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 2

post #41 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.

Ok, assuming we allow phones with cursors and dedicated call buttons to be considered 'touch only' then the Magician was, but a single swallow doesn't make a summer. Do you have a link to some sales figures showing the 'touch only' devices were 50% of the WiMo space?
post #42 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.

Great... Another drive-by fabrication thrown out there in the hopes it sticks. What's a poor representation is your lack of providing any actual facts supporting your claim.
post #43 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodai View Post

java is still pretty much the only game in town for building large enterprise level web application server architectures. Except for the phone space, blu-ray, and set-top boxes, Java lost the UI wars a long time ago.


Hmmm...

Thinking out loud here.

Back in the late 1990s I used to do web development using a system called ColdFusion.

WIKI ColdFusion


CF (ColdFusion):
-- had both server and client-side aspects
-- used a powerful HTML-like tag scripting language
-- included a JavaScript-like scripting language too
-- had JIT compiler to java bytecode
-- could include imbedded Java code
-- could run on the desktop -- even from a read-only CD
-- ran on Win, 'Nix and OS X
-- with proper authorization, could run OS commands at the ClI level
-- supported all the major SQL databases (including embedded ones like SQLite)
-- supported XML, RSS and Web Services
-- used HTML to provide presentation services

With CF it was very easy to write data-driven apps using very powerful high-level CF commands. You could write an app to search a database and display a report with 2 CF commands: CFQuery and CFOutput. No worries about opening and closing sessions, etc.

All in All it was quite remarkable -- and generated compact, efficient apps for the computers of the day -- I used a 233 MHz iMac PPC G3, 32MB RAM, 4GB HDD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMac_G3

Hmm.... That iMac was significantly less powerful than any of today's smart phones.

Today, ColdFusion is owned by Adobe and has a free developer version.

I am no lover of Adobe, but I wonder if CF and Java could be used to develop native smart phone apps -- I know it can do web apps.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker."
-auxio-
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker."
-auxio-
Reply
post #44 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I am no lover of Adobe, but I wonder if CF and Java could be used to develop native smart phone apps -- I know it can do web apps.

Lots of things could be used, for example WebOS heavily leverages Javascript as I understand it, WP7 uses silverlight etc. You could probably build an entire phone based around mobile flash so long as you were focusing on the eskimo market - built in de-icing! The problem is that a platform switch for Android right now would be very very expensive to Google, to OEMs and to developers in the App ecosystem.

If Google were to make a platform change then they would need to offer both technical and legal benefits to end users, because otherwise the simplest move for Android handset makers would probably be to cut their own deal with Oracle and fork Froyo to use a fully licensed Java system.

Google might want to change their rendering layer for example to do something similar to Apple to facilitate GPU usage (see for example http://nfarina.com/post/8239634061/ios-to-android - courtesy of Daring Fireball)

But think of how many years it took to develop Android, then figure where iOS and even windows mobile will be by the time they'd finished. Google has to either win these big suits or make a deal, and it seems it increasingly realizes it. Possibly it realizes it too late though.
post #45 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

Oracle? Give up easily? Not in this universe.

Larry Ellison's favorite quote is a saying by Genghis Khan: "It's not sufficient I succeed. Everyone else must fail."

The impending ruling in Oracle's favor falls into the "succeed" category for Oracle. The "injunction against the US import of Android phones" would fall into the "fail" category for Google. And I'm expecting Oracle to make Android fail if possible. There is big money to be made, and Oracle will also want to set an example. To put Android's head on a stake as a warning.

I'll be munching popcorn. This will be fun to watch.

Seconded.
post #46 of 354
I'm rooting for Oracle, Android people annoy me.
post #47 of 354
Nice to read a moderate and well worded article by DED for a change.

One thing I don't understand, why are they referring to draft documents as "e-mail"? Unless the message has been transmitted via the email protocol, it is no more an email than it is a fax or a fiction novel...
post #48 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

It's just a matter of time until Android becomes very expensive for handset makers to deploy. That makes Windows Phone 7 look a lot more attractive to them.


sounds like a winner! glad ms has found a way to force their way back in. nothing like REAL choice: MS or Apple.
post #49 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Nice to read a moderate and well worded article by DED for a change.

