|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 03 2013 @ 10:52 AM EDT |
If Microsoft was concerned that their image MIGHT be
tarnished by seeming like they want everything to be
completely proprietary and owned by them, they're a few
decades late.
Microsoft has ALWAYS been "all our stuff, all our tools, all
the time." Microsoft has NEVER been a fan of
interoperability. They're the guys who created the doctrine
of "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" to try and wrest control of
the HTML spec from W3C. They effectively killed true open
XML documents by packing standards bodies to weasel in
proprietary extensions to protect their closed ownership.
You're thinking an AMICUS BRIEF is the thing that's going to
give people a bad taste in their mouth?
Heck, as the article Google quoted pointed out, Java was a
reaction against "you always need to cut a check to
Microsoft." The score's been known for a good long while.
And, frankly, MS has more to lose here than Oracle.
Oracle's trying to extend it's ownership of Java to new
markets - it's speculative revenue. They made no money from
Java before. They'd like a new business where mobile
operators give them money. Microsoft is in a different
place. Microsoft has an existing, huge business around the
closed nature of the .Net languages today.
If a court rules affirmatively that anyone can always re-
implement an API, it hurts Oracle by them not getting new
dollars, but it hurts Microsoft because it cuts into
Microsoft's existing revenue stream. Anyone interested
could freely re-implement .Net compilers that could directly
compete with Microsoft's, and Microsoft would be powerless
to stop them. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
