Comments on: Oracle’s final rebuttal against Google

By: Jonny_K

Jonny_K — Thu, 03 May 2012 03:27:00 +0000

These are the library APIs. Every language needs a library or two or three or 37 but they don’t need to be this exact set. Google’s expert witness admitted that Google could have designed a different set of libraries to achieve the same functionality but chose instead to copy Sun’s.

So the API’s were

a) A substantial amount of work — thousands of pages of details
b) A creative work — See testimony by Google’s Josh Boch
c) Copied — see testimony of Google tech leads.

In doubt are

a) Did Jonathan Schwartz implicitly give Google a license
b) Is Google’s use Fair Use
c) Are API’s immune from API protection.

c) will be ruled on by the judge after the jury rules assuming they are subject to copyright.

By: Guest

Guest — Tue, 01 May 2012 00:56:00 +0000

i don’t know if you really know what this is all about. you sound dumb.

By: Phil Meyer

Phil Meyer — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 23:10:00 +0000

The ‘code’ they are mentioning, is the ‘Structure, Organization, and Composition’ of the Java API.

The Java API was indeed published by SUN, was freely available, was encouraged by SUN, and would be impossible to write any Java code without it.

Please, at least pretend you read up on the case a bit …

By: ALLCONSULTING

ALLCONSULTING — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:32:00 +0000

Java is nothing more than a subset of C++ an ANSII language. As such, no patents should ever be give to JAVA. APIs are considered as part of any programming language. Oracle’s legal case is absurd.