Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 27th Apr 2012 01:00 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 515998
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Schwartz's comments don't ring true...
by JAlexoid on Fri 27th Apr 2012 23:26
in reply to "RE[2]: Schwartz's comments don't ring true..."
RE[4]: Schwartz's comments don't ring true...
by tomcat on Tue 1st May 2012 00:28
in reply to "RE[3]: Schwartz's comments don't ring true..."




Member since:
2006-01-06
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.