decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
You're absolutely right | 361 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
This post argues against anon posts
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 | # ]

You're absolutely right
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 | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )