Re:Bill Gates answers questions about Java during a depositi...
by V-2 on Monday October 27, 2014 @03:45AM
(#8514332)
Note that Google considered using C# instead of Java at some point :)
"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"
http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/07/judge-orders-overhaul-of-...
Re:Bill Gates answers questions about Java during a depositi...
by MichaelGG on Monday October 27, 2014 @12:15PM
(#8516374)
The Mono team ported Android to C#, and got some significant performance wins. http://blog.xamarin.com/android-in-c-sharp/
One wonders how much better the world would be if Google had hired some first employees that preferred expressive languages.
Re:Bill Gates answers questions about Java during a depositi...
by yohanatan on Monday October 27, 2014 @02:36AM
(#8514188)
> Syntax of a programming language not being IP protected is probably a good thing for developers, regardless of what you think of the Microsoft situation. The API being protected is a separate issue
But in the case you cited, the API was found to be not protected (which is also the proper ruling in my opinion).
Re:Bill Gates answers questions about Java during a depositi...
by peterashford on Monday October 27, 2014 @09:54PM
(#8519165)
I'm pretty sure that Sun didn't sue Google. They'd discussed it internally and decided to let it slide. Only on being purchased by Oracle did the the lawsuit go ahead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_v._Google
Sun settled with Microsoft before a verdict was reached, so the question of IP and if alternate implementations of a language syntax is allowed wasn't answered then.
In the antitrust suit, all that was answered was that Microsoft used its advantage with its operating system monopoly to push its version of the Java runtime. The effect was that Microsoft were not allowed to bundle their runtime, but had to offer users the choice - they were not found to be violating Sun's IP in implementing a runtime.
Syntax of a programming language not being IP protected is probably a good thing for developers, regardless of what you think of the Microsoft situation. The API being protected is a separate issue, as is the trademark on the name (which applied in the Microsoft case but not in Google's since they didn't use the trademark term in their implementation)