"What matters is, it was hosted on the Sun website and wrote
by the then CEO and was public accessable."
Why? You are begging the question.
"If what was stated in that blog was counter to Sun policies
or stated something false, then Sun, or more specifically,
the Board of Directors, would have had the misinformation
removed and replaced with the corporation's true statement
on the subject."
Again, why? You are begging the question. If anything and
everything on the blog was material to Corporate Governance,
then yes. But if not, then no. You are creating your own
logic by presuming the conclusion. Scroll through the
Wayback Machine: Schwartz liked to blather on and on.
There's talk of breakfasts and family photos and completely
useless, unhelpful, un-Corporate Governance "stuff" there.
"By doing nothing, the statements in that blog are then
taken as being the truth and Sun's position on the matter."
Again, why? Because you want it to be so?
And, again, I still see nothing in that post that says that
the APIs are not copyrighted or that Google is granted a
license. I do think Schwartz was a complete moron that
destroyed Sun, but no, I don't see any demonstration that
everything communicated in Schwartz's blog was entirely
Corporate communication -- simple browsing of it clearly
proves otherwise.
And, again, if Google's entire basis (hyperbole but not by
much) for thinking that they didn't need a license is based
off of that blog, why did they continue to negotiate for a
license and never discuss the blog post when questioning
whether or not they needed a license?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|