

A Sun Position Paper on Software Patents, 2006 - Tsiolkovsky
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120520001747488

======
vibrunazo
Not sure if I'm more amazed that Oracle thought deleting the evidence from
their website would stop non other than Google from finding it. Or if I'm more
amazed that it actually worked for so long.

How exactly does this effect the current state of the trial? When will Google
have an opportunity to show this, and on what context? I thought we were just
waiting for the judge to finish making up his mind and give his verdict. Is
that correct?

~~~
eta_carinae
> Not sure if I'm more amazed that Oracle thought deleting the evidence from
> their website would stop non other than Google from finding it.

That's not the first time they do this, they deleted Jonathan Schwartz' entire
blog in the days that followed the acquisition.

They were certainly right to think that this blog would hurt their case, but
they obviously didn't realize that Schwartz' testimony itself would align with
Google.

Fun times.

------
taligent
It seems like Groklaw has this all backwards. Android does not run Java.

So Sun's position would be that software patents would be acceptable in this
case because Android is not interoperable with Java not trying to be.

~~~
asmala
That's a very interesting point!

That said, it's not quite as cut and dry, given that API compatibility goes a
long way.

~~~
pron
The patents under dispute have absolutely no relevance to the API. Regardless
of whether or not they are valid/justified/infringed by Google, they are not
required to make any software that's interopable with Java. Groklaw, as usual,
simply tries to flaunt whatever "incriminating" evidence it can find against
Oracle. Groklaw's analysis is anything but reliable as far as this case is
concerned.

