News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit. Parent comment

Re:Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Goo... by jcranmer on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @10:22AM (#21980725)
Google explicitly calls out in its brief the fact that Sun, as the original author of the code, very explicitly did not consider Google to be infringing.

Although I do wish Google tried harder to press the point that, based on Oracle's argument that copying the API infringes copyright, Oracle itself is in violation of others' copyright. Ars Technica has an example of that (Amazon's AWS), and the brief does give a vague allusion to this fact, based on what I presume is the trial records:

> Notably, Java SE itself “reimplements” interfaces from earlier programming languages. JA154-157; see also JA211.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Goo... by pjmlp on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @10:52AM (#21981095)
According to Gosling they did, just did had they money to do anything against it, and decided to make juice out of lemons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYw3X4RZv6Y&feature=youtu.be...

Also Google could have bought Sun and own Java, apparently they did not, as they thought they could get away with it.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Goo... by danShumway on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @11:58AM (#21981805)
This is inaccurate. According to Gosling in the video you link, Sun believed the clean room implementation probably wasn't clean. That has nothing to do with whether or not Sun believed that usage of the API was infringing.
[ Parent | on HN ]