decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Agreement? Oracle does not "agree" | 183 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Agreement? Oracle does not "agree"
Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, June 04 2013 @ 11:41 AM EDT
The agreement document was published by Sun to the world at the beginning of
Java. It was offered free as in beer and libre and open as in published on the
web together with the JVM.

Sun reneged on that agreement by hedging it around with all sorts of usage
limitations and some charges long after the original agreement with the world
was made. They still published it to the world and his dog, giving the
impression that the world could use the API with Sun's blessing.

We know why they did what they did. The effect was to give the drug away for
free and then charge for later fixes once the addiction set in and companies
were on the hook.

Then the failed mobile device company, Oracle, decided to monetize their IP
(they had attempted to put together a Java phone, if you remember). They sued a
successful mobile device company on the basis of a copyright licence which had
no legal basis (attempted to limit the use of the licensed and copied materials)
and was based on materials not protectable by copyright.

So, a real, published, open API is an agreement, but the Java agreement was
reneged upon by Sun and Oracle.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )