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
Oracle v. Google - Further Questions from the Bench on Interoperability | 214 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Oracle v. Google - Further Questions from the Bench on Interoperability
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 08:09 AM EDT
I could see a languages APIs or includes being copyrighted. It would
never become popular, though because developers would avoid it like
the plague.

Even if Sun's APIs are found to be copyrighted, what difference does it
make? If Java is free for anyone to use (which is a main reason it
became popular), and Sun didn't say anything to the effect of "these
specific APIs cannot be used without a license," its only common sense
to view the APIs as free to use (else, again, developers would have
avoided it like the plague).

Sun never took that position, so what gives Oracle the right to do it now
that so many developers depend on the APIs (which are the definitions
of the language that is free to use) being free to use.

That would be like FreeBSD trying to go proprietary and claw all their
code back from Apple, MS, UNIX, etc. using their copyrights to the code
as their authority to do so. That's inconsolable both legally and ethically.
When you give someone the rights to something ("Java is free for anyone
to use"), and people and whole industries become dependant on that
freedom ("Java is free for anyone to use"), you can't claw it back and

demand license fees. Oracle is corrupted in the head for even trying to
do this. The most that they could do is change their license going
forward, but doing that would only fork Java (they tried it with open
office, and look what happened). Oracles Java would cease to exist if it
forks because nobody would touch it with a 10ft pole, and they know it.
THAT'S why Oracle is so desperate to claw everything back.

If they actually pull this off, people will buy licenses for a quick fix, but
Java will die because people will abandon it for another free alternative
they know they can count on (or people will abandon it out of spite).
Oracle is so wrong about this on so many levels, it shows just how sick
these people are.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • another note... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 08:23 AM EDT
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 )