Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 13th Aug 2010 22:58 UTC, submitted by Alex Forster
Permalink for comment 436834
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-08-26
So what is your position again? Google isn't using Java even though they call it Java and use the Java language along with a Java-like VM that includes libraries that have the same names and methods as official Java libraries?
What matters is whether the clone violates patents and whether Google has been using code from Oracle without license.
This is what I have been saying from the beginning, it's the patents that really matter. You are the one that went on some strange "it isn't Java" tangent.
Given the obvious PR cost I'm sure Oracle's lawyers are confident that they have a case.
But I do like how people such as yourself are going to great lengths to defend Google over their non-standard Java that they designed to get around Sun's JME licensing fees. Only Google can go against cross-platform development standards and cut out a major funder of open source just to have continued free defense from people like you.
http://www.binplay.com/2010/08/oracle-sues-boyfriend-of-open-source...