Authored by: jvillain on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 04:53 PM EDT |
Who ever denied Google used Java to further their own ends? The question is did
they do it legally. If they did it is pretty hard to paint Larry Page as the
Sith Lord.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 04:55 PM EDT |
+1 [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 05:15 PM EDT |
What pretense that Google is a white knight are you talking about?
Of course Google is a business and is going to make whatever decisions are good
for their business. We like that some of those decisions also happen to be good
for everyone else (like their contributions to OSS).
Anyway, in this case, Oracle is clearly the Black Knight and Google is just King
Arthur trying to get past him. Oracle, even when their litigation strategy has
been mortally wounded, just refuses to give up.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: scav on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 05:36 PM EDT |
Google's intention was to use Java all along because they
did not
have a developer base. They couldn't bring Android
to market without
Java.
Note that everyone is allowed to use the Java language
freely and Sun were entirely happy for Google to do this.
I think
we can drop the pretense that Google is any white
knight. Google's a large
corporation like Oracle out to make
money. Period.
Can we also
drop the twin pretences that Oracle and Google
have an equally bad
relationship with the software
development community, and that you are trying
to assert a
disinterested position of neutrality?
Google couldn't
secure a proper license from Sun so they
went the backdoor route.
Aww, you say that like it's a bad thing ;) Google couldn't
secure a license to use the Java trademark and keep Android
as open as they
wanted it to be. So they chose not to
license the trademark, and instead did
something they didn't
need a license for: implemented an alternative. It is in
evidence that Sun said this was perfectly OK too.
It will
basically come down to: Did Google violate any
agreement,
Nope.
Breach of contract is not at issue in this litigation.
any IP that
Oracle owns? If there is some Java IP that is
not GPL'ed then Google
loses.
Nope. GPL is largely irrelevant. Google are not asserting a
defence of having a GPL license. They are asserting a bunch
of other defences
(such as estoppel) and non-infringement.
Attention to detail,
please.
If not, Google wins.
We'll see how Google
wins. It will be fun to watch.
But let it be clear, Google used
Java to further its own
ends.
As opposed to what? To the extent
that developers like
Google, it's not because they constantly make idiotic
decisions to stymie themselves! Unlike some companies I
could mention. But
they give back a lot, and to get a bigger
slice of pie, they are happy to grow
the pie for everyone
rather than trying to steal everyone else's piece.
If
I had to pick one adjective for Google, it would be
"smart". If I had to pick
one for Oracle it would be
"pernicious". Unless we're talking about their DB,
in which
case I'd take "clunky" or "overpriced".
--- The emperor,
undaunted by overwhelming evidence that he had no clothes, redoubled his siege
of Antarctica to extort tribute from the penguins. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 06:12 PM EDT |
But couldn't get what they wanted on workable terms, so they developed Android
instead.
Just like Apache did with Harmony.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 06:58 PM EDT |
And take your thousands of whole works and your compilation of journal items
that is not a compilation with you.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hardmath on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 07:08 PM EDT |
It's been pointed out that Apple was successful in attracting ObjectiveC
developers to the iOS platform. There was probably a degree of comfort there
because of Macintosh apps historically being developed in that language, but it
is definitely less well known than C++ or Java. So perhaps the critical mass of
app developers is not the tipping point we might think it is.
I think the testimony of Andy Rubin yesterday showed other languages were
considered (Python, Lua, Javascript), but Eric Schmidt testified that
"mobile carriers" were primary Java users in 2005. Rubin also
mentioned "carriers" as a target in yesterday's testimony.
So perhaps the difference between Apple's iPhone strategy and Google's Android
strategy was the fundamental marketing philosophy. Apple's margins on iPhone's
have been phenomenal, and for their early years they could and did demand a
premium from AT&T for exclusive carrier contracts. Google needed to attract
a critical mass of vendors/carriers who would invest in the Android platform and
penetrate the mass market.
Both strategies have been successful, much to the chagrin of M$ and Nokia.
---
"Prolog is an efficient programming language because it is a very stupid theorem
prover." -- Richard O'Keefe[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 07:17 PM EDT |
I see your point, but I don't entirely agree. If Sun had argued against Android
from the beginning it might be different. Intead Sun applauded Google for
developing Android and now Oracle is trying to ignore that.
Secondly, Oracle is trying to push the idea that APIs are copyrightable. I
think this is damaging to the industry as a whole.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 09:00 PM EDT |
Google (...) couldn't bring Android to market without Java.
Yes, as witness how Apple failed so miserably with the iPhone
because it didn't support Java. Poor Apple with their ObjectiveC. No byte code.
No WORA. No J2ME. No legacy enterprise applications. No one will ever buy an
iPhone and the carriers won't touch it with a barge pole. How could Apple have
been so foolish.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|