|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 05:49 PM EDT |
That is a fine sentiment and I'll drink to that, but I think
Oracle v. Google is the wrong case to pursue it. Here's why:
Oracle's perspective is easy to understand: Sun had created
Java and its libraries (true, with the help of others) and
had released it to the world free of charge, except on
mobile devices. It also allowed others to build compatible
(certified) Java implementations using one of three options:
they could license Java from Sun (that's how Sun monetized
Java - they licensed it to mobile handset manufacturers),
they could write their own implementation and pass the TCK,
provided their Java implementation was not meant for mobile
devices, or they could use (and modify) the OpenJDK ander
the GPL license (and it doesn't matter this option became
available after Google had started developing Android,
because Google rejected the GPL for business reasons). Then
Google came along and didn't license Java, probably because
Google wanted control over it while Sun wasn't willing to
let go. But instead of choosing a different language, Google
took an uncertified library (Harmony), a VM that was
different enough from the JVM as to not get entangled in a
Microsoft-like Visual J-something (I don't remember exactly
what it was called). AND they did all that for a mobile
device, which was precisely what Sun had tried to prevent.
So Google got all the wonderful Java tooling, familiar
battle-tested APIs, huge developer community, books, IDEs,
debuggers and whatnot, and then wants to walk free on a
technicality. From Oracle's perspective, Google bashed their
head in with their own bat.
Now, Google's perspective is easy to understand, too. They
say, listen, we did nothing wrong. True, sun had put some
legal barriers in place, but we cleanly circumvented them,
and doing that so cleanly had cost us a lot of money (buying
Dalvik). And it's not just a technicality, because Sun had
claimed time and again that they wanted to make Java open,
so we didn't even do anything that's ethically wrong.
(BTW, this last point is what has made the case interesting
to me: Sun had clearly expressed two seemingly conflicting
intents - keeping Java open and limiting its mobile device
use. And it benefited from both - it got revenue from mobile
handset vendors, and a large community partly due to Java's
openness. So the interesting question is, can a company walk
this fine line?)
You could say that Oracle (well, Sun) was bested by Google
in a brilliant maneuver, and that it's making questionable
legal arguments to fight Google in court rather than in the
market. But the reason why this must be decided in a court
of law and is not a misuse of the legal system, is that it's
perfectly clear that most of Google decisions (what to
implement - a JVM - and what not - new APIs, a Java
compiler) were made entirely on the basis of bypassing Sun's
legal restriction. Whatever you think of Google, they were
not an innocent party in this game. Their maneuver was a
legal one, so it's only fair that Oracle's response will be
in court. It may very well be that Google maneuver was
flawless and that Oracle's arguments are feeble, but what
has started as a legal move should very well end in court.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 05:30 AM EDT |
"Regarding courts being used for anticompetitive
purposes, it's a fairly recent thing that courts
are being used blatantly this way."
I'd like to point you at Eddison, Wright, and a whole tonne of others. The
courts were *invented* for anticompetative purposes.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
