Content deleted Content added
Prosfilaes (talk | contribs) |
→Copyrights and patents: Dissent, but yield |
||
Line 680:
:: Yes, Oracle could sue on the same grounds. There's very few limitations on what people can sue on. Speculating that they could win such a lawsuit is, again, crystal-balling, and again, Oracle is not unique in having a creative legal department.
:: Going back to the original statement, nobody has ever shown that a language can be covered by copyrights, and [[Oracle v. Google]] said they couldn't, or at least Java wasn't. Neither 6061520 or RE38104, the two patents brought up in the Oracle trial, seem to be about Java as much as ways to implement Java. If we want to make the claim under question, we should speak with specificity and with cites. (And we should avoid saying anything about Oracle's "intellectual rights" over Java. That's not a clear term. We should speak specifically of copyrights, patents or trademarks, each of which has very different extents and limitations.)--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 17:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
:::I do understand your point but I still must disagree here. At any rate, I'm not going to press the issue any further. Perhaps we'll revisit the discussion sometime in the future. For now, at least, we can leave the wording as it is. [[User:Sebastiangarth|Sebastian Garth]] ([[User talk:Sebastiangarth|talk]]) 19:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
| |||