Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 27th Apr 2012 01:00 UTC
Legal "Former Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz took the stand here today as a witness for the defense, and disputed Oracle's claim that Java APIs were proprietary code from Sun. Google's lawyer, Robert van Nest, asked Schwartz whether, during his tenure at Sun, Java APIs were considered proprietary or protected by Sun. 'No,' Schwartz said in explaining the nature of open software, 'These are open APIs, and we wanted to bring in more people... We wanted to build the biggest tent and invite as many people as possible.'" Whoopsie for Oracle.
Thread beginning with comment 515862
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Schwartz's comments don't ring true...
by tomcat on Fri 27th Apr 2012 03:07 UTC
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

Obviously, if the APIs were truly "open" as Schwartz suggests, then there was no point in negotiating with Google over licensing fees. And yet they did negotiate. And the negotiations failed. And then Schwartz was replaced by adults without ponytails. Sounds like he has an ax to grind.

Reply Score: -2

tanishaj Member since:
2010-12-22

Obviously, if the APIs were truly "open" as Schwartz suggests, then there was no point in negotiating with Google over licensing fees. And yet they did negotiate. And the negotiations failed. And then Schwartz was replaced by adults without ponytails. Sounds like he has an ax to grind.


The negotiations were over the implementation and the TCK (which you need to pass to call it Java). Google wrote their own implementation and called it Dalvik (not Java).

Swartz welcomed Google aboard at the time. This is no turn-around or revisionist history.

Reply Parent Score: 13

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

"Obviously, if the APIs were truly "open" as Schwartz suggests, then there was no point in negotiating with Google over licensing fees. And yet they did negotiate. And the negotiations failed. And then Schwartz was replaced by adults without ponytails. Sounds like he has an ax to grind.


The negotiations were over the implementation and the TCK (which you need to pass to call it Java). Google wrote their own implementation and called it Dalvik (not Java).

Swartz welcomed Google aboard at the time. This is no turn-around or revisionist history.
"

Given the fact that Google actually borrowed source files from Sun's implementation, it's clear this was no clean-room implementation; in fact, Google was probably referring to the original sources as they wrote their code. Which means that Google's code is a derivative work and, thus, a copyright violation. But thanks for playing, anyway.

Reply Parent Score: -1

l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

then there was no point in negotiating with Google over licensing fee


I'd suggest a deeper look at those licenses. There was never a license requirement for just using the language or the APIs.

Reply Parent Score: 7

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

"then there was no point in negotiating with Google over licensing fee


I'd suggest a deeper look at those licenses. There was never a license requirement for just using the language or the APIs.
"

That's for the court to decide.

Reply Parent Score: 2

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

The APIs were as open as, lets say, UNIX.

You were entitled to create Java like implementations of those APIs/VM, but to be able to state that your implementation was Java compatible with the Java trademark logo, you needed to certify your implementation.

Reply Parent Score: 11

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

The APIs were as open as, lets say, UNIX.

You were entitled to create Java like implementations of those APIs/VM, but to be able to state that your implementation was Java compatible with the Java trademark logo, you needed to certify your implementation.


Except that's not what Oracle is arguing. They're arguing that Google actually copied certain Java sources, and that the Google implementation is a derivative work.

Reply Parent Score: 0

Brunis Member since:
2005-11-01

Obviously, if the APIs were truly "open" as Schwartz suggests, then there was no point in negotiating with Google over licensing fees. And yet they did negotiate. And the negotiations failed. And then Schwartz was replaced by adults without ponytails. Sounds like he has an ax to grind.


Hello Pot? This is kettle, you're black!

Reply Parent Score: 3

pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

And then Schwartz was replaced by adults without ponytails


Noted. So I should only trust serious looking guys with short conservative haircuts in Armani suits, because the ones with long hair who dress casually are undeveloped unreliable losers.

Reply Parent Score: 9

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

"And then Schwartz was replaced by adults without ponytails


Noted. So I should only trust serious looking guys with short conservative haircuts in Armani suits, because the ones with long hair who dress casually are undeveloped unreliable losers.
"

In Schwartz's case, yeah. He ran Sun into the ground.

Reply Parent Score: 1