[TheMblabla]

I think the CEO of Sun knew this..

"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.'"

https://www.cnet.com/news/former-sun-ceo-says-googles-androi...

[rayiner]

Whether it’s copyrightable or not is a legal question, and Schwartz isn’t a lawyer. And the answer has to be the same for everyone, not just Sun. Now, that might be an “implied license” or “estoppel” argument—even if it’s copyrightable, you can’t enforce it now because you led everyone to believe they could use it for free.

[indymike]

What lawyers think matters little. What judges think, well, that is what matters.

[rayiner]

Yes, of course. My point is that Schwarz isn’t an expert in copyright law, nor can his individual opinion be dispositive on a question of law that affects everyone.

[FandangoRanger]

Judges are merely lawyers who have pupated.

[bitwize]

What's this?

ATTORNEE is evolving!

ATTORNEE evolved into JUDGEON!

[IncRnd]

Schwartz's beliefs and statements don't apply. Schwartz didn't write the controlling law.

[syshum]

Schwartz's was the CEO of the company that held the "copyright" should one exist at the time of the alleged "infringement"

Thus Schwartz's beliefs are and should be relevant

[IncRnd]

But, Oracle isn't Schwartz. Swartz isn't suing.

[isbvhodnvemrwvn]

Under what legal basis?

[gpderetta]

Estoppel was mentioned elsethread.