|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 01:46 PM EDT |
Its not entirely accurate to say Sun is not active in the mobile device
marketplace; Java is installed in millions of phones.
Still, this does not matter because what is in Android phones, is definitely not
Java.
Furthermore, according to your conception, what lost sales did Sun/Oracle suffer
from these nine lines of code and test files? A big fat zero. Well, its
indeterminate because Android and Sun/Oracle are not the only players in the
mobile space.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 01:49 PM EDT |
But Sun was not using Java, actively, at all, in the mobile device
market. They were not deprived of lost
profits by an infringer. They did not
have any of their own potential profits siphoned away.
Sun's
potential profit is, if nothing else, what Sun would have gained if
Google/Android/OHA had licensed J2ME (the 'mobile' version of Java). Unlike
J2SE, which Sun licensed free-as-in-beer, J2ME has always required a license
fee.
Just a theory. IANAL. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 03:31 PM EDT |
From
504(b):
Damages and Profits
So the equation
is:
D + P = T
Where D = Damages, P = Profits and T = Total. Without
damages and 1 Mil in profits, the equation is:
0 + 1 Mil = 1 Mil
With 1
Mil in damages and 1 Mil in profits, the equation is:
1 Mil + 1 Mil = 2
Mil
Hopefully that clears your confusion. It's not "just damages". To me
it looks like your conflating damages equal to profits:
But Sun was
not using Java, actively, at all, in the mobile device market.
You
mentioned that directly following what you were talking about profits. But
damages to Sun and profits made by the contributor are two different
things.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
