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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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 - Now Back to the Copyright Question and How Oracle Fragments Java | 380 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Oracle v. Google - Now Back to the Copyright Question and How Oracle Fragments Java
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 01:06 PM EDT
Y'know though - one thing the article kind of almost got
right...it was reasonable for Sun to expect to profit a bit
from developing a useful language. That's why Sun used
convoluted licensing and charged for the certification kit -
so they could get a bit of profit.

Google's original negotiations with Sun appeared to share
that viewpoint. Google seemed quite willing to pay Sun
while not getting a ton in return. As far as I can tell,
they mostly broke down over a mismatch in company styles
regarding development and control issues regarding the code.

(Basically, Google prefers smart, fast programmers and rapid
development, while Sun had a lot of 'C' players and
bureaucracy.) Google's assessment seemed to be that, even
though it'd be reasonable to pay for something, Sun's net
contribution would be negative. So, Google figured out a
technical, legalistic approach that resulted in them not
needing to pay for a license or negotiate.

I can see the justification in terms of:
'not wasting a ton of time'.

And I still think Google mostly succeeded at 'don't be
evil.'

But, the decision to avoid dealing with Sun by creating
Dalvik still strikes me as a bit evil. (Albeit, in
hindsight, with Sun being taken over by Oracle, probably a
really, really good idea to avoid having any part of your
platform involving shared control with Ellison.)

--Erwin

[ 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 )