
Initial Thoughts on Oracle vs Google Patent Lawsuit  - johns
http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2010/Aug-13.html
======
ZeroGravitas
In the subset/superset thing, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to be only
talking about adding stuff to the a particular namespace, not adding stuff
generally, and seems like a reasonable compatibility compromise rather than a
patent trap.

And, despite the smug tone and schadenfreude, I'm not sure this latest patent
warfare will convince anyone that Mono is a safe bet, quite the opposite in
fact.

Why should anyone take his word at greater value than the various Java
boosters (and Sun employees!) that previously said basically the same things
about Java?

~~~
gokhan
_> I'm not sure this latest patent warfare will convince anyone that Mono is a
safe bet, quite the opposite in fact._

I disagree. See Patents section:

<http://www.mono-project.com/Licensing>

The part Mono inherits from MS (C#, CLI etc.) is "irrevocably promised" by MS
(see <http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx>). Other parts,
libraries for example, are re-written from the ground, omitted or already open
sourced (see ASP.NET MVC).

Microsoft's Developer Division is doing great things for being open lately.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
You haven't explained why that's any different from what Sun was saying all
along, right up until they had a change in management and started suing
people. And even if there are actual differences, then they're not clear even
to above average engineers, so the mob will be swayed by gut instinct.

~~~
j_baker
Fair enough, but I doubt Microsoft will get bought out by a sue-happy company
anytime soon.

------
gojomo
This analysis hints, and another [<http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/?p=478>]
suggests more explicitly, that Google might be OK going forward if they
recast/relicensed their Java implementation as a derivative of Sun's GPL'd
OpenJDK.

~~~
wmf
Which would basically destroy Android performance; OpenJDK is too bloated to
run on phones.

~~~
gojomo
What term of the GPL or other OpenJDK distribution would require them to use
the whole thing?

Adding a few lines, or even just saying "we peeked at OpenJDK as a model, so
Dalvik is a derivative work" means they'd be relying on the OpenJDK's GPL, and
relicensing Dalvik as GPL as well. At that point, OpenJDK patent grants
(either explicit or implied) could make further alleged infringement moot.

