"Nikolaj Lazic"  wrote

| I do not understand why nobody writes what it is:
| M$ took Java, modified it, stole the whole idea... and called it .Net.
| Is it so hard to write that?

   It's not true. MS created their own Java variant,
thinking they were doing a better job. They were
sued. They lost. So they removed it. Later they
built .Net, which was intended as a web services
system. (I provided that link a couple of days ago.)

  The two things were very different. The purpose
of such a product was up in the air, since Java failed
to find a place in webpages or on desktops. The commonality
was the idea of building a giant, bloated, superfluous
layer between the platform API and programmers, for
ease of use, RAD development, and to keep programmers
out of the actual platform API. Do you think Sun
should have had a license in perpetuity to get fees for
the idea of bloated wrappers?

  It's true that .Net then competed with Java server-side.
Why not? It was a wrapper system for use on their own
OS!

  I thought the Google/Oracle lawsuit was interesting. I
haven't really followed it, but as I understand it, Google
copied the object model function names while creating
their own code behind it. So presumably Java code could
be easily switched over. Should the Java copyright cover
function names? If I write a function called OpenFile, can
I copyright that? It's a tricky issue. On the one hand, it's
absurd to claim they own the names. On the other hand,
without owning the object model their system is
vulnerable to competitors. It's a bit like aftermarket auto
parts. Should Ford have the right to stop maunfacture
of any part designed to work in a Ford car? Fortunately
they don't have that right. I don't see why Oracle should,
either. If their system isn't superior then they deserve to
fall to Google or generic copiers.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05