Dick mentioned in the Oracle v Google case?
tech...@gmail.com
Phil
to be sat in front of somebody presenting all 91 slides!
The reader is left with the impression that Google duplicated Java -
Oracle conveniently ignores the fact that the Apache Harmony project
did much of the work before Android was available even as an emulator
to developers. Harmony is still available even if it was retired in
November, so where is Oracle's copyright infringement action against
Harmony?
Can somebody comment on US copyright law - are APIs able to be
protected by copyright?
Slide 83 says that the community has been harmed. I personally don't
think the Java community has been harmed - if anything, the reverse is
true because Android has kept Java alive and well on mobile, and given
it a relevance that will persist for a decade or two at least. Sun
weren't about to address the mess that is J2ME and Oracle would have
come to the party too late - quite aside from the debate around if
they would have done anything at all because of the long lead time,
cost and risks involved with developing a new ME platform when it was
never going to make it into iOS or Windows Phone.
I'm sure that Oracle has taken the best quotes they can find that, in
isolation, paint the worst picture (I would if I were in their
position) but presented in this way it does make for uncomfortable
reading, page 52 included...
On Apr 17, 5:47 am, "techno...@gmail.com" <techno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/features/opening-slides-1592541.pdf
>
> Page 52
Fabrizio Giudici
wrote:
> An 'interesting' slide deck from Oracle, thankfully I'm never likely
> to be sat in front of somebody presenting all 91 slides!
>
> The reader is left with the impression that Google duplicated Java -
> Oracle conveniently ignores the fact that the Apache Harmony project
> did much of the work before Android was available even as an emulator
> to developers. Harmony is still available even if it was retired in
> November, so where is Oracle's copyright infringement action against
> Harmony?
I recall that the allegedly copied code from Sun JDK were in Android, but
not in Harmony. So Oracle's point is logically correct. The focus should
be on the quantity and relevance of the allegedly copied code.
> Can somebody comment on US copyright law - are APIs able to be
> protected by copyright?
>
> Slide 83 says that the community has been harmed. I personally don't
> think the Java community has been harmed - if anything, the reverse is
> true because Android has kept Java alive and well on mobile, and given
> it a relevance that will persist for a decade or two at least. Sun
> weren't about to address the mess that is J2ME and Oracle would have
> come to the party too late - quite aside from the debate around if
> they would have done anything at all because of the long lead time,
> cost and risks involved with developing a new ME platform when it was
> never going to make it into iOS or Windows Phone.
Agreed. But again Oracle is logically correct. If there's a copyright
violation on a FLOSS project, it is potentially harming the community,
even though not always. It's like privacy. Maybe they stole my personal
data and found that I'm going to die because of an undiagnosed trouble.
Instead of giving this information to an insurance company, the thief
calls my doctor and saves my life. It's a great benefit for me, but it's
still a privacy violation.
--
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
fabrizio...@tidalwave.it
http://tidalwave.it - http://fabriziogiudici.it
Casper Bang
The reader is left with the impression that Google duplicated Java -
Oracle conveniently ignores the fact that the Apache Harmony project
did much of the work before Android was available even as an emulator
to developers. Harmony is still available even if it was retired in
November, so where is Oracle's copyright infringement action against
Harmony?
Can somebody comment on US copyright law - are APIs able to be
protected by copyright?
Slide 83 says that the community has been harmed. I personally don't
think the Java community has been harmed - if anything, the reverse is
true because Android has kept Java alive and well on mobile, and given
it a relevance that will persist for a decade or two at least. Sun
weren't about to address the mess that is J2ME and Oracle would have
come to the party too late - quite aside from the debate around if
they would have done anything at all because of the long lead time,
cost and risks involved with developing a new ME platform when it was
never going to make it into iOS or Windows Phone.
I'm sure that Oracle has taken the best quotes they can find that, in
isolation, paint the worst picture (I would if I were in their
position) but presented in this way it does make for uncomfortable
reading, page 52 included...
mP
Slide 83 says that the community has been harmed. I personally don't
think the Java community has been harmed - if anything, the reverse is
true because Android has kept Java alive and well on mobile, and given
it a relevance that will persist for a decade or two at least. Sun
weren't about to address the mess that is J2ME and Oracle would have
come to the party too late - quite aside from the debate around if
they would have done anything at all because of the long lead time,
cost and risks involved with developing a new ME platform when it was
never going to make it into iOS or Windows Phone.Totally agree, Java as a trademark and toolchain would be at a worse state had it not been for Android. These days, client Java as a desktop technology is under heavy attack and I think it's unlikely it will be considered normal to have a JSE runtime readily available in two years from now.