Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google

Re:Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google by geofft on Tuesday March 27, 2018 @11:49AM (#16689642)

> I think the part that gets lost in all of this is that Sun offered to license Java to Google previously for $100M. Google turned that down and bypassed Sun because they didn't want to pay (or license).

I'm not sure I follow - Google believed they didn't need a license, just like everyone who used Linux despite SCO offering to license Linux to them.

If Google needed a license, and Sun had not offered one, it would not make a difference; Google would still be liable for infringement. There's no abandonware or compulsory license provision in the laws for this. The question is whether Google needed a license, not whether Sun was willing to offer one and for what price.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google by pbhjpbhj on Tuesday March 27, 2018 @03:25PM (#16691913)

There's no provision for compulsory licensing for copyright because it's not supposed to inhibit technical implementations. Patents do that, and it least in the UK the law includes compulsory licensing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google by geofft on Tuesday March 27, 2018 @04:22PM (#16692387)

US copyright law doesn't do compulsory licensing for anything other than music recordings, and I believe it doesn't have compulsory patent licensing at all. I'm not sure there's a good rationale for this.

[ Parent | on HN ]