Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What do you think about the Oracle vs. Google case?
- Thread starter deluxeshredder
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oracle owns the rights to Java. Google is using Java in Android without paying licensing fees. Oracle is just trying to protect its assets (The purchase of Sun Micro systems by Oracle gave them ownership of Java).
Android is not the victim here, Oracle is. If Sun Micro Systems and Google had reached a licensing agreement before the Oracle purchase then this lawsuit would probably not have happened.
Well Microsoft makes money on Android and looks like Oracle will get the same kind of deal.
As a Mac user it smashing to me the forgetfulness of the old rumor that why Bill Gates gave money to Apple is because the old rumor was Steve told bill he would make the QuickTime case disappear if Bill promised things and gave money and help steve become CEO of a company he help start.
Last edited:
The only difference is, neither Google or Oracle are days from bankrupsy. Microsoft could have easily have stalled the dispute until Apple was simply no more. To think that Apple had any sort of upper hand over Microsoft at that point, regardless of the QuickTime case, is plain daft.
This is a really well thought out point and really the only point I can see making. If Google wishes to continue to use Java then they should be paying for it. I don't know why Google seems to think they're above license fees.