Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 12:34 PM EDT |
I'd agree, anyway Android is designed to run on a phone/pad
Interoperability is only an issue if they want to call it java and thats been
the sticking point with this law suit from day one, its not Java so they don't
need a licence.
Also suing over a few test files and nine lines of code which they never wrote
in the 1st place has never made any sense and the Judge must have the patience
of a saint to listen to the spin and vapuor eminating from the Oracle camp.
Maybe Boise was trying to wind him up so he could get a mis-trial when he asked
for infrigers profits.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 12:59 PM EDT |
The OP was to elicit a response that would help me better understand, for my own
interest actually.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 02:52 PM EDT |
I've been thinking that fragmentation was never a starter, either as a legal
or practical argument. As the Android platform has developed, the real
fragmentation issue is not incompatibility with J2SE programs, but the devices
and OEM and carrier resistance to post-purchase upgrades. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 03:24 PM EDT |
Question:
When did "not allowed to fragment" become a protectable element
under Copyright Law?
I really don't recall that being identified anywhere.
Of course, I'm not a member of the Legal profession so I could easily be missing
something.
On the defense side of things, I certainly recall "allowed for
purposes of interacting/intercommunicating" as a concept though.
And
interacting/intercommunicating certainly does not equate to the technical
concept of fragmentation or lack thereof.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|