One thing I don't understand, why are they referring to draft documents as "e-mail"? Unless the message has been transmitted via the email protocol, it is no more an email than it is a fax or a fiction novel...

Because it was written in an email system, the intent was that it would be an email and the final version was sent as an email - it's relevant because Google's argument that the document is privileged rests on the idea that the final version of the document was an email to counsel - but that the autosaved drafts didn't include the 'To list' so weren't flagged as privileged by the automated scanning system that they used.
post #50 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

I use search and maps. Only because I haven't seen any better options out there.

I agree. I have been hoping Apple would do maps at least for a long time. Google maps and Earth are very nice but prototype developments I have seen recently in the tech news show there are some major advances out there waiting for Apple to 'absorb'.

Search ... I don't know if there is an alternative on the horizon, Bing sucks IMHO on a Mac at least. If Android were to be severely crippled by actually not being free any more not to mention back payments for all the free copies ever registered then is Google Search such a force any more going forward?

Youtube still seems unchallenged, is there any potential repercussions from the Java wars there? Or is Youtube safe? So many questions ...
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #51 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

sounds like a winner! glad ms has found a way to force their way back in. nothing like REAL choice: MS or Apple.

If that scenario were to return the show down would be like Zune v iPod IMHO.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #52 of 354
Ahhh Google, what a funny company. Most of us use at least one of their services on a daily basis. My friends and I have always been a little skeptical of Google and their desire to control all of the "information". There was always something a little funny about their motto "don't be evil". It would be like the Catholic Church having the motto "don't be a child molester". The fact that you even have to mention it is a big red flag in my book.
post #53 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I agree. I have been hoping Apple would do maps at least for a long time. Google maps and Earth are very nice but prototype developments I have seen recently in the tech news show there are some major advances out there waiting for Apple to 'absorb'.

I want Baidu to extend their bizarre 'sim city' like maps system to the rest of the world - I would never use google maps again!

http://map.baidu.com/?newmap=1&l=18&...26c%3D131&sc=0
post #54 of 354
Partial Quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Hmmm...

Thinking out loud here.

I am no lover of Adobe, but I wonder if CF and Java could be used to develop native smart phone apps -- I know it can do web apps.

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.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #55 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

I want Baidu to extend their bizarre 'sim city' like maps system to the rest of the world - I would never use google maps again!

http://map.baidu.com/?newmap=1&l=18&...26c%3D131&sc=0

Love it! It makes me want to start building. All that's missing is the music.

I saw a similar but actually far more realistic system from a scandinavian company a few days ago but I can't find the link.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #56 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Love it! It makes me want to start building. All that's missing is the music.

I saw a similar but actually far more realistic system from a scandinavian company a few days ago but I can't find the link.

If you scroll around a bit you'll find the forbidden city which looks unbelievably bitching as pixel art
post #57 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

Oracle? Give up easily? Not in this universe.

Larry Ellison's favorite quote is a saying by Genghis Khan: "It's not sufficient I succeed. Everyone else must fail."

The impending ruling in Oracle's favor falls into the "succeed" category for Oracle. The "injunction against the US import of Android phones" would fall into the "fail" category for Google. And I'm expecting Oracle to make Android fail if possible. There is big money to be made, and Oracle will also want to set an example. To put Android's head on a stake as a warning.

I'll be munching popcorn. This will be fun to watch.

I bet the chat Steve and Larry had about this would have been fun to listen in on!
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #58 of 354
Whatever became of Googles motto: "Do no evil"?
post #59 of 354
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. Google likely would have helped sell some more books because people could have found books with information they sought.

The government was more concerned not by the copying of the books, but of Google being the only party with access to the information.



Quote:
Originally Posted by skochan View Post

Let's not forget how Google ignored copyrights by publishing books for which they had no rights (a couple of them were mine for which I own the copyrights):

Goggle settles Copyright Case.

Copyright and patent infringement seem to be part of Google's standard business practices.

Steve Kochan
post #60 of 354
Google has been flirting with bad karma for a while, I think this time it's going to hurt.

Even the Android fans are getting quieter as more and more comes to light about what Google has been doing.
post #61 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

If you scroll around a bit you'll find the forbidden city which looks unbelievably bitching as pixel art

Ok got it. Now I just want to take my SL avi there for a walk around!
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #62 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hookoa View Post

Whatever became of Googles motto: "Do no evil"?

Is infringing a patent really evil? If so good luck finding a software developer who isn't evil, hell will need an extra circle just for us.
post #63 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. Google likely would have helped sell some more books because people could have found books with information they sought.

The government was more concerned not by the copying of the books, but of Google being the only party with access to the information.

Agreed. Also mostly the books were out of print, which further strengthens the fair use argument.
post #64 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoom View Post

Google has been flirting with bad karma for a while, I think this time it's going to hurt.

Even the Android fans are getting quieter as more and more comes to light about what Google has been doing.

First they were MS lovin' Apple haters, then they had to jump ship to become Fandroid Apple haters because MS sucks so badly ... now this. What's a poor Apple hater going to do next? You have to have sympathy for these people ...
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #65 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by skochan View Post

Let's not forget how Google ignored copyrights by publishing books for which they had no rights (a couple of them were mine for which I own the copyrights)...
Copyright and patent infringement seem to be part of Google's standard business practices

The thing they did with digitising the books though most people would agree was with the best intentions.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I have read, most of the copyrights were expired or untraceable and as far as I heard no actual authors were screwed over, just a few people who happened to technically own the rights to books that they did not write or have anything to do with for the most part.

That's not the same thing as taking someone's work that they are currently using and selling and just putting your name on the front. Which is what they did with Java.

Copyright law has been purposely deformed from it's original intentions over the last 50 years or so. You should ask yourself why and for who's benefit. It sure ain't for the benefit of the authors.
post #66 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

Are those emails/draft emails the veritable smoking guns that all prosecutors and plaintiffs counsels dream of?

Oh yes. E-mails are legal documents. It's also illegal to destroy them, and companies are supposed to keep All e-mails. Microsoft was taken down BT e-mails between Gates and others in the company as well.

Essentially, if it's in an e-mail, apparently, even if it isn't sent, it's evidence.
post #67 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esoom View Post

Google has been flirting with bad karma for a while, I think this time it's going to hurt. ...

Like any magical energy however, karma can be "washed off" by spinning around three times under a full moon and spitting over your left shoulder while hopping up and down. :/
post #68 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hookoa View Post

Whatever became of Googles motto: "Do no evil"?

Goggle meant the other guys...
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #69 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.

No Win Mobile phones had touch screens. They all had resistive screens that required a stylus. I used a couple, along with my Palm, and in order to use them you had to give a pretty hard poke if you used your nail. If you didn't have nails, then you needed to use the stylus.

Capacitive screens are touch screens, because you just have to barely touch them with a finger. Indeed, a nail or resistive stylus (anything that doesn't have the soft capacitive tip) won't work at all.

It's a fundamental difference in technology, and took some time for other manufacturers to catch up. Most other phones using touch aren't as accurate as Apples products even now.
post #70 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Nice to read a moderate and well worded article by DED for a change.

One thing I don't understand, why are they referring to draft documents as "e-mail"? Unless the message has been transmitted via the email protocol, it is no more an email than it is a fax or a fiction novel...

It's still considered to be a legal document, because it was authored as such, in a system used for that intent. And considering who authored it, it has relevance. It shows that at that high level, this person in the company understood the issue, and that matters.
post #71 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Because it was written in an email system, the intent was that it would be an email and the final version was sent as an email - it's relevant because Google's argument that the document is privileged rests on the idea that the final version of the document was an email to counsel - but that the autosaved drafts didn't include the 'To list' so weren't flagged as privileged by the automated scanning system that they used.

Right. Also, this is a very complex question. There is no absolute line where something is privileged and something isn't. For example if something is sent to the lawyer, and also sent to someone else on the same list, then it automatically loses privilege. If a lawyer is asked something, depending on what is asked, how it is asked, and when it is asked all relate to privilege.

