|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 11:35 AM EDT |
Oracle contents that NO java programs run on Android.
Finding one example of
a java program that runs on Android disproves this and no other work is
required. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 11:56 AM EDT |
Pure Java but uses mouse and keyboard
via AWT which is not in the gang of 37.
AWT possibly could be made to work via
software keyboard and touchscreen but
I suspect it is not trivial.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: OmniGeek on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 12:06 PM EDT |
The fact that the functional aspects of the APIs are uncopyrightable (Google's
citations of Sega and Sony in this regard are pretty unassailable) moots the
issue of compatibility or fragmentation or whatever. I think the holding in Sony
stated explicitly that copyright cannot confer monopoly on the concepts
underlying program interfaces.
That just ends it right there; whatever Google does with those unprotectable
elements is entirely their affair in copyright terms, 'cause those elements are,
well, unprotected.
This is not to say that questions of compatibility and fragmentation aren't
interesting or worthwhile questions; they just don't affect the result of this
lawsuit unless the judge throws a nutty on the question of API copyright,
something which seems most unlikely. (And even if the judge did something
extreme, the appeals court would be unlikely to go over the cliff behind him.)
---
My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on
espresso.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|