Content deleted Content added
→Copyrights and patents: Response |
Prosfilaes (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 677:
If we're going to say that "Various aspects of the language are covered by patents and copyrights held by Oracle.", then we need a cite to back it up. [[Oracle_v._Google]] says the opposite, that provided they avoid copying code, Google can implement Java (and all its APIs) even over Oracle's objections. http://www.javaworld.com/jw-10-1997/jw-10-lawsuit.html says "the complaint charges Microsoft with trademark infringement, false advertising, breach of contract, unfair competition, interference with prospective economic advantage, and inducing breach of contract." That long list does not include copyrights or patents. If we're wildly speculating, http://communities.mentor.com/community/cs/archives/cxx-abi-dev/msg01295.html is a list of possible patents over C++ implementations (not really from a reliable source) and if GCC's C++ implementation violates any of them, so almost certainly does GCC's Java implementation, as they share an ABI... and IBM and Microsoft are the corporate names on those patents, not Oracle.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 08:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
:Your last observation is interesting, but irrelevant here. The point is, Oracle may at any time assert it's intellectual rights over various aspects of the Java language. Moreover, the verdict in the Oracle/Google lawsuit does not in any way affect their right to sue even on the very same grounds laid out in that particular lawsuit, and however unlikely, they could still win such a lawsuit. And please note that a large part of that lawsuit was simply an objection to Google duplicating the Java API of all things! Which means, of course, that the types of complaints filed in any future lawsuit are only limited by the creativity of Oracle's legal department. [[User:Sebastiangarth|Sebastian Garth]] ([[User talk:Sebastiangarth|talk]]) 13:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
:: The point is, Microsoft may at any time assert its intellectual rights over various aspects of the Java and C++ languages. So might IBM. So might any other huge patent holder. So might any designer of a pre-Java API who wanted to claim that Java's API is a copyright infringement of theirs. Looking at the results of the SCO trial, it's not at all improbable that somewhere BSD-licensed code snuck its way into Oracle's Java implementation sans proper copyright notice. All of this might happen, and all of it is [[WP:CRYSTAL|crystal-balling]].
:: 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)
| |||