|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 01:16 PM EDT |
OP here, yet again.
I agree that Oracle's arguments are overreaching. I disagree
that copyrighted APIs will have such an adverse effect on
the software industry for the reasons I've outlined before,
but i guess we just won't convince each other on this point.
I would like to ask you one question, though. You say that
if Oracle had simply stuck to their story they could have
held the high ground. I thought that Oracle resorted to some
(possibly ridiculous and overreaching) arguments because
they had no other legal options. They felt (I can presume)
that from a business ethics perspective they were the
injured party, but had no hard legal claim. What legal
argument did they have once their patents were invalidated?
I would denounce Oracle wholeheartedly if you tell me what
other option they had (though I would still think that API
copyright would have a negligible effect on the software
industry, and that the Java APIs are not part of the
language. In fact, I had never considered them to be part of
the language even before this trial. There are several
different Java editions and version with different APIs -
Android matches none of them, BTW - and the very same APIs
are used by most other JVM languages as well, so I've always
considered them to be part of the platform, not the
language.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|