|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 02:38 PM EDT |
According to Oracle, it is
impossible to write a JVM without
violating their patents.
I believe this is mainly because Google
re-used the Java bytecode as-is as an
intermediate step in compiling Android
programs. Both patents being
asserted seem intimately tied to bytecode
execution. If they had instead
written a Java-to-ARM compiler, they probably
could have avoided all Java
patents, as well as this whole lawsuit. Of course,
that is significantly more
work than just re-using the excellent optimizing
bytecode compilers already
out there and then translating it to ARM
code...
2. Please learn the differences between Java the
language,
Java the specification, Java the API, Java the JVM, and Java
the
bytecode.
As far as Snoracle is concerned, they are all part of
one ecosystem that
promises universally portable binaries, said promise being
broken by Android.
See my
response to Wol above for what their case argues (as
far as I understand it).
3. Please learn about estoppel and laches.
What Sun (who
owned Java at the time) thought about Java and patents very
much
matters in regards to what Google could do AT THE TIME.
Oh please.
Estoppel and laches always was a long shot defense for Google.
Here is what Sun
thought at the time: Goog
le
totally slimed Sun. Google just used Schartz's testimony to confuse
the
jury. And even then they
didn't buy it. The jury answered "YES" for the
question on whether Google
thought they needed a license.
And really,
when Schwartz wrote "we're pleased to add Google's Android to
the list [of
Java-based platforms]," did Google write back saying, "Uhhh,
actually, Android
is NOT Java," which is essentially their defense now? Instead,
they're now
saying "Android is NOT Java, but Schwartz congratulated us on
our announcement,
which means we had a license to ALL Java-based
technology, which, BTW, Android
totally is NOT."[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
