Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Mobile Computing - OSs & Manufacturers UNMODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sylvester80 who wrote (822)	1/21/2011 7:32:40 PM
From: Lahcim Leinad	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 3170

Think I'll let the lawyers tell me the rest of the story, from here on out. Thanks.

To: sylvester80 who wrote (822)	1/22/2011 11:43:31 AM
From: Lahcim Leinad	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 3170

Who's right? Engadget has a horse in the race because Burnette called them out by name for publishing the original story, and they point out that the geeks are technically correct. But from a legal perspective it may not matter. Oracle owns the code. Somebody put it into a Google code base and changed it in a way that Oracle objected to, without Oracle's permission. That may be all a judge needs to issue summary judgment FOR Oracle in the case. More: sfgate.com