Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Question 2 - A vs B - interesting... | 214 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Question 2 - A vs B - interesting...

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 07:02 AM EDT

As noted elsewhere, establishing these facts needs to be done procedurally in court, because even if the whole technical world knows them the legal profession (and lay juries) generally don't.

Just because the questions seem naive doesn't mean the asker is - rather he may be anticipating naivety on the part of a subsequent reader.

Additionally, a potential conflict of answers here would be yet another opportunity for Oracle to discredit themselves. This judge seems to enjoy occasionally providing these extra yards of rope.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Question 2 - A vs B - interesting...

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 07:08 AM EDT

Well, since the literal answer is "very little" for both, due to the
way the question is worded, I really don't get the point.

Android is certainly not Java, and neither is Dalvik. Never has been, never
even claimed to be. Only things it claimed was that it would be relatively easy
for Java programmers to learn Dalvik, and that some of the dev tools would be
compatible.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

And the source code for some (many) libraries... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 07:25 AM EDT
- ? Java->Dalvik == C->C++ ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 08:48 AM EDT
  - ? Java->Dalvik == C->C++ ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 09:21 AM EDT
  - Not really - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 09:23 AM EDT
    - Android != JME - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 01:56 PM EDT
- And PROGRAMMERS - Authored by: xtifr on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 09:56 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 )