|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 12:23 PM EDT |
If I have it right, 104 can only be used in the Sun JDK if it is in a Sun
product. (Too bored to look up what it does, atm).
Both Harmony and Google insist that those incitable developers download the Sun
JDK and that JDK comes with a Sun licence permitting use of the JDK.
As we saw in the SCO v. Novell case, a licence or contract giving permission to
use something also gives explicit permission to use any protectable copyright
and any patented inventions in the something owned by the JDK owners.
My bet is that the licence does not restrict the use of copyrights and patents
to just the JDK materials since they have to be used on non-Sun software. That's
what the JDK is provided to do. I don't see why it would not provide a broad
patent licence to the machine that has the Sun JDK licensed and installed if the
invention is used in conjunction with the JDK which, of course, it would be.
One other point, is the JDK in any of the accused devices? If not there, where?
Does the developer require a software patent licence in his legal jurisdiction?
How do you know? How does Oracle know?
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
