Page 2 of 10 1 2 34 Last »
Reply
Thread Tools
Milhouse is offline Milhouse
2010-08-13 , 21:02
Posts: 3,401 | Thanked: 1,255 times | Joined on Nov 2005 @ London, UK
#11
Originally Posted by Rauha View Post
Sun was very unhappy with Google/Dalvik.
SUN execs including co-founder Andy Bechtolsheim were some of the earliest investors in Google (before Google had been incorporated) and Eric Schmidt (who led Java development at SUN) went on to become CEO for Google. The relationship between SUN and Google has always been very cosy, and it's a great shame Google didn't buy SUN (perhaps they wished they had now).

Oracle don't have that kind of relationship with Google, instead the Oracle CEO is best buddy of the Apple CEO. It's all rather incestuous!

Originally Posted by Rauha View Post
I think that simpler explanation is that Oracle bought Sun before Sun sued/was done with negotiating Google.
If true, how long does it take to negotiate a licence that is available to every Tom, Dick and Harry company on the planet? If Google couldn't come to an agreement over a Java licence with SUN then Google only have themselves to blame - everyone knew SUN were up for sale months before Oracle finally inked the deal.
 

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Milhouse For This Useful Post:
Rauha is offline Rauha
2010-08-13 , 21:08
Posts: 1,400 | Thanked: 3,751 times | Joined on Sep 2009 @ Arctic cold of northern .fi
#12
Originally Posted by danramos View Post
Can we start calling them "SCOracle" now?

Too late! It's already started!
http://www.itworld.com/open-source/1...eaponizes-java
Just can't parse that article at all. Pure FUD in my opinion. Full of unrelated conjucture without any explanation for why this case would have causality to any of the things mentioned like Openoffice.


Originally Posted by danramos View Post
EDIT: Oh wow! They even used the same lawyers as SCO! Morrison & Foerster and Boies Schiller! [slaps forehead]
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35811761/O...t-infringement
What's wrong with hiring excellent patent attorneys for a patent fight. Bring effing big knifes to a knive fight.
 
danramos's Avatar
danramos is offline danramos
2010-08-13 , 21:09
Posts: 4,672 | Thanked: 5,455 times | Joined on Jul 2008 @ Springfield, MA, USA
#13
Hm...if I'm to understand what this article explains, SCOracle may not have much of a case to win, though:
http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/110/
 
myrjola is offline myrjola
2010-08-13 , 21:10
Posts: 84 | Thanked: 121 times | Joined on Jul 2007
#14
[posted this already in another thread]

There is an interesting article about the Java licensing issues between Sun (now Oracle) and Google:

"Initial Thoughts on Oracle vs Google Patent Lawsuit" Miguel de Icaza's at:

http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2010/Aug-13.html

Gives some background on what has been going on behind the scenes.
__________________
--
my
 
mikecomputing is offline mikecomputing
2010-08-13 , 21:11
Posts: 3,464 | Thanked: 5,107 times | Joined on Feb 2010 @ Gothenburg in Sweden
#15
Oracle go **** themsels this hasnt happen if Sun still existed.
 
danramos's Avatar
danramos is offline danramos
2010-08-13 , 21:12
Posts: 4,672 | Thanked: 5,455 times | Joined on Jul 2008 @ Springfield, MA, USA
#16
Originally Posted by Rauha View Post
Just can't parse that article at all. Pure FUD in my opinion. Full of unrelated conjucture without any explanation for why this case would have causality to any of the things mentioned like Openoffice.
The article is clearly pointing out Oracle's history and possible posturing. FUD appears to be what is being lobbed toward Android with this lawsuit itself. You're right, though, it does seem you're unable to parse it.

What's wrong with hiring excellent patent attorneys for a patent fight. Bring effing big knifes to a knive fight.[/QUOTE]

Nothing. It's just an interesting choice for a very similar sounding case to SCO's.
 
danramos's Avatar
danramos is offline danramos
2010-08-13 , 21:14
Posts: 4,672 | Thanked: 5,455 times | Joined on Jul 2008 @ Springfield, MA, USA
#17
Originally Posted by myrjola View Post
[posted this already in another thread]

There is an interesting article about the Java licensing issues between Sun (now Oracle) and Google:

"Initial Thoughts on Oracle vs Google Patent Lawsuit" Miguel de Icaza's at:

http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2010/Aug-13.html

Gives some background on what has been going on behind the scenes.
He's also insane if he thinks .NET/C# is the answer, considering how similar the license situation with that is.
 
Rauha is offline Rauha
2010-08-13 , 21:15
Posts: 1,400 | Thanked: 3,751 times | Joined on Sep 2009 @ Arctic cold of northern .fi
#18
Originally Posted by Milhouse View Post


If true, how long does it take to negotiate a licence that is available to every Tom, Dick and Harry company on the planet? If Google couldn't come to an agreement over a Java licence with SUN then Google only have themselves to blame - everyone knew SUN were up for sale months before Oracle finally inked the deal.
Well, you mentioned in your earllier post Apple using using GSM tech without licensing it. Nokia negotiated- and this is verifiable from publicly availeable court documents- with Apple for over two years before suing Apple, and GSM licenses are under FRAND .

Taking Apple/Nokia/Oracle/Googel/etc level corporation to court is extremly expensive and both time and resource consuming. Granted I don't have any insider infromation and you could be right. I just wouln'dt shrug off Sun negoating with Google for few years before suing as unlikely.
Last edited by Rauha; 2010-08-13 at 21:18.
 
Milhouse is offline Milhouse
2010-08-13 , 22:11
Posts: 3,401 | Thanked: 1,255 times | Joined on Nov 2005 @ London, UK
#19
Originally Posted by Rauha View Post
Well, you mentioned in your earllier post Apple using using GSM tech without licensing it. Nokia negotiated- and this is verifiable from publicly availeable court documents- with Apple for over two years before suing Apple, and GSM licenses are under FRAND .
Good point, well made.

However even if they couldn't come to an agreement together, irrespective of who is to blame, it still wouldn't explain breach of copyright - that's just dumb. Infringing patents is one thing, but to literally copy code and hope to get away with it?

Presumably Oracle have seen the source code/documentation in Android to know that it has been copied, and despite the comparisons with SCO (who produced no evidence to back up their flimsy arguments) I would be surprised if Oracle are unable to produce the evidence to support their argument.

In fact the copyright claims pertain to (amongst other things) the use of copyrighted Java code/binaries that are required to build Android applications - if the court were to find in favour of Oracle this aspect of the case could harm Android unless Google rapidly finds a non-Java solution for building Android binaries.
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Milhouse For This Useful Post:
danramos's Avatar
danramos is offline danramos
2010-08-13 , 22:16
Posts: 4,672 | Thanked: 5,455 times | Joined on Jul 2008 @ Springfield, MA, USA
#20
Originally Posted by Milhouse View Post
In fact the copyright claims pertain to (amongst other things) the use of copyrighted Java code/binaries that are required to build Android applications - if the court were to find in favour of Oracle this aspect of the case could harm Android unless Google rapidly finds a non-Java solution for building Android binaries.
Ahem. Patent lawsuit and copyright.

Also, Dalvik uses Dalvik tokenized code--it doesn't produce Java tokenized code. You WRITE your source in Java, but the Android system runs Dalvik compiled code. So, not quite right.
Read the details I'd posted earlier.

I'd like to know how this stands after the whole recent Bilski decision.
Last edited by danramos; 2010-08-13 at 22:19.
 
Reply
Page 2 of 10 1 2 34 Last »

Tags
bride-of-darl, chicks roosting, scoracle

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:41.

Contact Us - Home - Archive - Top