Oracle Sues Google Over Android

[david-8uUts6sDVDvs2Lz0fTdYFQ at public.gmane.org (David Kramer)]

Jack Coats wrote:
> Greed lawyers just seeing $$$ rather than looking at what the company
>  they purchased had done historically.  Sun did everything but 'open
> source' their own java implementation.  To me it seems like the main
> rights they retained was to try to be the 'leader' in Java to keep
> even the Java brand from being extended/enhanced and brought inside
> the Microsoft camp where it could be 'embraced, so it can be killed'
> like several other products over the years.


You have to separate out "The Java Standard" from "Sun's Reference
Implementation of The Java Standard".  They have the right to say what
is Java and what is not.  But that shouldn't get in the way of anyone
creating their own VM, as quite a few have done.


> Richard Pieri wrote:
>> Sun did release the Java EE (enterprise edition) under the GPL.
>> Look up "Project Glassfish".  And, in fact, that code is still
>> currently available on Oracle's web site: 
>> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javaee/community/index.html

Again, Glassfish is a reference implementation, which is an entirely
different thing from the standard itself

>> None of which is immediately relevant to the Oracle v. Google suit.
>> This is a patent suit because Google didn't license Java Mobile
>> Edition (Java ME) -- which was *not* released under an open source
>> license -- from Sun.

I'll have to take your word for that, but I have no reason to doubt you.
 So the rest of this thread is academic ;)