|
|
| Oracle v. Google - Just sayin' . . . |
 |
|
Wednesday, July 27 2011 @ 05:13 PM EDT
|
Here's a transcript from the video, uploaded on June 4, 2009 to YouTube,
of Scott McNealy and Larry Ellison at JavaOne 2009 (San Francisco,
California June, 2009) starting at 7:02:
http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=_Dtqe1e0tXg
The transcript, at 7:02:
McNealy: "So any messages or key areas you'd like to see this gang
target? Any last messages?"
Ellison: "Well, I think, you know, I'm reading a lot in the newspaper that
devices based on Java that are Android devices, which is very exciting.
We're flatter… I guess everyone should be flattered when, to some
extent, Android is a big shakeup, and there are going to be
notebooks based on Android, and I think we can see lots and lots of Java
devices, some coming from our friends at Google, but I don't see why
some of these devices shouldn't come from Sun, Sun/Oracle. So I think
you'll see us get very aggressive with Java in developing Java apps for
things like telephones and notebooks. They'll be computers but
fundamentally based on Java and JavaFX, devices fundamentally based on
Java and JavaFX, not only from Google but also from Sun."
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, July 27 2011 @ 05:49 PM EDT |
| If any for such a short one. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, July 27 2011 @ 05:50 PM EDT |
| Thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, July 27 2011 @ 05:51 PM EDT |
| Thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, July 27 2011 @ 05:52 PM EDT |
| Thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- UK - Lucas loses Star Wars copyright case at Supreme Court - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 27 2011 @ 07:48 PM EDT
- What is it with everyone and his dog doing OSs? - Authored by: Illiander on Thursday, July 28 2011 @ 02:12 AM EDT
- IT giants 'ripping off Whitehall', say MPs - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, July 28 2011 @ 10:22 AM EDT
- Patent trolls discussed on NPR - Authored by: Superbowl H5N1 on Thursday, July 28 2011 @ 10:29 AM EDT
- An engineer thinks IP needs a reboot - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 28 2011 @ 12:16 PM EDT
- Off topic: The ICEman Cometh again - Authored by: webster on Thursday, July 28 2011 @ 08:39 PM EDT
- Time travel possibility rejected by scientists - Authored by: JamesK on Friday, July 29 2011 @ 08:10 AM EDT
- Kicking the Hornets' Nest - Authored by: Ed L. on Friday, July 29 2011 @ 05:36 PM EDT
- Except ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 29 2011 @ 09:15 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: argee on Wednesday, July 27 2011 @ 06:00 PM EDT |
All they are saying is "it's open source, and we are
going to steal it ..."
In fact, I think a couple years ago Ellison said about
the same thing, maybe edited for language.
---
--
argee[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Translation - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, July 27 2011 @ 07:51 PM EDT
- Translation - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 27 2011 @ 11:10 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: fudnutz on Wednesday, July 27 2011 @ 06:10 PM EDT |
What do they have up?
...
I said what?
...
Well I didn't KNOW SUN had patents we could troll them with...
...
That's not fair! I'm sure we as "SUN/Oracle" can change our minds ...
We're always obliged to the stockholders ... ME!
..
I'm not worried about any deposition. I don't have to explain that. I'm the
chief not the expert!
...
We have to get in mobile or google has to pay.
...
The Jury will love me! I'm a hero. I can explain it; I didn't know.
...
[Att FBI: Not a technical hack. Overheard in a john at OSCON.][ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Yossarian on Wednesday, July 27 2011 @ 06:21 PM EDT |
Oracle is very aggressive, no doubt about that.
But why is this "aggressiveness" in going after Google, big
time? I assumed that staying friends with Google,
and developing applications for Google devices, could
bring much more $$$$ than this ugly lawsuit. (It is "ugly"
because, win or lose, open source people will hate Oracle.)
What does Ellison see that I missed?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Shadow Wrought on Wednesday, July 27 2011 @ 06:22 PM EDT |
"You see your Honor, at the time those statements were, made we had no
idea just how much money Android was going to be taking in..."
