|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 10:04 AM EDT |
I am not a Microsoft shill, an Oracle defender or a Google
hater. I'm a very experienced Java developer, who'd been an
experienced software developer long before Java was
invented. And I AM supporting my "claim" with evidence: the
patents Oracle is suing over are not required to make
software interoperate with Java. For that matter, Android
does not interoperate with Java (it's a competing
implementation). Proof: there are millions of programs
interoperating with Java none are even suspected of
infringing on said patents. There are competing
implementations of Java (e.g. Aicas Jamaica VM) that are
also not suspected on infringing on said patents. Ergo, said
patents do not hinder interoperability with Java. On top of
that, they do not even preclude a competing implementation.
Ergo, this paper does NOT contradict Oracle's claims. QED[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Fast learner - Authored by: Gringo_ on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 10:10 AM EDT
- Fast learner - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 10:46 AM EDT
- What is this, kindergarten? - Authored by: pem on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 10:58 AM EDT
- What is this, kindergarten? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 11:30 AM EDT
- Your bias is showing as well - Authored by: pem on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 11:38 AM EDT
- Kindergarten CHECK! -- unadorned truth be abundant here!! - Authored by: BJ on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 01:17 PM EDT
- What is this, kindergarten? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 01:24 PM EDT
- What is this, kindergarten? - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 02:12 PM EDT
- What is this, kindergarten? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 02:50 PM EDT
- What is this, kindergarten? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 03:03 PM EDT
- And BTW... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 03:37 PM EDT
- And BTW... - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 03:56 PM EDT
- Homework - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 04:08 PM EDT
- What is this, kindergarten? - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 04:01 PM EDT
- What is this, kindergarten? - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 04:13 PM EDT
- What is this, kindergarten? - Authored by: Wol on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 04:21 PM EDT
- On interoperability and on WINE - Authored by: bugstomper on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 06:45 PM EDT
- What is this, kindergarten? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 05:50 PM EDT
- Please tell me more - Authored by: artp on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 10:48 AM EDT
- Android DOES interoperate with Java. - Authored by: Wol on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 01:32 PM EDT
- Assertions and anecdotes are not evidence. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 03:28 PM EDT
- This post argues against anon posts - Authored by: jjs on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 03:50 PM EDT
- Correction: none are _accused_ - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 07:05 PM EDT
- Interoperating with yourself makes no sense - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 07:30 PM EDT
|
Authored by: pem on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 10:33 AM EDT |
that the OP's post was not very nice and gets in the way of rational
discussion.
Still, I think we ought to have that rational discussion.
My own reading of Sun's paper is that:
- it takes no position on whether software ought to be patentable or not; but
- IF software is deemed patentable, then a software manufacturer with a patent
shouldn't be allowed to keep other companies from writing interoperable
software.
I take this last point to mean that if MS has a patent on some feature in
Office, it can't use that feature to prevent a third party from writing a Word
add-on, and particularly can't bootstrap that patent into license terms that
prevent reverse engineering, etc. In other words, a form of patent exhaustion
ought to apply once you've bought MS Office.
I have squinted my eyes and re-read it multiple times, and like the OP, I can't
for the life of me read into it that Sun was against patents. Just that patents
are potent weapons that need to be carefully constrained.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|