boby_k
About
- Username
- boby_k
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- -
- Roles
- member
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 17
Reactions
Comments
-
Quote: Originally Posted by melgross All of you guys really should read the analysis of this at Fosspatents. This is a very complex situation, and isn't subject to a simple resolution. I suggest never read Fosspatents. It is biased useless mat…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by kiwirob The problem with all your, Google just has to release code under GPL V2 talk and they are home free talk is that Google has not done that. If Google wanted to claim the GPL defense they could not keep Andr…
-
That is a blind accusation on Google. They also violated Microsoft's, as we can see by how easy it's been for MS to wrest license fees from so many Android OEM's so far. A: name one true invention from Microsoft? They violated Apple's. A…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by anonymouse Here's what I'm thinking: You either have not the slightest idea what you are talking about but have gotten pumped up on BS from Android and open source fan sites and came to spew it here, or, you know it's …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by melgross That's possible about Java, except not really. If Google did that, they would have to release all of their work to the public. Google has already shown they won't do that. One problem for them is the code they…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by freckledbruh OK, maybe I need to review everything I've read about this case, but I thought the problem wasn't using java as a language. I thought the issues were: 1) the Dalvik VM. Google claims that it was created …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by ryb If Google had not given this stolen (according to Oracle), free, OS away to hardware companies, we wouldn't be saying that Android is necessary to choice. We would be talking about the competition provided by WebOS…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by melgross If Google licensed the "real" version, they could move to that. This seems to be the opinion of some pretty smart people. As per GPL v2, you do not need another license from Oracle to create a clone of Java…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by ryb If that is true, the court will throw out the case shortly. I'm surprised it has gone on this long. Aren't you? I have to admit I am. Here is what I am thinking: At this point Oracle wants more money. Google wan…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by addabox So it's your assertion that no one working for Google or Oracle noticed this? That the entire lengthy, expensive, intense litigation is based of a simple, boneheaded misunderstanding concerning the fundamental…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Vendrazi Again, don't you think it's weird that YOU have managed to boil the case down to this, and yet teams and teams of lawyers appearing in front of judges have not managed to get across that there's this little at…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by hill60 Not directly but the monetization opportunities it offered Oracle to recoup it's investment in Sun has been pretty much destroyed by Google's misuse of Java in Android. Let us get to the facts. Download sourc…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by ryb The point you might be missing is that other creative companies would come in and fill that void. The need for competion in the market does not make it ok for Google to steal and lie. Justice would not be served if…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by cameronj Don't you think it's weird that all of Oracle's and Google's high priced lawyers couldn't find and interpret that legalese as well as you did? Ever wonder if that means you're missing something important? …
-
No J2ME is involved.
-
Quote: Originally Posted by hill60 Apart from J2ME, which is what is involved here. Sorry, this has nothing to do with J2ME. You can check yourself "PolicyNodeImpl.java" yourself. That is one file in question.
-
Oracle is contradicting its own license - a clone of Java is perfectly valid under GPL v2. The source for Java rumtime and libraries are published in internet at openjdk.net with GPL V2 and GPL V2 with class path exception (Google can convert Andro…