---
"It's a summons." "What's a summons?" "It means summon's in trouble." -- Rocky
and Bullwinkle[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Out of Context? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 27 2011 @ 11:15 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 28 2011 @ 01:03 AM EDT |
| IANAL, but I can easily see this being spun:
Ellison is going to
say,
"I thought it was a great idea, and that we should
consider
doing our own version, because we had such great patented stuff
that would make
it so much better. I was shocked, *shocked* I
tell you, to discover
that they were *already* using our
inventions!"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 28 2011 @ 03:21 AM EDT |
ready or likely to attack or confront;
translation: demand their slice of the action, license fees, shakedowns,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 28 2011 @ 03:41 PM EDT |
Sometimes public statements by CEOs have to be considered in context. Two
examples given on Groklaw illustrate this pretty well. The first was Jonathan Schwartz's blog post
on November 5, 2007, the same day Google first announced Android. A commenter on
Slashdot who was an editor for the site java.net at the time points out the
skepticism that existed around Schwartz's statement at the time with a link
to:
You'll Come Around
But I didn't end up putting this on
the front page, because I just couldn't source the Java angle well enough (no
offense, Jonathan, but you did say ZFS would be on Leopard...). CNN.com doesn't
mention Java at all, while the New York Times reports that Andy
Rubin, Google's director of mobile platforms, "said the software system that
Google has designed is based on the Linux operating system and Sun Microsystems'
Java language." But there aren't any details beyond that:
At
the time, no one outside Google knew exactly what was inside Android because the
code contents had not been revealed yet. Schwartz's comment on his blog could be
attributed to some misunderstanding, something which people familiar with him
didn't consider very unusual.
It was on November 12, 2007, that Google
first released code for Android and people really noticed that the VM they used
wasn't a Java JVM. An example pointed out was this blog, posted that same
day:
Dalvik: how Google
routed around Sun’s IP-based licensing restrictions on Java
ME
Ellison's comments at JavaOne 2009 could be taken in a similar
vein. A contemporary account of his statements is given here:
Ellison
pits Sun and Oracle against AJAX and Google
The article makes it
clear that Ellison, who could only be speaking unofficially about Sun plans
since Oracle had not yet completed its acquisition of the company, was really
hyping the prospects for JavaFX. JavaFX was
Sun's attempt to become a major player in what they termed Rich Internet
Applications (RIA). Ellison talked about JavaFX replacing AJAX as a way for
developers to build interactive web applications, as well as being used in
Sun-produced mobile devices. None of those ideas have panned out to date. His
observation that Android was actually a Java platform seems to be based on
little more than what he read in the newspapers.
Well, I
think, you know, I'm reading a lot in the newspaper that devices based on Java
that are Android devices ... I think we can see lots and lots of Java devices,
some coming from our friends at Google, but I don't see why some of these
devices shouldn't come from Sun, Sun/Oracle. So I think you'll see us get very
aggressive with Java in developing Java apps for things like telephones and
notebooks. They'll be computers but fundamentally based on Java and JavaFX,
devices fundamentally based on Java and JavaFX, not only from Google but also
from Sun.
Ellison couldn't have been right about Google
producing devices based on Java and JavaFX, because JavaFX only runs on a real
Java JVM. While it's technically possible to run a Java JVM on an Android
device, it's not a configuration that many people can easily use, even today.
Ellison was hyping a Sun technology in JavaFX that never achieved much support
from major smartphone platform vendors, and has so far failed to dislodge rival
application development platforms for web and mobile applications in any
appreciable way.
Both cases are examples of how CEOs can make statements
that are not necessarily based on actual knowledge of events around them, even
those that you'd think were directly related to the businesses they were
leading.
--bystander1313 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 28 2011 @ 10:18 PM EDT |
| ... so, where are these Oracle-devloped phones and
tablets that LPOD was
touting? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, July 29 2011 @ 04:43 AM EDT |
I keep asking myself what Google have done wrong in legal terms and whether Sun
incited the wrongdoing. It always takes me back to the various Supreme Court
cases about software patents.
My conclusion is that, even if Oracle USA, get past the patent invalidation
foothills, they have a mountain to climb.
It's a long ramble, so I make it a child comment to this one.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Patented inventions must be obvious. You could never work them out from the
patent disclosures.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
