Well, if it was all about the money, they are suing the wrong company. In the Usian patent law system, the right way to proceed is to sue the crap out of some small companies that can't afford to bankroll a crack legal team and then claim in later lawsuits that you winning from those small frys somehow suggest that they are in the right. It's stupid, but that's how it works there.
On Aug 14, 11:52 am, Steven Herod <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe its just the money. > > For $50 million in costs, they might earn 100, 200, 500? 1 billion > dollars? Who knows.. > > As far as losing developer good will / PR well... can you quantify > that in cash, especially amongst Oracle's customers, I mean Sun spent > a lot of time/money winning over developers and all they got was > quarterly losses. > > On Aug 14, 7:40 pm, Fabrizio Giudici <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > On 8/14/10 11:16 , Kevin Wright wrote: > > > > This *could* all go really well > > > > IANAL, but this scenario seems to be cropping up in a few forums. > > > > Sun were contractually obliged to provide Apache a TCK licence > > > under terms that are "non-discriminatory, fair and reasonable" > > > (http://www.jroller.com/scolebourne/entry/a_question_of_ip) Had > > > Apache been licensed for the TCK, then Harmony could pass it and so > > > be considered a licensed implementation, with all applicable IP > > > rights Android, by using harmony, would then be using a "licensed" > > > implementation, and the foundation would crumble from beneath > > > Oracle's lawsuit. > > > > Apache are not-for-profit, and as such didn't have the financial > > > or legal clout to press the issue of the JCK. Instead, they were > > > limited to voting NO to all of Sun's JCP proposals by way of > > > defiance. It's now becoming much clearer why they were making it > > > into such a contentious issue... > > > > So could Google pull a flanking manoeuvre, and bankroll a lawsuit > > > on behalf of Apache/Harmony? I certainly do hope so... It would be > > > an elegant solution to the "problem", and would have knock-on > > > benefits for us all. Opening the doors to alternate, compliant, > > > implementations could breathe more vitality into the platform than > > > anything Oracle is able to achieve alone. > > > But as far as I understand reading here and there, I'm not sure that > > if Apache had access to the TCK it would be fine for Google. I don't > > think so, indeed. The problem are still the patents. In fact: > > > 1. If you fork the OpenJDK, you are protected by patents as it's one > > of the features of the GPL. But Harmony didn't fork the OpenJDK. > > 2. If you pass the TCK, I think you get the standard implementation > > license. It guarantees protection by patents as far as you don't > > remove or add anything to the java namespace. Unfortunately for > > Google, they dropped a lot of stuff from it. That is, the point is > > twofold: Harmony has got problems on its own because they weren't > > given the TCK, but Android adds to this the fact that it's a subset of > > Harmony. In other words, Android cannot pass the TCK, technically. > > Frankly speaking, subsetting the runtime was a deliberate decision by > > Google and they're paying for it. > > > - -- > > Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager > > Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." > > java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici -www.tidalwave.it/people > > [email protected] > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > > iEYEARECAAYFAkxmZJ4ACgkQeDweFqgUGxc6fQCffzVsOaFR7St6qNSCZXHU2+S3 > > AQkAni5rheSC+BH6VOvRoT2dl+pARpA5 > > =4uMG > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- 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.
