Oracle: 0 – Google: 0 – C#/Microsoft: 1

How interesting it is now that a few days have passed in the Oracle v. Google soap opera there are those crowing over how Mono and .Net is less patent encumbered than Java.

This (Java Patent Grant) is more stringent than the Microsoft Community Promise that applies to .NET as the Community Promise only requires a minimum subset, it does not prevent supersets

Beyond that there is some ‘whispers’ that Oracle might be taking a more ‘open’ path than most envisioned.

When Google came to us with their thoughts on cellphones, one of their core principles was making the platform free to handset providers. They had very weak notions of interoperability, which, given our history, we strongly objected to. Android has pretty much played out the way that we feared: there is enough fragmentation among Android handsets to significantly restrict the freedom of software developers.

There are also folks who claim that Steve Jobs, a friend of Larry Ellison, is the root of the lawsuit. Supposedly he wanted to disrupt the enormous growth of Android to ensure the iPhone / iPad OS has room to grow.

Oh, the world of high-tech silicon valley companies is so interesting. Now… back to the real world.

This entry was posted in FOSS. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Oracle: 0 – Google: 0 – C#/Microsoft: 1

  1. leonel says:

    And do you really trust more on a promise? Than a Legal Document?

    • Charles Profitt says:

      Depends on the person extending the offer. Some people’s word I trust more than any legal document. In the case of Google and Oracle I have no trust of either. In the case of .Net and Java I would have to say a legal document detailing a more limited agreement is known to be worse than a more open, but not on paper, promise. I thought the Microsoft License for .Net was more than just a promise though –

    • Manish says:

      From Microsoft community Promise

      Q: Is this Community Promise legally binding on Microsoft and will it be available in the future to me and to others?

      A: Yes, the CP is legally binding upon Microsoft. The CP is a unilateral promise from Microsoft and in these circumstances unilateral promises may be enforced against the party making such a promise. Because the CP states that the promise is irrevocable, it may not be withdrawn by Microsoft. The CP is, and will be, available to everyone now and in the future for the specifications to which it applies. As stated in the CP, the only time Microsoft can withdraw its promise against a specific person or company for a specific Covered Specification is if that person or company brings (or voluntarily participates in) a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft regarding Microsoft’s implementation of the same Covered Specification. This type of “suspension” clause is common industry practice.

  2. Martin Owens says:

    I’ve never been impressed by Java or .Net. both are rather superfluous, developed by higher powers with agendas, have fanatics who swear their language is the second coming of Jesus and basically offer no control over the standardisation process to the community of developers.

    Supersets my arse.

    Patents + no control + primary proprietary implementations = rubbish.

  3. TGM says:

    I would call this 0-0-0 because the same potential is there for Mono… And I don’t use Java either.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s