decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
4. Could Google have... | 451 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
On what basis?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 10:07 PM EDT
... and it wouldn't have taken a change to a totally new management viewpoint for Sun to act against Google for that.
The Java language is not copyrightable.

If Sun had filed suit based on fragmentation of Java, Google could have just pointed out that they were not calling their product Java and the reason why they were forced into that position was by uncertainty over the copyright status of the API signatures. However, they had absolutely no reason to doubt the latter in light of GNU ClassPath and Apache Harmony.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

4. Could Google have...
Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 11:49 PM EDT

If Google used different names for methods

I don't think you guys are getting it. The question is not about different names - it's different names and SSO.

Think for a minute. If you use different names and SSO, you can't compile your Java code. If you can't use the Java libraries, what's left? Nothing is left! There are no methods, except what you can invent. There is no language, because there is no "Class", there is no "Object", there is nothing that gives Java it's characteristic. Why would you reinvent Java all over again?

If what you came up with closely resembled the original Java, you are bumping up against the SSO. But you just wouldn't do that. Why would you? Where's the rational? You might as well just go ahead and make a new language, because in fact, it would be a new language. So just go ahead and make a brand new language, with a new vision, improving on what's gone before with all 4GLs.

The question in two parts is...

4. Could Google have come up with different names and SSO yet still have provided the same functionality as in Android?

This is a trick question. If it is not answered correctly, prejudice falls upon Google. Different names and SSO will not permit the same functionality as in Android currently, because the current functionality depends on Java and Harmony, with the same names and SSO. If you go and change the names and the SSO, Android will be broken. You would have to change it too.

Now why is this a trick question? Because if you interpret that phrase "the same functionality as in Android" broadly, any language will provide the same functionality as in Android.

Android users would have had to learn a new vocabulary and a new outline but the methods would all still have been resident in such a modified Android. True?

This part of the question does not make sense. If you are going to make so much change to Java that it is no longer Java, different names, different SSO, you are going to have to rewrite Android, Delvik - the Android libraries that interface with the Java libraries, make a new compiler that takes the place of the Java compiler...

"but the methods would all still have been resident in such a modified Android. True?" False! The current methods in Android will not work - they will be broken if you change the names and SSO.

I am telling you all - you are not doing Google any favours when you contemplate simply changing the names. That is not what the question is asking. It is asking about changing the names and the SSO, so if you do this, you can't compile your code any more. Please try to get this straight, because this question is just the kind of thing Oracle and the trolls and the Forces of Darkness will seize upon and say - "Well Google could just change the names and change the SSO - they didn't have to steal ours." and that is simply not true. If you are going to suggest that, that is the same as saying Google could have used another language, but that is not what the trial is about. Google chose to use Java, and now they are being persecuted for that. Wow - somebody has to understand what I am saying, because I can't go on repeating myself all night.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )