google's defense is incredibly weak. relying mostly on fair use. the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
- felipeko 14y ago
  Google's best defense is that API can't be copyrighted actually, and that will be decided by the judge if the jury find Google's work is not fair use.
  - jimmyvanhalen 14y ago
    jury told by Judge to assume APIs are copyrightable. Since that order emphasizes the importance of the APIs, it probably weighs in Oracle's favor. We'll find out for sure in a few days. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/04/oracle-president-testifies-jury-told-to-assume-apis-are-copyrightable.ars?clicked=related_right http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/04/oracle-presi...
    - magicalist 14y ago
      From the article: > There is one thing the jury won't know: the issue of whether APIs can be copyrighted at all is actually up in the air. It's a legal gray area that will be decided by Judge William Alsup—but only after the jury gives its verdict in this case. (When that happens, even a jury verdict in Oracle's favor could be a hollow one.) which is exactly what felipeko was referring to.
      - chimeracoder 14y ago
        That is awful. Honestly, the idea of APIs, and not their implementation, being copyrighted makes no sense to me, since it goes against the fundamental principle behind copyright law (versus patent law). If a juror genuinely believes that the idea of copyrighting APIs and extending that copyright to alternate implementations makes no sense, how can they come up with a decision that's anything but arbitrary? That's like me saying, 'Assume that 1 * 5 = 0, and then decide if if the satisfiability problem can be solved in linear time'. If you give me a nonsensical set of assumptions, how can I come up with an answer that's not also nonsensical? If you give me some messed up numerical system like that one, well sure, maybe those definitions would propagate though to the definition of polynomial complexity as well. But what does that mean for the real world? Nothing - and law is meant to be applied, not some abstract theoretical exercise.
      - jimmyvanhalen 14y ago
        Which I agreed with. That's why I said "We'll find out for sure in a few days." I just posted this to highlight the fact that things are in Oracle's favor. jury told by Judge to assume APIs are copyrightable. Since that order emphasizes the importance of the APIs, it probably weighs in Oracle's favor.
mavelikara 14y ago
If that is the case, designing a C-family language and then trying to evangelize it with the developer crowd was the legally available direction.
- chimeracoder 14y ago
  Except that you can't copyright a language specification - just the implementation of it. And even if you could, copyright law wouldn't prevent you from re-implementing it! I mean, look at it this way - GNU is almost completely compatible with Unix, but it was rebuilt from the ground up. Even if AT&T hadn't given out the license for free, you'd have a hard time convincing me that GNU breaks some sort of copyright - the entire damn codebase was rewritten from the ground up. The design of the operating system may be the same, but copyrighting that is as ridiculous as patenting a geometric shape.
  - Produce 14y ago
    I'm counting 34 circles in your comment. License them or lawyer up, freeloader.

by ender7 14y ago

shareme 14y ago

its been done before how do you think Nokia became industry leader? Ask Ericsson how screwed up Symbian became just so Nokia could manipulate its 'lead'.. This about Oracle seeing its JavaME license money going bye bye.. But the icing is that the Copyright case may give us what Apache org wanted Java finally open soured free and clear via Oracle miss-judging copyrights and IP law.

jimmyvanhalen 14y ago

But with his closing argument, Google counsel Robert Van Nest insisted that the search giant was well within its rights in building its own version of Java, claiming “fair use” of Oracle’s copyrights. Google's defense is incredibly weak. relying mostly on fair use. the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

felipeko 14y ago
Google's best defense is that API can't be copyrighted actually, and that will be decided by the judge if the jury find Google's work is not fair use.
- jimmyvanhalen 14y ago
  jury told by Judge to assume APIs are copyrightable. Since that order emphasizes the importance of the APIs, it probably weighs in Oracle's favor. We'll find out for sure in a few days. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/04/oracle-president-testifies-jury-told-to-assume-apis-are-copyrightable.ars?clicked=related_right http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/04/oracle-presi...
  - magicalist 14y ago
    From the article: > There is one thing the jury won't know: the issue of whether APIs can be copyrighted at all is actually up in the air. It's a legal gray area that will be decided by Judge William Alsup—but only after the jury gives its verdict in this case. (When that happens, even a jury verdict in Oracle's favor could be a hollow one.) which is exactly what felipeko was referring to.
    - chimeracoder 14y ago
      That is awful. Honestly, the idea of APIs, and not their implementation, being copyrighted makes no sense to me, since it goes against the fundamental principle behind copyright law (versus patent law). If a juror genuinely believes that the idea of copyrighting APIs and extending that copyright to alternate implementations makes no sense, how can they come up with a decision that's anything but arbitrary? That's like me saying, 'Assume that 1 * 5 = 0, and then decide if if the satisfiability problem can be solved in linear time'. If you give me a nonsensical set of assumptions, how can I come up with an answer that's not also nonsensical? If you give me some messed up numerical system like that one, well sure, maybe those definitions would propagate though to the definition of polynomial complexity as well. But what does that mean for the real world? Nothing - and law is meant to be applied, not some abstract theoretical exercise.
    - jimmyvanhalen 14y ago
      Which I agreed with. That's why I said "We'll find out for sure in a few days." I just posted this to highlight the fact that things are in Oracle's favor. jury told by Judge to assume APIs are copyrightable. Since that order emphasizes the importance of the APIs, it probably weighs in Oracle's favor.

mavelikara 14y ago

If that is the case, designing a C-family language and then trying to evangelize it with the developer crowd was the legally available direction.

chimeracoder 14y ago
Except that you can't copyright a language specification - just the implementation of it. And even if you could, copyright law wouldn't prevent you from re-implementing it! I mean, look at it this way - GNU is almost completely compatible with Unix, but it was rebuilt from the ground up. Even if AT&T hadn't given out the license for free, you'd have a hard time convincing me that GNU breaks some sort of copyright - the entire damn codebase was rewritten from the ground up. The design of the operating system may be the same, but copyrighting that is as ridiculous as patenting a geometric shape.
- Produce 14y ago
  I'm counting 34 circles in your comment. License them or lawyer up, freeloader.