On Thursday, May 24, 2012 4:59:48 AM UTC-4, fabrizio.giudici wrote: > > On Thu, 24 May 2012 10:37:19 +0200, Kevin Wright > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Not ignorance. Google showed evidence that it actually had Sun's > > *blessing* > > for its work on Android, everyone was excited about the potential for > the > > Java ecosystem. This is a far cry from Sun being silent on the matter > > Honestly, this is ridiculous. Android has been the JME killer, that is one > >
JavaME had many killers, Android was a late contender for that and certainly not a critical one. JavaME was first stabbed by iOS, then by Sun's own big-time failure with the first-generation JavaFX plan--the original thing that would be a complete mobile platform, not just an UI framework. [BTW, I still root for JavaFX 2+... but it's not anymore a mobile platform.] Android was perhaps the coup de grâce. Without Android, the most likely scenario today would be iOS being much more dominant, and maybe Windows Phone having some decent market share too. I think Android was much worse to WP, as both compete in the entry-level smartphone market, while Apple is happy to target the high-end market exclusively. > of the few direct areas of profits by Sun for Java. I can't understand how > > one could really think that Sun was really blessing the operation. This > Sun was interested in blessing the operation, IF Sun (in addition to a fat $100M licensing fee that Google *agreed* to pay) could retain control over it, like we know know due to the trial's proceedings. Google couldn't make that deal for obvious reasons; although we don't know the details, I'm sure Sun's proposal was something like: - Android having TCK terms with restrictions similar to the JDK; - Android being required to keep 100% compatibility with either JavaME or JavaSE; - Android's specs developed by the JCP, with Sun having at least veto power; - Sun dictating Android's choice of open source license, very likely GPL; Sun certainly wouldn't allow Google to re-license JDK sources under ASL2. Just the JCP and backwards-compat items would be sufficient to cause Android to fail, in a fierce competition with the fast and strong innovator that is Apple. > also contradicts the fact that there were negotiations between Sun and > Google (if Sun didn't want to sell a license and was pretty happy with > that, there were no need for negotiations). And doesn't explain why at a > This round of negotiations happened because Google's initial plan was licensing the whole thing, including source code, to at least jump-start the new platform. This failed, so Google went to "plan B" which is a completely separate thing, involving significant new development. This new plan was slower, riskier and more expensive, but in the end it was a good thing because Google was free of TCK compatibility so there was more freedom to address technical problems in the VM and core APIs, keeping only a sweet-spot of compatibility to make easy porting Java code, tools, and trained developers. BTW, I used to think that Google was naive and not enough thorough in its work to avoid Sun's IP; but as we can see now in the trial, Google actually did a pretty good job of clean-room implementation. If you take a hard look at the two patents that survived to the jury, it's obvious that Android doesn't infringe any. > certain point Google's management gave the instructions to search for > alternatives to Java. CEO's praise about Android was just the way in which > > Sun was trying to put it in diplomacy, avoiding to add to the damage the > This CEO's praise was published in a corporate blog (the blog was mentioned in SEC-10K filings so there's no debate about its corporate status). We can agree with the analysis that Jonathan was just trying to put a happy face on it, but that doesn't matter, his statements had legal relevance. A+ Osvaldo [disclaimer: Googler, but just my personal opinion here] > possible spread of FUD of Java being in decline. And the relationships > between the two companies behind the scenes were very bad in the last > years. > > This not to say that I disagree with the decision of the court - it's > legal stuff I can't speak in this field. I just find illogical that the > decision has been made on that premise. The legal world is really a > parallel universe. > > -- > Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager > Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." > [email protected] > http://tidalwave.it - http://fabriziogiudici.it > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/SsgshVwzlnQJ. 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.
