or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google fighting to suppress evidence Android willfully infringed upon Oracle's Java
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google fighting to suppress evidence Android willfully infringed upon Oracle's Java - Page 6

post #201 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by SavedByTechnology View Post

I'm betting Google will weasel their way out of this

Against Larry Ellison and Oracle?

I'll take that bet!
post #202 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

But infringement isn't stealing, which is why one can't be arrested and imprisoned for it.

I dunno - the law takes a pretty dim view of willful infringement with the whole triple damages thing.

Your position is pretty weak - no thanks to your dancing partner. You might want to ditch 'em before they drag you down further...
post #203 of 354
Why is everybody assuming that oracle wants to kill Android? Is Larry Ellison suddenly not interested in money? Java is not going anywhere on mobiles. Android is....and popularizing Java. Oracle just wants it cut. Killing Android would be one of the dumbest business moves Oracle could make.

As for license fees. They could make it $50 (from all the suits) and Android will still sell because that's what people are buying. The OEMs aren't having much luck with WP7, even though it's a nice OS. Prices will simply be a little higher....which in a roundabout way protects Apple's profit margins. ut the idea that high license fees will kill Android is odd. WP7 phones are the same price right now and often actually priced lower. And they don't sell. License fees levelling the field will suddenly make a huge difference? I cant see it.
post #204 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

Even if Google loses I'm struggling to see what would actually change. Google can easily afford to pay a multibillion dollar settlement.

Can they afford to pay as much or more than they hoped to earn as profit on each Android "license"?

That's going to be the real question. Sure, they can afford a lump sum settlement - but any kind of perpetual licensing fee - especially if it goes much above $15 - will effectively kill Android, given that Google has stated they anticipate $20 of earnings per phone from advertising.

Heck, $10 would probably tip the balance from worth it to unprofitable.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out!
post #205 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

I dunno - the law takes a pretty dim view of willful infringement with the whole triple damages thing.

Your position is pretty weak - no thanks to your dancing partner. You might want to ditch 'em before they drag you down further...

Triple damages is a far cry from a stint in the pokey with fresh air on wednesdays. I'm not dancing with Google, I'm just arguing the facts of this case. I don't use android, I have no intention of using android and I can't even imagine wanting to program for android.

But every time I see people conflating patent infringement with theft, or describing it as evil or immoral I will argue against them - because patent infringement in the IT industry is endemic, heck it's necessary.

It is illegal until we can get the law changed to stop the software patent nonsense, but it certainly isn't immoral.
post #206 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Google merely was digitalizing the books to allow people to search through the books. It didn't give people access to the whole books (unless the books were in the public domain).

So? You expect me to believe that Google was doing the whole project for the greater good? If that's the case then why were they putting advertising on the book search results?

Let's cut the crap - they were absconding with other people's work to leverage it to show ads to make money (their primary business!).

To be blunt, they were trying to get something (ad revenue) for nothing (willful copyright infringement). Unfortunately with the Authors Guild half-assed settlement they kind of got away with it \

Larry is no Authors Guild - they had better watch out!
post #207 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Can they afford to pay as much or more than they hoped to earn as profit on each Android "license"?

That's going to be the real question. Sure, they can afford a lump sum settlement - but any kind of perpetual licensing fee - especially if it goes much above $15 - will effectively kill Android, given that Google has stated they anticipate $20 of earnings per phone from advertising.

Heck, $10 would probably tip the balance from worth it to unprofitable.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out!

Unlikely - consider the current ASP of smartphone vendors



Considering the enormous gap between iPhone and everything else, it's fairly likely that Android prices could rise by $10-$20 across the board without noticeably reducing sales. It's not like consumers have a cheaper alternative except for maybe blackberry or symbian
post #208 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

The case is a civil one not a criminal one, that's pretty fundamental.

Why are you assuming that the civil proceedings are going to be the end of it? If I had a willful infringement judgment the way Oracle apparently is going to, with the evidence that has been made public so far (I doubt these emails are all that is out there!) I wouldn't be surprised if criminal proceedings weren't next.

