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
What is the difference between an orange and a bicycle? | 388 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
What is the difference between an orange and a bicycle?
Authored by: PolR on Sunday, May 06 2012 @ 04:54 PM EDT
I disagree. Things can be incompatible precisely because they are different.

I think the legal issues would be poorly framed when discussed in terms of what
is Java and is not Java. Google has relied on Harmony, avoided the TCK and
refrained from calling Davlik Java for good reasons. They don't want to argue
they wanted to *be* Java. They want to argue they have decided *not* to be Java
but still have a requirement to be compatible with the Java programing language.


You are technically correct to say that renaming the API means this is not Java
anymore. But arguing this to the judge begs the question of why this is a bad
thing. He may ask whether this is what Google should have done to avoid
infringing on Oracle copyrights. In fact, I think this is the hidden meaning of
question no 4. The answer to this question requires to frame the discussion in
terms of compatibility. Had Google done what the judge suggests, the Android
code won't compile a Java environment and the Java code won't compile in an
Android environment. This what "not compatible" means.

[ 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 )