[cletus]

Of course they do. Some might point to Larry Ellison being a major supporter [1] but I think the real motivation is this plays into the narrative that Google is somehow biased against conservatives.

What's interesting about this is Google made two huge mistakes here:

1. According to Google, Sun was fine with their use of Java. If so, why not just put it in writing and get a license? This might've only cost $10 million at the time. Maybe not even that. Even if it was $100 million, it sure looks cheap now;

Remember, Microsoft originally paid for a Java license for IE [2]. And one issue with the Sun-Microsoft lawsuit was that Sun argued forking Java was a breach of contract. Surely this establishes that even if Sun were fine with Android they could try and enforce their IP rights through litigation. So why not enshrine this in a license?

2. Google declined to bid on Sun. I remember when this went down and it seemed risky to let Oracle control Java given how invested Google was in Java at that point. And it should've been clear that Oracle's interest was to leverage Sun's IP to get a slice of Android. Hubris is the only thing I can think of that justified letting this happen.

[1]: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/oracle-employees-call-on-l...

[2]: https://www.cnet.com/news/sun-seeks-35-million-in-java-suit/

[bitL]

Jonathan Schwartz was always complaining about Google using SUN's API; they hoped Google would write them a nice fat check and be BFFs but Google decided to be selfish and just used and replaced SUN's tech. I think combination of ex-SUN's people mood and Oracle's lawyer-heavy structure couldn't have led to a different outcome.