Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:23 PM EDT |
linky [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:24 PM EDT |
Patents are not about protecting a product from damage and fragmentation. This
comment by Oracle is just trying to argue from emotion, not the law.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:20 PM EDT |
Oracle now announces that Oracle presented overwhelming evidence
at trial that Google knew it would fragment and damage
Java.
Even if that were true, fragmenting and damaging Java
are not crimes, or even torts. The damage to Java, if any, has come from
Oracle's suit.
Having said that, Google does seem to have pulled a fast
one in getting a version of Java into phones without paying Sun or Oracle the
J2ME license fees that they would like to have received. Sun's strategy of using
openness as a way of promoting Java's popularity while simultaneously trying to
retain the rights to collect licensing fees on J2ME has not worked out as they
would have liked. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 07:18 PM EDT |
At least SOME of whom now NO LONGER TRUST java or oracle and are looking at
alternatives.
Thats the way to look after their interests.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 05:43 AM EDT |
.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|