Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 10th Mar 2013 13:07 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 554964
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.
This isn't the argument at all used by the Judge in his ruling (which is currently under appeal by Oracle).
No, I suspect that Google went with the what we did wasn't infringement strategy first. My reasoning would have Google admit it infringed but that it was allowed. But the Sun CEO is on record in the first trial stating that Google was allowed to do what they did.





Member since:
2006-01-14
How about the whole damn argument about Google's use of Java. It really doesn't matter what they copied or what they did or what Oracle thinks. When Sun owned Java they gave Google the green light to do whatever they wanted. They had permission and it was publicly given. Oracle is now trying to claim that Google stole something that they were given. Thats not even getting into the fact that Sun open sourced Java and OpenJDK contains all the same API's that Oracle says Google stole. How do you steal from something that's free?