|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 09:58 AM EDT |
You're wrong as the position expressed in the paper has no
relevance to Oracle's position in court. The patents aren't
required to build software that's interoperable with Java
(there are millions of programs interoperable with Java,
none of them making use of the patents), nor are they
required to make a compatible or almost compatible
implementation of Java.
I'm a veteran Java developer (and OP of the parent comment),
and in the past I once used a Java-compatible VM by a
company called Aicas (I think it was called Jamaica VM or
something like that). Well, that implementation did not
infringe on the patents according to anyone, because Aicas
has taken a different approach implementing Java. I guess
Google has chosen to take a very similar approach, one that
does infringe - at least according to Oracle's claims.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: coats on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 01:15 PM EDT |
This certainly qualifies as a contrary position not disclosed.
What should the
penalties against Oracle be?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|