Authored by: sd_ip_tech on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 01:47 PM EDT |
Yes, they are upset over limited copy as it doesn't include the rest of APIs. Of
course, as you point out, then the argument would be intentional copy of entire
set. You can't fault BSF for representing their client but there have been some
specious and downright silly arguments presented in this case. Makes one wonder
if BSF/Oracle considered what would happen by burning bridges. Public does have
a short memory and this is not in the public eye in one explanation. So, they
think/thought they could get away with it? No harm to Oracle/BSF/Java?
---
sd_ip_tech[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cjk fossman on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 01:49 PM EDT |
But only if Google copied the whole thing and paid
beeeelions
in
extortion license fees. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: darrellb on Saturday, May 26 2012 @ 06:49 AM EDT |
Copyright infringement, patent infringement are the only things at issue in the
case. There is no such thing as fragementation under Copyright or Patent laws.
Oracle has no place raising anything about fragmentation.
The real issue behind Oracle's suit against Google is that Oracle has been
unable to make money from Android. Since not making money isn't an actionable
claim, Oracle stretches the law to fit the circumstances in an attempt to make
money from Android.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 26 2012 @ 01:54 PM EDT |
Because then they would have a much better argument that Google needed to take a
license or that they infringed.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|