Hacker News Reader

Comment by Duff | Hacker News Reader

It doesn't really nullify it at all.

There's a big difference between not encouraging something and having the ability to forbid it. The strategy of making Java an open platform accelerated adoption, at the risk of having it replicated. This happened before as well -- remember the Microsoft-Sun dispute re: Microsoft J++?

Also consider the fact that there are at least two major POSIX-compliant implementations of Unix-like systems on the market today. BSD was a cleanroom implementation of AT&T Unix -- very similar conceptually to what is happening in Oracle vs. Google.

It's also absurd to claim that the public writings of the CEO or other officer of a corporation, published on a corporate website, are merely "personal opinion".

View on HN

1. all versions of BSD prior to 4.3 BSD(?) incorporated proprietary AT&T Unix code and were, therefore, subject to an AT&T software license.

2. Google's chief Java architect: it's 'likely' I copied Sun code found in Android, 'I'm sorry' if I did

http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/19/2961128/google-chief-java-...

If Oracle can prove that Google willfully broke Sun/Java copyright and license, Google needs to pay up.

You do know that he was agreeing to have copied 9 lines from one file, Timsort? And you do know that those 9 lines are just a range check? I mean:

    private static void rangeCheck(int arrayLen, int fromIndex, int toIndex) {
        if (fromIndex > toIndex)
            throw new IllegalArgumentException("fromIndex(" + fromIndex +
                       ") > toIndex(" + toIndex+")");
        if (fromIndex < 0)
            throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(fromIndex);
        if (toIndex > arrayLen)
            throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(toIndex);
    }

Literally a rangeCheck.

And not only that, 9 lines written by the stealer himself ( http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk7/timsort/... ) and given to Sun/Oracle!

Still, i agree with, Sun/Oracle do have the copyrights for that. Google needs to pay up, is ten bucks alright for this?

Apparently you're not familiar with what it means to claim you've implemented a "clean room" version of something.

Even a few lines of copied code explodes the whole claim.

Here's news to you: The Judge plans to inform jury that structure, sequence and organization of Java APIs are copyrightable.

I was trying to avoid a full dissertation into the family tree of Unix -- since 4.3BSD came out in the mid-80s, I think that the point stands that it is possible to legally reproduce a clone of complex software and APIs.

What the chief architect did or didn't do isn't relevant to the testimony of Jonathan Schwartz or rebuttal by McNealy.

Schwartz's testimony basically said that Sun was most concerned about protecting the Java trademarks and wider ecosystem, and while he wasn't necessarily happy with what Google did, he didn't see it as actionable. (Perhaps he thought that Google & Sun would eventually reconcile?)

..and yet when Oracle's lawyers noted that Schwartz "wasn't talking about Sun's legal position, but rather its business agenda." Schwartz said he was not a lawyer and therefore not an expert in copyright, patents and license agreements. Schwartz also said "I'm there to define our business strategy -- not to write our contracts."

Here's the main thing about his testimony: Schwartz "endorsement" is not a license agreement or a permission to break copyright/patent laws.

Edit:

and if you look at Jonathan's blog post it clearly says in the header "JONATHAN'S BLOG".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com