|
| Authored by: jbb on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 06:36 PM EDT |
| The change broadens the meaning since "a single directive to take some action"
includes "a single command executed by the Java interpreter". ISTM broader is
better as far as Oracle is concerned.
---
Our job is to remind
ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 07:22 PM EDT |
Google asked for references to Java be removed. In fact,
these patents
aren't about Java, and for sure it is
prejudicial to Google to say they are
using "Java patents",
because calling them that gives more emphases to Oracle's
ownership. (Obviously, if they are using "Java patents",
they are infringing
without need for further evidence.)
Indeed, the "Hello World" program
that was used for
testing has no Java in it. See
this. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 06:18 AM EDT |
.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Rhialto on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 07:58 AM EDT |
I wonder why this introduction to Java wasn't done a lot sooner, for the benefit
of the judge and the jury? At least then they might have had a chance to
understand what the whole thing is about...
---
I have not "authored" this, I have written it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
