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
Pretty obvious | 314 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Probably wants to know if Google had to copy the names (and, yes, they did)
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 01:05 AM EDT
He might want to understand the ramifications if Google had chosen different
names for their packages. The fact is, Google could not avoid using those
names, even though there's no such thing as inheritance for packages.

If Google had used some other names, programs written to use those packages
would not work, because the system would not know what the program was
requesting. And any hypothetical "translation" program that could
translate one set of names to the other would, of necessity, contain a copy of
the names Oracle believes it owns.

Just as a French-English dictionary must contain both French and English words,
any hypothetical "Oracle-Google" Java translation program would
contain both Oracle's name and Google's, making Google's use of those names an
unavoidable technical necessity.

Therefore, using the names directly was the only sensible technical option,
given that there was no way to avoid using the same names in some capacity.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Pretty obvious
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 05 2012 @ 04:45 AM EDT
In Java you often extend core classes to provide better, or spcialised versions
of core objects, for example you may inherit from String to get
MultiligualString.

If the API was different for String, then the API of you extended class would be
different, hence, chnaging the API would actually no just break your class
(which you could fix by calling the right API methods) but also break anyone
using your class.

I bleieve the Judge is looking for reasons why Google HAD to use exactly the
same method names and signatures in Adnroid, as to do otherwise would have
caused mayhem.

What Oracle is trying to do is turn the world on its head. It originally wanted
everyone to stick to the API spec as closely as possible, and even once sued
Microsoft for changing the spec .. and here they are arguing that Google should
have used a different API if they didn;t want to get sued ...

[ 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 )