Quote:
Clearly a number of people here need to retake their high school civics course.

Clearly one should wait until the issues resolve themselves further before admonishing others in being hasty. Talk about ironic!
post #209 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Why are you assuming that the civil proceedings are going to be the end of it? If I had a willful infringement judgment the way Oracle apparently is going to, with the evidence that has been made public so far (I doubt these emails are all that is out there!) I wouldn't be surprised if criminal proceedings weren't next.

You are a great example of what I'm trying to fight here. No criminal proceedings would follow because there are no grounds for criminal proceedings in patent infringement cases, wilful or otherwise.

Quote:
Clearly one should wait until the issues resolve themselves further before admonishing others in being hasty. Talk about ironic!

Nope, you still need to take that civics course.
post #210 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Yes but it is still all contingent on the patents themselves. The judge is talking about the patents as they currently stand, surely you can see that? Naturally the judge in this case pays no attention to the invalidation process as it's not part of his purview, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

As I've been saying, there are patent claims that are valid.

Look at the patent examiner document of these patents. You will see that while some claims are rejected. There is one that has not been subject to re-examination, and several that have been ruled patentable. Those are the killers.

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/90011489-06232011.pdf
post #211 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

So far the judge has proven unconvinced by Oracle's damages claim.

Claim for an outright damages amount yes. Nothing in that article negates the real pickle for Google - Oracle getting a per-device license fee. Sure they are squabbling over the "damages amount" - but as everyone points out Google can easily hack that. A per device licensing fee, on the other hand, is huge and would more than likely stall or outright kill Android. And there is no indication whatsoever that it's off the table. Indeed, quite the contrary - especially with the judge accepting Oracle's "network effect" argument.

It's hardly a rosy picture for Google.
post #212 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

As I've been saying, there are patent claims that are valid.

Look at the patent examiner document of these patents. You will see that while some claims are rejected. There is one that has not been subject to re-examination, and several that have been ruled patentable. Those are the killers.

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/90011489-06232011.pdf

Ok, now you're on firmer ground but you're still wrong sadly. This is the first office action, as are the others. Yes, some few claims are still being considered valid at this point, but it's still possible that they could be invalidated, they are still under consideration - just as some of the claims that have been judged initially invalid may not be.

All of the claims except for claim 5 on that patent are still being contested, and all the patents are being contested. It's not even clear if Oracle is asserting claim 5 against Google.

So no, as yet we know of no claim that Oracle is asserting against Google which is certainly valid.
post #213 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


But every time I see people conflating patent infringement with theft, or describing it as evil or immoral I will argue against them - because patent infringement in the IT industry is endemic, heck it's necessary.

It is illegal until we can get the law changed to stop the software patent nonsense, but it certainly isn't immoral.

Long time lurker, first time poster.

I think most people here will agree that patent infringement and copyright violations are not "stealing".

Google is apple's competitor and hence people here will be more than happy to throw any dirt at them and "stealing" is a popular word among apple fans and thats the one that is currently in use against them at the moment and what you are trying to say is simply in the way and thats why these guys play dumb and nobody comes to your aid.

These people you are arguing with know the distinctions you are trying to make, they simply play dumb for reasons that can be explained with that popular phrase "dont let facts get in the way of a good story".

You have very compelling arguments and i am sure a lot of people here supports your view. They just dont help you out for reasons i mention above, its in a way of a good dirt throwing.

I specifically liked the land example, pretty creative.
post #214 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Naturally the judge in this case pays no attention to the invalidation process as it's not part of his purview, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

So now your saying their defense is going to be invalidation of the patent?

In a race to see if appeals on this case can be exhausted before the patent invalidation process finishes, I wouldn't be betting on the patent invalidation process!

Google is paying, one way or the other. It may be a matter of for how long [i]if[/i the patents in question are invalidated, but that's a pretty flimsy defense!
post #215 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Ok, now you're on firmer ground but you're still wrong sadly. This is the first office action, as are the others. Yes, some few claims are still being considered valid at this point, but it's still possible that they could be invalidated, they are still under consideration - just as some of the claims that have been judged initially invalid may not be.

All of the claims except for claim 5 on that patent are still being contested, and all the patents are being contested. It's not even clear if Oracle is asserting claim 5 against Google.

So no, as yet we know of no claim that Oracle is asserting against Google which is certainly valid.

What? All of these claims are being asserted against Google. That's why Google requested they be re-examined. You should know that it's extremely unlikely that subsequent notice will overthrow this re-examination. It almost never happens.

Even if Google loses on just claim 5, they are screwed.
post #216 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

WP7 phones are the same price right now and often actually priced lower. And they don't sell. License fees levelling the field will suddenly make a huge difference? I cant see it.

WP7 are the same price to consumers - but remember the back end games between manufacturers and carriers are where the real $$ are made. Carriers are pushing Android right now because of that extra $50 (or whatever) per device. Take that away and and Android is less attractive and other phones are more attractive.

Look at it a different way - look at Android when propped up by the carriers in phones.

Now look at Android in the tablet space when it's unsubsidized in price and advertising and has to compete on it's own merits - nary a blip on the proverbial radar.

This the future if Android phone's if there is any significant license fee extracted by Oracle or anyone else.
post #217 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

I am no Google fan and agree Google ignores IP, but the copying of books was a case where Google was in the right. Google was copying the books not to allow people to use them free (unless they were in the public domain). Google was creating a data base where people could search for information contained in books. It was a clear case of fair-use. ...

This argument is complete nonsense. There is no aspect of fair use that allows you to copy entire works for commercial purposes.

And I see cloudgazer has gone off on another fantasy based Google apology based on the theory that if an act isn't criminal it isn't immoral. Yeesh.
post #218 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by daftari View Post

Long time lurker, first time poster.

I think most people here will agree that patent infringement and copyright violations are not "stealing".

Google is apple's competitor and hence people here will be more than happy to throw any dirt at them and "stealing" is a popular word among apple fans and thats the one that is currently in use against them at the moment and what you are trying to say is simply in the way and thats why these guys play dumb and nobody comes to your aid.

These people you are arguing with know the distinctions you are trying to make, they simply play dumb for reasons that can be explained with that popular phrase "dont let facts get in the way of a good story".

You have very compelling arguments and i am sure a lot of people here supports your view. They just dont help you out for reasons i mention above, its in a way of a good dirt throwing.

I specifically liked the land example, pretty creative.

No. Actually most people here are smart enough to believe it. We don't have moral equivalence.
post #219 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

But every time I see people conflating patent infringement with theft, or describing it as evil or immoral I will argue against them

Infringement is theft. It might not land you "in the pokey" but it's still wrong. If not, then why the concept of monetary - heck, even triple - monetary damages?

You sure you want to keep dancing on the head of this pin?

Meh - if Melgross wants to he's more than welcome to continue with you. Have fun!

Quote:
because patent infringement in the IT industry is endemic, heck it's necessary.

I think that's a cop out. It's not perfect, but software patents are hardly the morass that many make them out to be.
post #220 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

I think the blatant hypocrisy is what is so grating to many of us...

Indeed. Google reminds me of the stereotypical televangelist who preaches about how morally righteous they are and how others are rotten sinners and then play the victim when they were caught with a few prostitutes. I don't know if that's more shameful or that people actually fall for their BS.

For all the crap Apple fanboys get, I don't think a single one of us believes that Jobs and company do what they do out of the goodness of their hearts, but Google fanboys (hopefully just a very annoyingly vocal minority of them anyway) seem to think that Schmidt, Page, etc. are all in it to spread love, peace, and happiness.
post #221 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

What? All of these claims are being asserted against Google. That's why Google requested they be re-examined. You should know that it's extremely unlikely that subsequent notice will overthrow this re-examination. It almost never happens.

Even if Google loses on just claim 5, they are screwed.

Google didn't request a re-examine on claim 5. Read the damned document! Right up there at the top 'Re-examination of claims 1-4, 6-23 of <blah> has been requested'. And it's quite often that initial office actions get reversed, which is actually to Oracle's benefit because almost all of their claims examined so far have been thrown out.

The number of claims infringed may end up being significant from the perspective of damages. A single claim may not mean they're screwed, though they'd obviously prefer none.
post #222 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Infringement is theft. It might not land you "in the pokey" but it's still wrong.

Infringement is theft because it's wrong? Wow, profound.
post #223 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

This argument is complete nonsense. There is no aspect of fair use that allows you to copy entire works for commercial purposes.

And I see cloudgazer has gone off on another fantasy based Google apology based on the theory that if an act isn't criminal it isn't immoral. Yeesh.

And I see that you are playing mini-me to melgross again. Putting words into people's mouths that they never said and making zero sense. Yeesh.
post #224 of 354
We can argue morality until we're blue in the face, but most people understand what it is, and legal terminology has little to do with it:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality

An example of what we're talking about lies in this statement Merriam-Websters uses as an example:

The decision may be legally justified, but I question its morality.
post #225 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

This argument is complete nonsense. There is no aspect of fair use that allows you to copy entire works for commercial purposes.

And I see cloudgazer has gone off on another fantasy based Google apology based on the theory that if an act isn't criminal it isn't immoral. Yeesh.

+++
I do not understand why anyone even responds such nonsense.
post #226 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Google didn't request a re-examine on claim 5. Read the damned document! Right up there at the top 'Re-examination of claims 1-4, 6-23 of <blah> has been requested'. And it's quite often that initial office actions get reversed, which is actually to Oracle's benefit because almost all of their claims examined so far have been thrown out.

The number of claims infringed may end up being significant from the perspective of damages. A single claim may not mean they're screwed, though they'd obviously prefer none.

They didn't request it, because they admit the validity.

No, as I said, it's very rare for it to be reversed.
post #227 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

You are a great example of what I'm trying to fight here. No criminal proceedings would follow because there are no grounds for criminal proceedings in patent infringement cases, wilful or otherwise.

Really? What clairvoyance you have!


Quote:
Nope, you still need to take that civics course.

Why are you assuming that it will start and end with a patent dispute? Surely you are familiar with the concept of follow on litigation?

Especially if this becomes the start of a much-deserved trail of habitual disregard for intellectual property law - it can cross over into the criminal.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/50585813/4/Market-Economy

Page 171...

So future litigation (which I do acknowledge is probably unlikely) wouldn't be related to patents - but I wouldn't just dismiss it out of hand either.

Unless you have that crystal ball working. If that's the case I'll split the lottery with you!
post #228 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by sumjuan View Post

+++
I do not understand why anyone even responds such nonsense.

Well I'm done with it - despite saying I was done with it a few posts back

Time to get some dinner.

And then some popcorn for the coming weeks
post #229 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Infringement is theft because it's wrong? Wow, profound.



I was going to respond to that but decided against it. I think he is set in his thinking and no amount or reasoning will change his mind so why bother.

The best you can do is try to show people what "stealing" means and what "patent infringement" and "copyright violations" means and converse with those who want to see the distinction and atleast use proper words in proper context.
post #230 of 354
You guys are all very funny.

How about a view from a more neutral source. It might ... change ... your opinions as to what's going on, who's at fault, and who needs to worry.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...0-CV-03561-WHA

2011 13" Core i5 Macbook Pro | Intel 520 SSD | 8GB Corsair DDR3 1333 | OSX 10.7
iPhone 4S - AT&T

iPad 3 Wi-Fi

Reply

2011 13" Core i5 Macbook Pro | Intel 520 SSD | 8GB Corsair DDR3 1333 | OSX 10.7
iPhone 4S - AT&T

iPad 3 Wi-Fi

Reply
post #231 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

They didn't request it, because they admit the validity.

No, as I said, it's very rare for it to be reversed.

Or they didn't request it because it's one claim that they're confident that they don't infringe. If all these first office actions stand then this is actually going very badly for Oracle - their longest lived Java patent was the one that was completely invalidated.
post #232 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by daftari View Post

Long time lurker, first time poster.

I think most people here will agree that patent infringement and copyright violations are not "stealing".

