381–390 of 433 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course. But Oracle doesn't care one bit about anything else that's not Oracle. Though it is still to be known how many reimplemented APIs from others does Oracle have in their products
Nope, they pay for ISO which Google hasn't done for Java.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing much? This isn't just about the Java API. This is about EVERY API. You might not be able to write a web server anymore, depending on who owns the copyright for HTTP. You didn't invent GET, PUT, and POST, you thieving copyright abuser.
Back when I was working for Nokia, the APIs were patented, this is nothing new.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was only under the assumption that the APIs themselves weren't copyrightable.
Looks like the case was settled fairly quickly, so exactly what the claims were aren't as clear, and whether or not the API is part of the settlement depends on the exact details of that contract which aren't public.
Additionally, the contract is public. http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/USLsettlement.pdf Point 9C on page 14 has the university declaring that as far as they know, no AT&T IP is present in 4.4BSD, despite it clearly having a UNIX compatible API.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder how a meaningful discussion about namespace trees and API spelling takes place at the Supreme Court considering the background of the justices.
They're smart people and these are not hard concepts.
>This is a complete dramatization. Are you copying 10k lines of code from a licensed code base into your project without permission and using it in your commercial product? To point back to the substance of the thread and Oracle's claims... Google didn't copy any of Oracle/Sun's Java source code base into Android Java. Oracle lawyers acknowledge this. Instead, Google copied the API of function name spellings and also…
The problem isn't that programmers will have to get more creative with naming, it's that it will be fundamentally impossible for pieces of software owned by different entities to communicate over shared names without an explicit license agreement. That's a much, much bigger deal.
>This is a complete dramatization. Are you copying 10k lines of code from a licensed code base into your project without permission and using it in your commercial product? To point back to the substance of the thread and Oracle's claims... Google didn't copy any of Oracle/Sun's Java source code base into Android Java. Oracle lawyers acknowledge this. Instead, Google copied the API of function name spellings and also…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, they pay for ISO which Google hasn't done for Java.
You don't have to pay for ISO to implement an ISO standard. In addition, Oracle released their database software in 1979 but SQL only became an ANSI standard in 1986 (and an ISO standard in 1987) so they did originally reimplement an API which wasn't a public standard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SQL is an ISO standard, which Oracle like everyone else also pays for.
You can make an open-source database that uses the SQL language without paying a dime to anyone or signing any contracts. You don't have to pay for the ISO standard document to implement it - you can just infer behavior based on what you already know about sql.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks, that's interesting! It seems reasonable—if Google was explicitly trying to enable compatibility, that should be allowed, whereas if they were just trying to save a buck, that should be illegal. Of course, in reality Google's decision was probably a little of both, right? They selected a technology based on a wide range of factors, including development costs and compatibility. I'm still concerned that a decis…
> Of course, in reality Google's decision was probably a little of both, right? I wouldn't think that Google's development costs were part of the decision. There aren't that many Java APIs -- as the article says, it's ~11k lines of definitions -- so Oracle is seeking ~$818k per line. Assuming Google's lawyers predicted that there was some risk of a lawsuit like this, any engineering costs associated with redesigning…