Oracle removes former Sun CEO's blog

Hmm, at first glance this seems misleading. They removed all of Jonathan's posts. One of his posts was congratulating Google. Maybe that was the reason, maybe not. Maybe one of the others posts was the reason. Maybe they just removed all these old posts for reasons that had nothing to do with the content of any of the posts.

I do'nt think this is a big deal at all, since they removed all of Jonathan's posts. Oracle bought Sun. The viewpoints and strategy from Sun's former CEO are not necessarily relevant to the current strategy and direction of Oracle. So, there is no point in Oracle hosting those old opinions on their current website.

They removed his whole blog. Which seems reasonable enough without the imagined anti-Google conspiracy. He doesn't work for Oracle so there's no reason his old blog posts should be on oracle.com.

I think the consensus at the time was that SUN's CEO did not understand that Google would _not_ use SUN's own VM and Java implementation.

The post in question by itself means nothing. There is no context.

We know Google and Sun were in talks about Java. This post could have very well been posted when Google made it clear they were going to use the Java language, but before making it clear to Sun they weren't going to license anything. Without a timeline or any other details this proves nothing.

Hmm, remove possible Estopple evidence before settlement talks to avoid patent lawsuit loss..that will really get Google to agree to more money ..it would seem it produces the opposite..ie Google stating we have you on estopple or maybe you settle for $5 million and call it a day..

Not as interesting as this smoking gun from Andy Rubin. This is pretty damning evidence of willful infringement on the part of Google.

One of the most interesting passages in today's order quotes from an October 2005 email by Google's Android boss Andy Rubin back in 2005:

"If Sun doesn't want to work with us, we have two options: 1) Abandon our work and adopt MSFT CLR VM and C# language - or - 2) Do Java anyway and defend our decision, perhaps making enemies along the way"

If a jury sees that statement (and if there is a trial, then the jury will see it for sure), Google has a very serious problem. And "very serious" may be an understatement. Moreover, a statement like that showing up in publicly accessible court documents now may cause significant concern among many of Google's Android partners (including, but not limited to, device makers).

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/judge-orders-overhau...