Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 13th Aug 2010 13:57 UTC
Legal The entire complaint Oracle lobbed at Google has been available online for a while now, and after reading it through with my total lack of any knowledge of the inner workings of the American legal system, a few things did stand out to me as peculiar. We'll have to wait for a more detailed analysis by someone qualified to do so. Also, a few other notes about this case I've picked up online.
Permalink for comment 436651
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Certainly not good for .NET
by Alex Forster on Fri 13th Aug 2010 15:33 UTC in reply to "Certainly not good for .NET"
Alex Forster
Member since:
2005-08-12

I could argue that it's more safe to use a language with patent exemptions that's been vetted by paranoid lawyers than it is to use a language like Python or Scala or Lua that are completely community driven with developers who have absolutely know idea what timebomb language features to stay away from.

Also, Microsoft's patent exemptions are ironically more liberal than Sun/Oracle's - this lawsuit could not have happened if Google had implemented C# on top of a custom, non-CLI compatible runtime. Copying and pasting from my other comment-

C# and the CLI are specified in separate standards, so, for example, Mono is allowed to compile C# to native Object-C/nibs and create an iPhone application without fear of falling outside of coverage by the community promise.

Google, who translates JBC to Dalvik bytecode, is getting sued because Java's patent exemption requires that you implement both the JVM and Java together and to spec, or else neither are covered.

Edited 2010-08-13 15:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4