|
Authored by: hardmath on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 02:21 PM EDT |
It's in the vein of Oracle wanting to complain both about
fragmentation and about substantial similarity/virtual
identity of APIs.
So long as Google doesn't call it "Java(tm)" (trademarks
belong to their owners!), I can't see how Oracle expects to
blame Google's independent implementation for either
conforming to or not conforming to the standard
implementation.
---
"Prolog is an efficient programming language because it is a very stupid theorem
prover." -- Richard O'Keefe[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 02:03 AM EDT |
Oracle seem to be saying that Google copied 100% of Oracle's SSO and then forked
it.
I assume that the illegal act is thinking about 100% of the SSO in the whole
work of 160+ API packages and then forking the SSO in 37 API packages by copying
100% of the SSO of the whole work of 37 API packages...
Let me have another go at explaining it...
I'm done. Anyone else want a go?
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|