And if it was, I think most people would think it was entirely reasonable (at least to bring the argument to a court if needs be). Even copyright - by all means.
But patents ! Gah ! On Aug 17, 8:04 am, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > Gaaah! THIS ISN'T ABOUT TRADEMARKS. > > There's no way I'm going to keep up fact-policing every post. > > On Aug 16, 11:33 am, mP <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Is Android really not java ? Officially they tell you its not, but > > given that Sun asked companies not to use "Java" in their name - im > > thinking JavaRebel does that mean calling your classes > > java.lang.String and the like not the equivalent? If Harmony not java > > then why does "java" appear everywhere ? I know why but stepping back > > its hard to argue its not Java to a layperson when the term is all > > over key entities in the platform... -- 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.
