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
Value of being compatible | 152 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Value of being compatible
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 10:21 AM EDT
Is it the case that Sun bet the farm on it being of
overarching value to be certified compatible, and that would
ensure the licensing options for the TCK were taken.

Oracle seem to find themselves in a position where Google
have no interest or ability for Android to be certified
compatible, and hence have no incentive to get a license.

They use the free constructs provided by Java to create
something different, but related enough to drive Oracle
insane trying to get some of the money. Frankly Java ME was
shown to be a resounding failure.

I can't see that Oracle have anything that Google want, or
any leverage over them (other than they could cut short this
farce of a trial and stop wasting time.

-Not a lawyer, but not (necessarily) stupid.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Why do the TCK filings hurt Google?
Authored by: jvillain on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 12:26 PM EDT
This ruling seems to have come a little early in the trial and may have the
judge back tracking or modifying down the road once other facts are presented in
court. I think this feels more painful now that it will down the road.

It will be hard to square having Swartz, when he was at Sun, saying Harmony was
good to go with this ruling. That is if that clip is placed into evidence.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Is a license required? If so, for what?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 19 2012 @ 04:53 PM EDT
>> If those [clean room] implementations demonstrate compatibility with
the Java specification, then Sun would provide a license for any of its
intellectual property needed to practice the specification, <<

If they are not compatible then Sun would not provide a license.
Is a license from Sun necessary? I can't find an answer in Sun's
documents. Most people here, and Google and Harmony, seem
to think no, or at least there is an implicit license in the "free"
status of the Java language, and some unspecified number of APIs .
I think that question is one of the reasons for this court case.

[ 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 )