> Jonathan Schwartz's (CEO of Sun when Google re-implemented the Java APIs):
> "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.'"
I feel like I would raise this fact repeatedly, if i was trying to make my case.
I would too, but I assume the legal team has more experience with what points tend to matter in court and that “what the previous owner would have done” must not be one of them.
This has been brought up many times in many of the cases. IIRC, it has repeatedly been ignored as not an official statement (same w/ his past blog posts) and that the original intent is unrelated to whether they are protectable.
IANAL, but it's surprising that the original intent, or the manner in which a product was sold, would not matter. That means a company can trick people into an ecosystem by lying about their licensing terms, then suddenly pull the rug out?
> "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.'"
I feel like I would raise this fact repeatedly, if i was trying to make my case.