|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 06:45 PM EDT |
Its been shown that SUN wanted Google to use and license SUN's Java code and
trademark, requiring OEMs to do likewise. Google didn't do that. Google used
open source code that SUN knew about and (at minimum) hadn't complained about or
wrote their own.
The question is not whether SUN led Google to believe they didn't need a license
to use SUN's Java code and trademark. Its whether SUN led Google to believe they
didn't need a license to do what they did. Quite different.
Whether that's clear to the jury is another question.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jvillain on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 07:06 PM EDT |
I want you to take a licence for my tic, tac, toe app. Please send me $1,000,000
gold.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 09:04 PM EDT |
And you aren't addressing the underlying issue(s), just throwing out a bald
statement that isn't on point.
Sun wanted Google to make Android Java-compatible AND take a commercial license.
Google pointed out at the time that they weren't opposed to taking a license
but that the license they wanted would not be for code that they weren't using
and weren't going to use.
In the end they drove Google to use the open source version of the programming
language, make their own non-Java compatible virtual machine and come up with a
system that became the best selling phone OS for smart phones.
How much should they be paid for that?
On top of that the "one blog entry" has been shown to be a material
official corporate statement. And it has been backed up by the former CEO's
testimony.
So attempting to dismiss it as if it were something that a random individual
posted somewhere in the vastness of the intarwebs is disingenuous at best.
And Kool-Aid is a trademark (Copyright Kraft Foods), Mr. IP Pontiff. (o;)
Have a nice drink![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 10:02 PM EDT |
> Sun at all time was trying to get google to pay for a license.
The licence was for the entire source code to the Java implementation, and to
the JVM, and the documentation.
Google instead took a licence to the Dalvik VM, the Harmony source code and
documentation (an Apache licence) and wrote whatever else was needed
themselves.
The Sun licence was not wanted (because of field of use restrictions) and was
not needed.
It is still not needed.
Another issue is that a licence would have cost less than $100k. Part of this
was recompense for making it open source. This is the max value of the 'damage'
to Sun.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 10:04 PM EDT |
| Successful troll is successful. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 08:13 PM EDT |
Sun wanted Google to paid for a license. Only if Google use the java
name and logo.
Does Oracle know what it's wishing for?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
