|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|