Why do you say that? In some regards yes, and some no.
I think the intellectual property is in the APIs/"headers". That is what Android uses from Java and what this company is copying from SmartCar. Its not easy to write a good API. (But, I should say, once you have the headers it is not as tough to populate them with code.) As for coping actual documentation, that is just plain stupid but not the _worse_ crime here.
Now, what is different is that many of us don't approve the way Oracle is enforcing the rights on this information. Java is not like the SmartCar APIs in that it has been free to use for so long. All the same I think Oracle should have the legal right to do this.
Many may disagree about Oracle vs Android but I think it is devaluing the work of people like James Gosling _and_ SmartCar if you say there is not intellectual value in the code/API headers.
> Many may disagree about Oracle vs Android but I think it is devaluing the work of people like James Gosling _and_ SmartCar if you say there is not intellectual value in the code/API headers.
It is not the same simply because Java is an open-source project. SmartCar, on the other hand, is not. I would argue that, because of the nature of open-source, Google should have been able to do as they pleased to facilitate allowing java code on their OS. I know that many would disagree. But to say that there is not intellectual value in the code/API of Java would be disingenuous, and ultimately incorrect; I can say with certainty that I would never say that, so thank you for putting words in my mouth.
Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, particularly based on a mere four words. I was talking to people who I have heard argue "it's only the headers".
I appreciate your response. I am not clear on if that particular information is open source. A quick Google search does not seem to give a good (single) answer.
