Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
The details of what constituted the copyright infringement do not change the point I was making, which was that this was a copyright infringement case, not, as has been repeatedly and erroneously stated in this thread, a patent infringement issue.
|
Unfortunately for you, you then proceeded to make another point entirely, that is, to stick up for Oracle by asserting that (emphasis mine):
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
The implementation of the language. They copied Oracle's code.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Precisely. A "clean-room" reimplementation of the Java language and library not based on Oracle's source code would have been entirely legal. Google gambled on ripping off Oracle's source and lost.
|
And even more unfortunately for you, that is what I was responding to.
You can tell, because those were the points I debunked.
Which would you like to detract:
- your assertions in posts #36 & #39
- or your defense in post #42
But make up your mind, because they don't make much sense coming from the same person.