Feels more like a forced way to get Google to pay for the technology and share the wealth. Oracle wants something for its purchase of Java and has found it. They don't mind using strong-arm tactics to get what they want. Short term gain is all big companies are able to muster.
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Manfred Moser <[email protected]>wrote: > Interesting thought. Maybe that is his way of restarting the JCP as a > community of companies that all pay properly for maintenance and then have > legal protection... that might be okay. But surely there are better ways > to get something like that going. > > Overall this seems mostly a destructive move.. > > manfred > > > > Indeed, the more I think about this the less sense it starts to make. > > Though, most folks think this is about java (the language). It really > > isnt, it's about VM technology. Which makes it all the stranger to > > attack *JAVA*-based VM. Wasn't there a non-java using target out > > there? > > > > The play here might be to get google to 'buy' the java assets, but > > that really doesn't mesh at all with what ellison's been saying. > > Perhaps he's been looking at the numbers and doesn't want to be java's > > steward anymore. Crazy risky, though if that really does happen, I'll > > be a happy camper. > > > > On Aug 13, 8:00 am, Michael Neale <[email protected]> wrote: > >> yes I don't think the *actual* damage to google will be another other > >> then comically insignificant. I can't see how either side would > >> benefit. > >> > >> All Oracle are doing are making people nervous, confirming fears, and > >> generally causing a whole lot of frustration when everyone knows there > >> can be no benefit. > >> > >> At first I thought it may have been a re-assertion of the "one java" > >> portability, which whilst I don't agree with personally could almost > >> make a tiny bit of sense. But this, no... it is madness - the thing is > >> I can't imagine how this could be good for Oracle at all. really no > >> chance of short term gain, and certainly a good chance of long term > >> damage to a technology stack that is critical to them. > >> > >> (I will refrain from the doucheyness of standing behind patents as > >> there is plenty said about that). > >> > >> On Aug 13, 3:55 pm, Robert Casto <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > Most of the patents involved were methods and procedures for how > >> something > >> > is done. All the patents appeared old with the latest being 2005. You > >> could > >> > make the case that since Sun didn't defend these patents for years, > >> there is > >> > not much Oracle can do about it now. Patent law is really strange in > >> this > >> > regard, but it is my understanding that you have to do things to > >> defend your > >> > patents. Letting them sit for 5 years and then being bought by someone > >> else > >> > and then defended may not sit well with the judges. > >> > >> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:12 AM, Mark Derricutt <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > I think that's kinda irrelevant ( the java source anyway ) as some > >> of the > >> > > patents I've seen talk about class processing ( conversion to dalvik > >> ), > >> > > permissions/acls and things that are more of a VM/toolchain side of > >> things. > >> > >> > > Having the code in clojure, scala or the like would still involve > >> the same > >> > > - UNLESS someone rewrote the scala/clojure compilers to output > >> Dalvik > >> > > bytecode directly... > >> > >> > > -- > >> > > Pull me down under... > >> > >> > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:02 PM, JamesJ <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> So, the obvious solution is for Google to stick it to 'em, ditch > >> Java, > >> > >> adopt another of the JVM languages (Scala, etc) so the port will be > >> > >> easy. (Wink Wink) It will just be one more step for Java towards > >> > >> irrelevance in the mobile computing space. > >> > >> > > -- > >> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >> Groups > >> > > "The Java Posse" group. > >> > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > >> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> > > [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> > <javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups > >> .com> > >> > > . > >> > > For more options, visit this group at > >> > >http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > >> > >> > -- > >> > Robert Castowww.robertcasto.com > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "The Java Posse" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> > . > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- Robert Casto www.robertcasto.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
