|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 10:21 AM EDT |
Is it the case that Sun bet the farm on it being of
overarching value to be certified compatible, and that would
ensure the licensing options for the TCK were taken.
Oracle seem to find themselves in a position where Google
have no interest or ability for Android to be certified
compatible, and hence have no incentive to get a license.
They use the free constructs provided by Java to create
something different, but related enough to drive Oracle
insane trying to get some of the money. Frankly Java ME was
shown to be a resounding failure.
I can't see that Oracle have anything that Google want, or
any leverage over them (other than they could cut short this
farce of a trial and stop wasting time.
-Not a lawyer, but not (necessarily) stupid.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jvillain on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 12:26 PM EDT |
This ruling seems to have come a little early in the trial and may have the
judge back tracking or modifying down the road once other facts are presented in
court. I think this feels more painful now that it will down the road.
It will be hard to square having Swartz, when he was at Sun, saying Harmony was
good to go with this ruling. That is if that clip is placed into evidence. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 04:53 PM EDT |
>> If those [clean room] implementations demonstrate compatibility with
the Java specification, then Sun would provide a license for any of its
intellectual property needed to practice the specification, <<
If they are not compatible then Sun would not provide a license.
Is a license from Sun necessary? I can't find an answer in Sun's
documents. Most people here, and Google and Harmony, seem
to think no, or at least there is an implicit license in the "free"
status of the Java language, and some unspecified number of APIs .
I think that question is one of the reasons for this court case.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|