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
Sony v. Connectix | 148 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Sony v. Connectix
Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 12:46 PM EDT

he [the Judge] thinks Google should have taken a license and Oracle shouldn't have been or be asking for the Moon for it. I could be projecting, of course.

It seem likely that you feel that Google should have taken a license, as you suggest you may be projecting. Let us clear that up. Google negotiated long and hard for a license, but in the end, they couldn't get the terms they wanted. More specifically, Sun wanted them to license Java (probably Java ME) - and use the whole thing, not just the good parts, and Google didn't think they could built a successful smart phone that way. Remember, they said they had a whole closet full of failures.

It is my opinion that Google used Sun's investment in java and the goodwill of its developers in order to come to market faster and with a more attractive platform.

So what does that have to do with anything? The Java language is free, with Sun's blessings. Google's use of it in the end received Suns blessings. Google did more for Java than in the end then any harm done by supposed "fragmentation" of the platform. Android has created thousands of new programmers equipped with Java and ready to move it forward.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Sony v. Connectix
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 12:57 PM EDT
Google should have taken a license? For what? For
reimplementing the API as an interface to their own VM, or to
use JVM instead of Dalvik?

[ 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 )