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 515981
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The irony here...
by dsmogor on Fri 27th Apr 2012 16:34 UTC
dsmogor
Member since:
2005-09-01

is that Mono has lost it traction on Linux to Java precisely for the fear that API could be patented/copyrighted.

Given that MS at least somehow formally asserted they won't do that, .Net seems a saver choice on free systems now...

Reply Score: 2

RE: The irony here...
by Beta on Fri 27th Apr 2012 17:15 in reply to "The irony here..."
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Given that MS at least somehow formally asserted they won't do that

So did Sun, time changes things, but of course…

.Net seems a saver choice on free systems now...

Wait for the verdict.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: The irony here...
by tanishaj on Sat 28th Apr 2012 04:14 in reply to "RE: The irony here..."
tanishaj Member since:
2010-12-22

"Given that MS at least somehow formally asserted they won't do that

So did Sun, time changes things, but of course…

.Net seems a saver choice on free systems now...

Wait for the verdict.
"

Actually, Sun did not.

1) They actively pursued Java licensing

2) They insisted on passing the TCK to call it Java

3) You were not allowed to "superset" the language

4) If you did not pass the TCK, they did not provide a patent grant

The kind of suit that Oracle has brought against Google would not have been possIble if Sun had offered the same patent grants and binding promises not to sue that Microsoft has.

Reply Parent Score: 1