6 ms·
I think the CEO of Sun knew this.. "Google's lawyer, Robert van Nest, asked Schwartz whether, during his tenure at Sun, Java APIs were considered proprietary o
by TheMblabla 6y ago
I think the CEO of Sun knew this..
"Google's lawyer, Robert van Nest, asked Schwartz whether, during his tenure at Sun, Java APIs were considered proprietary or protected by Sun."
"'No,' Schwartz said in explaining the nature of open software. 'These are open APIs, and we wanted to bring in more people...we wanted to build the biggest tent and invite as many people as possible.'"
https://www.cnet.com/news/former-sun-ceo-says-googles-android-didnt-need-license-for-java-apis/ https://www.cnet.com/news/former-sun-ceo-says-googles-androi...
- rayiner 6y agoWhether it’s copyrightable or not is a legal question, and Schwartz isn’t a lawyer. And the answer has to be the same for everyone, not just Sun. Now, that might be an “implied license” or “estoppel” argument—even if it’s copyrightable, you can’t enforce it now because you led everyone to believe they could use it for free.
- indymike 6y agoWhat lawyers think matters little. What judges think, well, that is what matters.
- rayiner 6y agoYes, of course. My point is that Schwarz isn’t an expert in copyright law, nor can his individual opinion be dispositive on a question of law that affects everyone.
- FandangoRanger 6y agoJudges are merely lawyers who have pupated.
- bitwize 6y agoWhat's this? ATTORNEE is evolving! ATTORNEE evolved into JUDGEON!
- IncRnd 6y agoSchwartz's beliefs and statements don't apply. Schwartz didn't write the controlling law.
- syshum 6y agoSchwartz's was the CEO of the company that held the "copyright" should one exist at the time of the alleged "infringement" Thus Schwartz's beliefs are and should be relevant
- isbvhodnvemrwvn 6y agoUnder what legal basis?
- gpderetta 6y agoEstoppel was mentioned elsethread.
- IncRnd 6y agoBut, Oracle isn't Schwartz. Swartz isn't suing.