So Oracle was on firm ground, as Java ticked the boxes required: it was, to use the technical terms, an original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression.įirm ground is something Google wasn't on. A piece of paper is required to keep someone like Larry at bay, and Google didn't have that piece of paper.Īppeals court judges tend to uphold rulings on intellectual property, not because of some evil conspiracy, but because that's what the law requires judges to do. Then Oracle supremo Larry Ellison acquired the rights to Java, and Larry is emphatically not a Kumbaya sort of person. Internally, Google's Android team knew they should get a license and said so, but Sun, which at the time was in its Kumbaya era under its ponytailed CEO Jonathan Schwartz, hadn't got round to getting Google's signature on the paperwork. Google had copied Sun Microsystems' Java – it took the technology then built useful new bits on it for Android – without a license. Google didn't have that one vital bit of paper. And this was a very straightforward case. But the principles of intellectual property are always straightforward, and this is what judges must ultimately consider. Java-aaaargh! Google faces $9bn copyright bill after Oracle scores 'fair use' court appeal win READ MOREĬopyright can be incredibly detailed and complicated, nightmarishly so when there are overlapping bundles of rights, as in music.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |