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 8

post #281 of 354
LOL. True unless it come to it's search algorithms.

I find this quote particularly entertaining when applied to Android:

"We just want everyone to know the truth about how Microsoft operates as a search engine, which is by taking the hard work of others and presenting it as their own," said Amit Singhal, a Google fellow who oversees the company's closely guarded search formulas.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Qualia View Post

One of those cultures is apparently the one germinating in Google campus.
post #282 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Evil is indeed a discussion of morality, but patents are a matter of law, as is copyright. It's ludicrous to suggest that patent infringement is evil - I invite you to find a major religion with an injunction against it, or a moral philosopher with a cogent argument for it as 'evil' or immoral.

Evil is definitely used to mean extreme immorality. When George W Bush railed against the Axis of Evil, even americans didn't think he was including people who cheated on their spouses or double dipped their chips.

If Google is evil, then Apple is evil and no doubt even Ben and Jerries were evil. If everybody is evil then nobody is evil. A little sense of proportion would go a long way.


I would say that evil is a contradiction of what is considered morally right by a society, not a matter of some supernatural definition. The opposite of Good is Evil. While there may be different levels of "evilness", if you choose to take advantage of others for you own benefit...then I would classify you as Evil (or at least your actions).
post #283 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

But what would be cheaper? WP7? It's already an equivalent price and consumers are simply not interested - MS's brand value in the mobile space appears to be negative. Android isn't as compelling an OS as iOS but it is currently head and shoulders above the non-apple platforms, and another $20 per handset isn't going to meaningfully change that.

Now if WebOs or WP manage to take off and get serious penetration then the additional cost might start to have an impact, but as the market stands right now? No.

I haven't read ANY article that eludes that WP7 costs handset manufacturers $50+ per handset. In fact, B&N said that Microsoft demanded $15-20 per Nook which is TWICE the licensing cost of WP7 which means they are looking for $7.50-10 per device. $50 per phone/device for Android is waaay more money and as I said before, if the hardware companies are already losing money every quarter, why would they actually pay so much more just to run Google's OS?
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #284 of 354
Duplicate post
post #285 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

You're arguing against a position I'm not taking. Let me make it more clear

Person A writes a book and owns the copyright on the book.
Person B scans the book and owns a derived copyright on the scan documents.

Person B's copyright doesn't allow him to distribute his scans fully without respect to Person A's copyright. Consent from person A isn't sufficient to allow person C the right to copy person B's files. The question as to whether person B was legally entitled to take the scan is a different one entirely. Should person A's copyright lapse, person B's copyright may still remain.



In the case of the old master, yes the original is public domain, but since the museum who owns it won't let you scan it yourself you'll never have a public domain digital representation because of the copyright on the derived scan. The scan is itself a reproduction, and has a derived copyright.

I replied to what you wrote.

To reply to your latest, if I write a book, it is mine. It is copyrighted material. (If I register the copyright, my rights to collect damages are expanded.) If you scan that work, and publish and file for a copyright on that book, you are only able to copyright that which is not owned by someone else.

1. What you scan and reproduce is not a derivative work. Period. To be a derivative work, you have to substantively change the original. A scan does not do that. So, what you scanned is not included in your copyright.

2. By reproducing my work without permission, you are liable for damages to me, the copyright holder. No one, not you or anyone else has the right to scan and reproduce my work, or that of any copyright holder without permission of the copyright owner. If they do so, they are also financially liable to the copyright owner.

3. The rules for reproducing copyrighted material without permission include fair use (e.g. news report or book review), academic use (by student or professor), etc. Under no circumstances do those rules allow for someone else to subtantively copy another's work on a wholesale basis or for profit by another without the permission of the copyright owner.

If you don't believe me, copy a book by oh, say James Patterson, change the cover and typeface and title and publish it. Claim it is a derivative work. See how far that gets you. Or, better yet, scan it onto your computer, and sell the scans as an ebook and claim it is a derivative work. See where that gets you.

My bet is you will end up on the rather nasty side of a law suit and a cease and desist order.

The only way you could legitimately argue that you have a right to scan/copy a copyrighted work is if you only make a single copy and claim that you did so to preserve it as a backup copy of the original work. You might win that law suit, or might not, depending on the jurisdiction. However, no one will ever agree that you own a copyright of a derivative work based on the original simply because you scanned it -- which is what you wrote.
post #286 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Something I have been wondering about.

If Google is found guilty of wilfully infringing Oracle's patents and proceeding to market this [Android] to 3rd-parties: manufacturers, carriers, resellers, developers, accessory makers, consumers, etc...

Is Google subject to recourse, regardless of the terms of the Android license.

Has Google committed fraud?

What about liability to GOOG shareholders?

Google's liability to the manufacturer's that licensened Android depends completely on the language of the license between the manufacturer and Google. So does the issue of fraud. If sold "as is," there may be no recourse at all.
post #287 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

Before you chaps return to battle read this article on the subject of theft - if only for the Helicopter joke. I think you will both recognize your own and the other's viewpoints and realize it's not such a clear cut case as 'theft is theft', or ' infringement cannot be theft'.

Commenting on my own post because I forgot to include the link: http://www.copyhype.com/2010/09/is-c...ngement-theft/
post #288 of 354
Looks like the smoking gun has been found! BTW, I worked for Sun and a colleague of mine covered Google, and Yahoo, so I have a little perspective. Basically, Sun and Yahoo were able to successfully negotiate a Java license, but Sun and Google were not. This was a HUGE bone of legal contention although Android had yet to ship.

Oracle certainly must have factored any potential future Java licensing revenue into the purchase price of Sun Microsystems. Java was probably THE most valuable asset Oracle acquired. Heck, even James Gosling the father of Java left shortly after the acquisition.

Good thing Google is sitting on a pile of cash. They will need it
post #289 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Infringing a patent isn't theft. Not legally, not morally, not factually, not in any way.
If it was theft then you would be sent to prison for it and the state would handle the prosecution. The fact that theft is immoral is completely irrelevant.

Google WILLFULLY Infringed on patents. THEY KNEW THIS 5 years ago, they knew this a few months ago.

Just because the punishment for willful infringement is not imprisonment, does NOT MEAN it's not THEFT.


You can spin this however you want but what Google did/doing to Sun/Oracle, Apple, MS, etc. is THEFT if proven (which based on this emails from that Retard Rubin and the other engr. , looks like it's a slam dunk).

Beware the Google Thief

CNN: Obamacare largest tax increase in American history

 

FORBES: ObamaCare's 7 Tax Hikes On Middle class

Reply

CNN: Obamacare largest tax increase in American history

 

FORBES: ObamaCare's 7 Tax Hikes On Middle class

Reply
post #290 of 354
This thread is still growing?

Google is screwed and will dole out in the end.
post #291 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

The whole concept of "infringement as theft" is one popularised by big media who are seeking to be victims in whatever forum they can.

It is not theft. When you infringe IP you do not deprive that person of the thing you've thieved. You may deprive them of the revenue from that thing, but that is different. You might call that 'infringement of IP'.

You may not be depriving them of the IP itself, but you are definitely depriving them of some of the benefits resulting from the (originally) exclusive exploitation of said IP. Ask the RIAA if you don't believe me

Giving something away for free does not exonerate you from stealing it in the first place, just as giving your billions to charity does not exonerate you from the nefarious business practices that got you those billions in the first place (**cough** Bill Gates **cough**)
I've accomplished my childhood's dream: My job consists mainly of playing with toys all day long.
Reply
I've accomplished my childhood's dream: My job consists mainly of playing with toys all day long.
Reply
post #292 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

This thread is still growing?

Google is screwed and will dole out in the end.

This is by far not the first infringement/theft thread on the internet and, undoubtedly, will not be the last.

I'm also quite sure this is not the longest thread on the subject.

... and, yes, I'm sure Google will pay before the trial starts in October... unless Oracle decides that a delay in proceedings is needed to reassess damages.

Get out the popcorn...

Oh... almost forgot... Go Ogle is Evil!

PS - C'mon people... let's get this thread past 300!!
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #293 of 354
Quote:
PS - C'mon people... let's get this thread past 300!!

Lol, ok. I've got a bit of insomnia so I'll throw this question out to hopefully get a response. Cloudgazer is stating that Oracle's patents are definitely still up in the air which technically is true, BUT the judge (who most likely has a background in IP law and maybe even experience on either/both jobs of counsel) is clearly telling Google that they most likely will lose one or more points in their case and should try to settle for a reasonable amount. Wouldn't the judge have reviewed the patents in question? And would that judge's informed opinion give a really good hint on who is on the "wrong" side of the fence?
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #294 of 354
If we can't agree that Google is evil, can we at least agree this is?

http://robdelaney.tumblr.com/post/8382618996
post #295 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

If we can't agree that Google is evil, can we at least agree this is?

http://robdelaney.tumblr.com/post/8382618996

Hope I don't get banned for replying to this but I totally just spit out gulp of beer.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #296 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

@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

I think what he is saying is that violations of patent law, willfull or not, can never be criminal acts but can only be civil acts. His detractors are saying the opposite. It's hard to see why one side gets to sneer about the other's "vast legal practice", which is an ad Hominen.
In any case I have never heard of patent violations being criminal matters. Provide proof, if you have any.

EDIT: guardian article about inventor trying to crminalise patent infringements. In the UK but similar laws apply to the US and worldwide. Patents are civil matters, cases are never brought by Police or Public Prosecutors.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8232130.stm
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #297 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

I think what he is saying is that violations of patent law, willfull or not, can never be criminal acts but can only be civil acts. His detractors are saying the opposite. It's hard to see why one side gets to sneer about the other's "vast legal practice", which is an ad Hominen.

In ant case I have never heard of patent violations being criminal matters. Provide proof, if you have any.

I definitely agree with this. Nobody's getting carried out in handcuffs for this.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #298 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunabku View Post

You need to correct your signature - Steve in 2012: iCloud, not our finest hour - He was referring to mobileme not icloud. You don't want to googlize reality do you?

Tongue in cheek humor. Although I am still looking forward to iCloud, just wished they didn't kill, or keep quit on, the seamless integration of Aperture and Galleries. To me, there's simply no alternative. Flickr & Facepalm is not for me, missing the elegance I believe Galleries has. I am currently trying out the various plugins that are available for Aperture.
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
post #299 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

Android's free ride will certainly come to an end next year. but an extra $50 license cost per phone is not going to make that big a difference in the market. and they'll find workarounds for Apple's stuff.

so where does this lead?

Well wouldn't think it would be $50... and $50 would be deadly in the phone market... look up the BOM on phones sometime. It's a competitive market and they'll to great lengths to shave $0.50 let alone $50
post #300 of 354
$5 - $10 max.
post #301 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

Lol, ok. I've got a bit of insomnia so I'll throw this question out to hopefully get a response. Cloudgazer is stating that Oracle's patents are definitely still up in the air which technically is true, BUT the judge (who most likely has a background in IP law and maybe even experience on either/both jobs of counsel) is clearly telling Google that they most likely will lose one or more points in their case and should try to settle for a reasonable amount. Wouldn't the judge have reviewed the patents in question? And would that judge's informed opinion give a really good hint on who is on the "wrong" side of the fence?

The judge could order a stay until the invalidation process was complete, but there's no requirement to do so. Google has said they would prefer a stay but they have left it to the judge's discretion. Oracle is firmly opposed to a stay. This may be a tactical ploy - from foss-patents (http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...emorandum.html)

'This way, Google tries to build pressure on Oracle to narrow its claims if it wants a swift resolution of the case, but Google knows that a stay would very much be in the discretion of the judge, which is why Google defers to him.'

The judge's tentative case plan also pointed out that Oracle would have to take the risk of possibly getting a decision based on claims that might be narrowed or invalidated later as a result of reexamination.

It's not that the judge is unaware of the invalidation process, but the decision of this case is based on the patents as they currently stand. Subsequent invalidation, as the judge himself says could render the decision irrelevant.
post #302 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

I haven't read ANY article that eludes that WP7 costs handset manufacturers $50+ per handset. In fact, B&N said that Microsoft demanded $15-20 per Nook which is TWICE the licensing cost of WP7 which means they are looking for $7.50-10 per device. $50 per phone/device for Android is waaay more money and as I said before, if the hardware companies are already losing money every quarter, why would they actually pay so much more just to run Google's OS?

I wasn't saying that WP7 was $50 per handset, i was saying that WP7 handsets are already the same price as Android handsets and yet nobody has any interest in them. Even if Android handsets all had their prices raised by say $20 ($50 is cloud cuckoo) still nobody would buy WP7, or WebOs.
The hardware companies would pay more for Android than WP7 for the same reason that they'd pay more for Android than their own Linux - because consumers actually want it. Not as much as consumers want iOS, but more than they want anything else.

If and when Apple enter the mid-market with a $300 phone the licensing fees might start to have an impact. If WP7, WebOs or some new entrant can get some market traction they might have an impact. But right now they won't have an impact - and by the time that they do Google may have been able to have removed all infringements.
post #303 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

If the participants at Google felt the patents were valid and chose to proceed anyway -- doesn't that make their action willful infringement -- even if the patents could, later, be invalidated,


They chose to violate the law as they understood it!

How can you not understand that?

That's completely hypothetical though. You have no evidence that Google believed that all of Oracle's patents were valid, indeed there is considerable evidence that they believed the opposite. They chose to infringe the patents as they currently stand, that's true - but whether or not it's legally 'wilful infringement' it's certainly not immoral - which seems to be your contention.
post #304 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

I wasn't saying that WP7 was $50 per handset, i was saying that WP7 handsets are already the same price as Android handsets and yet nobody has any interest in them. Even if Android handsets all had their prices raised by say $20 ($50 is cloud cuckoo) still nobody would buy WP7, or WebOs.
The hardware companies would pay more for Android than WP7 for the same reason that they'd pay more for Android than their own Linux - because consumers actually want it. Not as much as consumers want iOS, but more than they want anything else.

If and when Apple enter the mid-market with a $300 phone the licensing fees might start to have an impact. If WP7, WebOs or some new entrant can get some market traction they might have an impact. But right now they won't have an impact - and by the time that they do Google may have been able to have removed all infringements.

I've read enough of your posts (which I personally enjoy and find insightful) to know that you know that the license would not be $50. My post was referring to the person saying that $50 per phone for handset makers wouldn't matter and I think I can safely say that you'd agree that yes it would matter a great deal. Nobody is buying WP7 or WebOS in droves NOW, but if Android's costs got that hight, it wouldn't matter if consumers had been buying the competition before anyway. Handset makers simply wouldn't produce android phones because "$50 is too damn high."
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #305 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

That last graphic is misleading and, knowing the author, intentionally so.

Daniel is implying that there were no touchscreen-only smartphones on the market before 2007. About 50% of all Windows Mobile devices were touchscreen-only but Daniel has decided to put none in his graphic. Instead of showing popular models like the touchscreen-only HTC Magician, Daniel has instead chosen to show some of the more left field Windows Mobile devices - such as the HP iPAQ hw6965 Mobile Messenger. It's a very poor representation of the market before 2007.

Daniel is a brilliant writer, his information is accurate and non biased, perhaps you should go back to the engadget forums. I don't recall any touch screen windows based phones gaining traction like the iPhone did after it's introduction in 2007.
post #306 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

That's completely hypothetical though. You have no evidence that Google believed that all of Oracle's patents were valid, indeed there is considerable evidence that they believed the opposite. They chose to infringe the patents as they currently stand, that's true - but whether or not it's legally 'wilful infringement' it's certainly not immoral - which seems to be your contention.

Previously, you were spinning fantasies to argue that Google didn't really lose the Nortel patents, but that their entire strategy was to force Apple to overpay for them, now you're spinning a tale that there's really nothing wrong with what Google did in stealing Java. In both cases, not only are you completely wrong, but you've managed to derail a thread and turn it into nonsense, so, job well done.
post #307 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

I've read enough of your posts (which I personally enjoy and find insightful) to know that you know that the license would not be $50. My post was referring to the person saying that $50 per phone for handset makers wouldn't matter and I think I can safely say that you'd agree that yes it would matter a great deal. Nobody is buying WP7 or WebOS in droves NOW, but if Android's costs got that hight, it wouldn't matter if consumers had been buying the competition before anyway. Handset makers simply wouldn't produce android phones because "$50 is too damn high."

Hmm, well $50 would be serious, maybe not a knockout, but it would require serious corner cutting on the part of the OEMs. If Apple brought out a $300 phone at the same time then it would be game over for Android.
post #308 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Previously, you were spinning fantasies to argue that Google didn't really lose the Nortel patents, but that their entire strategy was to force Apple to overpay for them, now you're spinning a tale that there's really nothing wrong with what Google did in stealing Java. In both cases, not only are you completely wrong, but you've managed to derail a thread and turn it into nonsense, so, job well done.

When you have more than innuendo or ad hominems to offer, get back to us.
post #309 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Hmm, well $50 would be serious, maybe not a knockout, but it would require serious corner cutting on the part of the OEMs. If Apple brought out a $300 phone at the same time then it would be game over for Android.

See, I personally don't think it would matter if Apple came out with a cheaper iPhone or not in that hypothetical case. When the poster stated that, I responded a few pages ago that such a cost would tack on an extra $50 million to produce just 1 million phones. OEMs simply couldn't afford that type of investment based on their current profits/losses.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #310 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

See, I personally don't think it would matter if Apple came out with a cheaper iPhone or not in that hypothetical case. When the poster stated that, I responded a few pages ago that such a cost would tack on an extra $50 million to produce just 1 million phones. OEMs simply couldn't afford that type of investment based on their current profits/losses.

Hmm, well it's a bit of a tangent, but I think it's an interesting point. I think we have to remember that the Android market isn't homogenous, it's really a bunch of different markets. Suppose we segment it on price.

At the low end there are handsets costing up to say $150 dollars. These are a big portion of Android's volumes but not necessarily a big portion of the profits. Android phones in this bracket would simply cease to exist with a $50 bump. The OEMs would switch to things like Bada, custom JVM implementations etc. Most of the people buying in this bracket don't really know or care what a smartphone is anyway, so we might see a temporary increase in upper end feature phone sales.

$150->$300 is a different beast. A $50 bump would be very bad here but the OEMs could accomodate it by cutting corners on the phones and slightly increasing prices. Some consumers might prefer a good bada phone to a bad android, but many would go the other way. This is the market that S-E and Moto are mostly stuck in, so they're hit disproportionately hard if consumers switch. I may be wrong but I don't think that WP7 phones exist in this segment as yet, perhaps due to hardware requirements?

$300+ is where Android competes with WP7 and at the very top with the 3GS. In this bracket $50 can be managed with a combination of a price increase, a functionality decrease and a small cut in margins. For as long as consumers prefer Android to WP7 it would be. This bracket is where HTC and Samsung are making their profits. I'd estimate this segment is about 15% of the US smartphone market, but that's a pure guesstimate based on ASPs, if anybody has a sourced number that would be great.

So my contention is that in the hypothetical $50 scenario we'd see HTC and Samsung solidify their dominance of the US android handset market and focus it at the more expensive end. S-E and Moto would be doomed of course, but they're already doomed - they're zombie OEMs - this would just speed up the decomposition.

HTC and Samsung might try pushing WP7 or WebOs, but for as long as consumers stay focused on Android they would stay with it, and unless Apple decided to produce a phone at the $300-$400 price point it's hard to see anything changing in that segment.
post #311 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

Commenting on my own post because I forgot to include the link: http://www.copyhype.com/2010/09/is-c...ngement-theft/

The quote which really stands out for me is

'While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.'

This is a key point. Throwing out all that complexity and saying 'piracy is theft', or worse still 'patent infringement is theft', is a gross oversimplification.

Anyway it's an interesting article, though I disagree with the conclusion that the difference is purely academic. There's a reason that the republicans rebranded the estate tax as the 'death tax', and it's because it helped them politically. Rebranding infringement as theft likewise has a political impact. The thought experiment at the end is completely unconvincing - it introduces an obvious false dichotomy.
post #312 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

This thread is still growing?

Google is screwed and will dole out in the end.

didn't apple just lose a patent case because they stole someone elses technology? not the first time either i think. jobs is the master at taking others ideas/tech and proclaiming it his/apples.

not that google is any better. both are giant corporations just looking to get more of your money. (well, also other companies money through lawsuits).
post #313 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

didn't apple just lose a patent case because they stole someone elses technology? not the first time either i think. jobs is the master at taking others ideas/tech and proclaiming it his/apples.

not that google is any better. both are giant corporations just looking to get more of your money. (well, also other companies money through lawsuits).

Atta boy... throw one more tangent into this thread... 400 here we come...
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #314 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

I would say that evil is a contradiction of what is considered morally right by a society, not a matter of some supernatural definition. The opposite of Good is Evil. While there may be different levels of "evilness", if you choose to take advantage of others for you own benefit...then I would classify you as Evil (or at least your actions).

Which society, then?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #315 of 354
While we're going all tangential, I'll add another. Suppose Oracle wins here and wins big, what might they do? Obviously it could just collect license fees, or it could totally kill off Android in spite, but there is a unmentioned 3rd option.

It could say, 'Nice platform, we'll take it.' and subsume android. What would this entail? Oracle would take the last open-sourced version of Android, which by the time this is all done could be Ice-cream-sandwich, and modify it a bit. Integrate some oracle web services, maybe bing, or what-have-you. Give it a new name, I propose CoffeeBot - with a coffee drinking Android as the visual. Then offer it to OEMs at a sensible license fee. Given the choice between jumping to a totally new platform and jumping to a fully licensed fork, what would the OEMs do?

After all, why take all the money from the platform when you can take all the money and all the control? Depending on Oracles cross license with MSFT they might even be able to provide OEMs with cover against the MS patents. Over time Oracle could move the platform onto a new version of Java ME and end up with a huge and profitable mid-market smartphone platform which they had deep IP rights over.
post #316 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

partial quote



can you imagine adobe's approach to the smart phone market? (i kid here of course)

you can either buy the master phone suite of phones that do everything for $1,800 or an individual phone each able to do one thing for $695. The suite offers the adobe call phone, the adobe mapping phone, the adobe message phone, the adobe game phone ... And so on ... Each of the 27 phones in the suite all do a masterful job at their designed function and can be used stand alone. If you purchase the entire suite you also get the adobe systems phone that integrates all functions seamlessly into a single phone cleverly communicating with the other phones via another phone called the adobe comms phone. Each phone always calls adobe first to ensure you are the legal registrant of that phone before allowing any call or use of any kind. The entire suite will be updated yearly with high upgrade costs and minimal changes.

priceless!!!!!
post #317 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

That's completely hypothetical though. You have no evidence that Google believed that all of Oracle's patents were valid, indeed there is considerable evidence that they believed the opposite. They chose to infringe the patents as they currently stand, that's true - but whether or not it's legally 'wilful infringement' it's certainly not immoral - which seems to be your contention.


LOL cloudgazer do you have a learning disability or something?

The evidence against Google is a slamdunk that's why they're trying so hard to have the emails redacted!

CNN: Obamacare largest tax increase in American history

 

FORBES: ObamaCare's 7 Tax Hikes On Middle class

Reply

CNN: Obamacare largest tax increase in American history

 

FORBES: ObamaCare's 7 Tax Hikes On Middle class

Reply
post #318 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

While we're going all tangential, I'll add another. Suppose Oracle wins here and wins big, what might they do? Obviously it could just collect license fees, or it could totally kill off Android in spite, but there is a unmentioned 3rd option.

It could say, 'Nice platform, we'll take it.' and subsume android. What would this entail? Oracle would take the last open-sourced version of Android, which by the time this is all done could be Ice-cream-sandwich, and modify it a bit. Integrate some oracle web services, maybe bing, or what-have-you. Give it a new name, I propose CoffeeBot - with a coffee drinking Android as the visual. Then offer it to OEMs at a sensible license fee. Given the choice between jumping to a totally new platform and jumping to a fully licensed fork, what would the OEMs do?

After all, why take all the money from the platform when you can take all the money and all the control? Depending on Oracles cross license with MSFT they might even be able to provide OEMs with cover against the MS patents. Over time Oracle could move the platform onto a new version of Java ME and end up with a huge and profitable mid-market smartphone platform which they had deep IP rights over.


Gee... I wish I'd thought of that...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Those are very good points! I doubt that anyone knows what Oracle's intentions are. Conceivably, Oracle could end up owning Android (or its replacement) and become a major player in the mobile marketplace -- Larry Ellison has had some forays into the thin-client workspace. What is more thin-client than today's Tablet?
"...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 #319 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by FriedLobster View Post

LOL cloudgazer do you have a learning disability or something?

The evidence against Google is a slamdunk that's why they're trying so hard to have the emails redacted!

they are in no way a 'slam dunk' just as oracles move to try and hide jon schwartz's sun blog entries was not a 'slam dunk' for google. both hurt the others case is all. it isn't definitive. unlike the Apple case with nokia where apple didn't feel it should have to pay 'high' license fees (sounds familiar?) and decided to just go ahead and 'steal' the IP from nokia. apple lost that one and settled by agreeing to pay license fees.
google may be ordered to pay more or less or none. have to wait and see.
post #320 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

they are in no way a 'slam dunk' just as oracles move to try and hide jon schwartz's sun blog entries was not a 'slam dunk' for google. both hurt the others case is all. it isn't definitive. unlike the Apple case with nokia where apple didn't feel it should have to pay 'high' license fees (sounds familiar?) and decided to just go ahead and 'steal' the IP from nokia. apple lost that one and settled by agreeing to pay license fees.
google may be ordered to pay more or less or none. have to wait and see.

Sorry but Apple refused to pay Nokia above FRAND rates which everyone else does all the while giving Nokia IP that Apple felt kept it's phone unique. Apple never said that Nokia's patents were invalid nor did they pretend that it owed Nokia nothing. That was a whole different kettle of fish but if you want to conflate the two instances to make you feel better then by all means. . .
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
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