Google is apple's competitor and hence people here will be more than happy to throw any dirt at them and "stealing" is a popular word among apple fans and thats the one that is currently in use against them at the moment and what you are trying to say is simply in the way and thats why these guys play dumb and nobody comes to your aid.

These people you are arguing with know the distinctions you are trying to make, they simply play dumb for reasons that can be explained with that popular phrase "dont let facts get in the way of a good story".

You have very compelling arguments and i am sure a lot of people here supports your view. They just dont help you out for reasons i mention above, its in a way of a good dirt throwing.

I specifically liked the land example, pretty creative.



Larry... Is that you?


Congrats on a classic 1st post!
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #233 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHrubik View Post

You guys are all very funny.

How about a view from a more neutral source. It might ... change ... your opinions as to what's going on, who's at fault, and who needs to worry.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...0-CV-03561-WHA

Groklaw is by no mean neutral.
post #234 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Groklaw is by no mean neutral.

Neutral on the Internet means "I agree with this."
post #235 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

You are a great example of what I'm trying to fight here. No criminal proceedings would follow because there are no grounds for criminal proceedings in patent infringement cases, wilful or otherwise.



Nope, you still need to take that civics course.

@cloudgazer you seem to feel that you, and you only, understand all the legal and patent issues involved -- better than the lawyers, USPTO professionals, judges, public record, bloggers with bona fides, legal training, principals involved -- and anyone with the ability to read, reason and differentiate.

In truth, you have become your sig.


BTW, when do you find time for your, obviously vast, legal practice?

/sarcasm
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #236 of 354
... it was Mr. Ruby, in the Bathroom, with the Plunger!
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #237 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Larry... Is that you?


Congrats on a classic 1st post!

No larry here, you can check my IP address against that of larry if you dont believe these are my first posts here. I would like you to notice that all i am saying is supporting a member here with more than 1000 posts.

Wikipedia has an article of "stealing" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft

This other wikipedia entry relates "stealing" with "theft". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steal_%28disambiguation%29

As the article say "stealing" is a criminal act. Patent infringement and copyright violations are not criminal acts and hence are not stealing.

You may say you do not care about the distinction and you view these violations are "stealing" but you should know that once you do that. Then you will logically start to argue for or against these violations/infringements as if the issue is a criminal matter and no good can come from that.

It is a very dangerous thing to knowingly use words in wrong context because you do not care about the context. Once you pass the stage where you made the decision of not caring,all your arguments will logically follow a path that isnt valid from that point forward.

OK, i have said my piece and i am going back to lurking.
post #238 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Or they didn't request it because it's one claim that they're confident that they don't infringe. If all these first office actions stand then this is actually going very badly for Oracle - their longest lived Java patent was the one that was completely invalidated.

That makes no sense. They've already admitted that they're willing to pay Oracle to get this over with. They admitted in internal documents that they infringe. What you're saying is that they lay no claim to article 5.
post #239 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qualia View Post

Neutral on the Internet means "I agree with this."

Yeah, pretty much.
post #240 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by daftari View Post

No larry here, you can check my IP address against that of larry if you dont believe these are my first posts here. I would like you to notice that all i am saying is supporting a member here with more than 1000 posts.

Wikipedia has an article of "stealing" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft

This other wikipedia entry relates "stealing" with "theft". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steal_%28disambiguation%29

As the article say "stealing" is a criminal act. Patent infringement and copyright violations are not criminal acts and hence are not stealing.

You may say you do not care about the distinction and you view these violations are "stealing" but you should know that once you do that. Then you will logically start to argue for or against these violations/infringements as if the issue is a criminal matter and no good can come from that.

It is a very dangerous thing to knowingly use words in wrong context because you do not care about the context. Once you pass the stage where you made the decision of not caring,all your arguments will logically follow a path that isnt valid from that point forward.

OK, i have said my piece and i am going back to lurking.

You should go to a real dictionary site. wiki's definitions can be, shall we say, odd?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Google fighting to suppress evidence Android willfully infringed upon Oracle's Java
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google fighting to suppress evidence Android willfully infringed upon Oracle's Java