30 April 2012

Google vs. Sun/Oracle

Been watching the Google v Sun legal conflict. Basically I think the Nintendo decision that "an operational interface can't be copyrighted" applies. Nintendo once made a game system that required the display of the name Nintendo to run software. Non-Nintendo authors had to duplicate this. Nintendo sued, saying the name is copyrighted. Justice said yes, but since you made it operational, you fail. A language, an API, are operational interfaces. Sorry, Sun. They even implemented their own VM. And 9 obvious lines? Gimme a break. .... During his testimony last week, former Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz said that Google had done nothing wrong in building its own version of Java .... He argued that Google’s use of Java was akin to using the same labels that Oracle uses on the outside of a filing cabinet — but not the same files and folders used on the inside. IE The Lotus spreadsheet decision.. menu item order etc is not copyrightable, its an interface. ..... Van Nest also attacked Oracle’s complaint that Android has fragmented the Java platform. “You haven’t heard a single developer come in and say, ‘Gee, I’m unhappy about Java because Android fragmented it,’” he said to the jury. He then presented a number of slides and emails that ostensibly show that Sun fragmented Java itself. “And they recognized it,” he said. Yes!