
Jonathan Schwartz says Google's Android didn't need license for Java APIs - taylorbuley
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57420304-94/former-sun-ceo-says-googles-android-didnt-need-license-for-java-apis/
======
jimmyvanhalen
testimony of Sun co-founder Scott McNealy essentially nullified everything
said by former CEO Jonathan Schwartz less than 30 minutes prior.

[http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57422366-92/oracle-turns-
to...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57422366-92/oracle-turns-to-mcnealy-
to-bolster-its-case/?tag=featureRiver)

1\. McNealy affirmed to Oracle counsel David Boies that Java was "extremely
valuable" to Sun and that it involved "lots of intellectual property."

2\. Going over the restrictions that Sun had in place through licensing,
McNealy explained that the "most important one, with respect to Java, is to
maintain compatibility because that was one of the most important value
propositions that we offered."

3\. In an effort to null the testimony the jury heard from Schwartz less than
30 minutes prior, Boies asked if it was ever Sun's policy to allow any company
to implement an incompatible version of Java so long as they didn't call it
Java. "I don't recall that was ever a strategy that we pursued nor allowed in
the marketplace," replied McNealy.

4.When asked if he saw Schwartz's November 2007 blog post (now a notable piece
of evidence bounced around by both sides to their own -- but different --
advantages in this case) praising Google's announcement of Android.... McNealy
asserted that it was company policy that those kinds of blogs were not
corporate, but rather personal.

5.Boies asked about if allowing an incompatible version of Java to exist on
the market would adversely affect Sun's economics. After a long explanation,
McNealy finally said it would have a "negative" effect. "It was a very clear
corporate strategy for the Java platform to stay compatible," McNealy said.

~~~
Duff
It doesn't really nullify it at all.

There's a big difference between not encouraging something and having the
ability to forbid it. The strategy of making Java an open platform accelerated
adoption, at the risk of having it replicated. This happened before as well --
remember the Microsoft-Sun dispute re: Microsoft J++?

Also consider the fact that there are at least two major POSIX-compliant
implementations of Unix-like systems on the market today. BSD was a cleanroom
implementation of AT&T Unix -- very similar conceptually to what is happening
in Oracle vs. Google.

It's also absurd to claim that the public writings of the CEO or other officer
of a corporation, published on a corporate website, are merely "personal
opinion".

~~~
jimmyvanhalen
1\. all versions of BSD prior to 4.3 BSD(?) incorporated proprietary AT&T Unix
code and were, therefore, subject to an AT&T software license.

2\. Google's chief Java architect: it's 'likely' I copied Sun code found in
Android, 'I'm sorry' if I did

[http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/19/2961128/google-chief-
java-...](http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/19/2961128/google-chief-java-
architect-likely-i-copied-sun-code-in-android)

If Oracle can prove that Google willfully broke Sun/Java copyright and
license, Google needs to pay up.

~~~
felipeko
You do know that he was agreeing to have copied 9 lines from one file,
Timsort? And you do know that those 9 lines are just a range check? I mean:

    
    
        private static void rangeCheck(int arrayLen, int fromIndex, int toIndex) {
            if (fromIndex > toIndex)
                throw new IllegalArgumentException("fromIndex(" + fromIndex +
                           ") > toIndex(" + toIndex+")");
            if (fromIndex < 0)
                throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(fromIndex);
            if (toIndex > arrayLen)
                throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(toIndex);
        }

Literally a rangeCheck.

And not only that, 9 lines written by the stealer himself (
[http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk7/timsort/...](http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk7/timsort/raw_files/new/src/share/classes/java/util/TimSort.java)
) and given to Sun/Oracle!

Still, i agree with, Sun/Oracle do have the copyrights for that. Google needs
to pay up, is ten bucks alright for this?

~~~
Steko
Apparently you're not familiar with what it means to claim you've implemented
a "clean room" version of something.

Even a few lines of copied code explodes the whole claim.

------
wildster
Good guy Schwartz does the right thing.