But the justice department requires, in certain instances, that corporations give up that privilege when under investigation. So it isn't as cut and dry as some people think.
post #72 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

The thing they did with digitising the books though most people would agree was with the best intentions.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I have read, most of the copyrights were expired or untraceable and as far as I heard no actual authors were screwed over, just a few people who happened to technically own the rights to books that they did not write or have anything to do with for the most part.

That's not the same thing as taking someone's work that they are currently using and selling and just putting your name on the front. Which is what they did with Java.

Copyright law has been purposely deformed from it's original intentions over the last 50 years or so. You should ask yourself why and for who's benefit. It sure ain't for the benefit of the authors.

There's an author who posted on the last page that he was screwed over. Just go back to that page. A LOT of authors were screwed. Estimates are in the thousands.

In addition, Google was stating that they had exclusive rights to whatever they scanned, and that they were going to charge for the use of the material. Those two things were also a major problem, and Google has been changing the terms, but no one seems to be happy with them.

Let's understand one thing. Google never does anything that doesn't benefit Google in some way.
post #73 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Is infringing a patent really evil? If so good luck finding a software developer who isn't evil, hell will need an extra circle just for us.

If it's done knowingly, then yes.
post #74 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

The thing they did with digitising (sic) the books though most people would agree was with the best intentions.

Intent and the law don't necessarily go hand in hand.

Besides... I would never agree that Google does anything with the best intentions in mind.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #75 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

If it's done knowingly, then yes.

Add to that:

Trying to cover it up.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #76 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

If it's done knowingly, then yes.

Evil? Really? You americans have abused that word to within an inch of meaninglessness. Even knowingly infringing isn't evil - did you stop using web browsers when you found out about the gif patent? Did you stop using JPEGs when it became clear that the standard was encumbered? If not you're evil too.

The only reason why most software developers aren't knowingly infringing something is because we choose not to look at the horrors that have been patented. We are wilfully ignorant because it would be simply too depressing to find out exactly what it was we cannot do.

Infringing isn't evil - it's a civil offense, it's about as evil as jay walking or using a region free DVD player.


Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Add to that:

Trying to cover it up.

Covering it up by illegally deleting emails might be evil. Making an email inadmissible by arguing that it is a privileged communication clearly isn't - unless you believe that the law is itself evil.
post #77 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

There's an author who posted on the last page that he was screwed over. Just go back to that page. A LOT of authors were screwed. Estimates are in the thousands.

In addition, Google was stating that they had exclusive rights to whatever they scanned, and that they were going to charge for the use of the material. Those two things were also a major problem, and Google has been changing the terms, but no one seems to be happy with them.

Let's understand one thing. Google never does anything that doesn't benefit Google in some way.

I believe you'll find that google's claims of rights applied to the digitized images, not to the underlying content. This is akin to a performer recording a piece of music, the performer has the rights to the recording but it doesn't interfere with the composer's prior rights to the music.

The disagreement between Google and the publishers essentially created new law - as such it's unreasonable to claim that they should have behaved differently, there simply was no precedent to determine what 'fair use' meant, or what Google could reasonably claim over the images.
post #78 of 354
Skochan Google plowed through the copyright laws in the book case and ended up with some rights to books which I think they got extremely cheap. If they had had to negotiate with each copyright holder they never would have gotten the deal they did and would never had been able to get it done in a timely manner.

In effect google did what they wanted the hell with others rights and settled after the fact for a better deal. Looks like the same thing they are trying to do now with the whole android thing.
post #79 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?

I hope that $50 is a typo and you meant $5 because a $50 license per handset would kill android full stop. That is waaay more than a WP7 license and the profit margins for android handset makers is pretty thin. Samsung and HTC are the only handset makers in that space earning profits, the rest are bleeding money every quarter. Let's say LG makes and ships one million android phones under that license. That is an extra $50,000,000 and if they are already losing money while android is "free" then there is zero incentive for them to continue selling android phones. Then you add in workarounds which would cost Google more money in development costs. google has already stated that they plan to make $10 per handset from ads so I'm not seeing how these extra costs would translate in any kind of profit for either party.

As for Google coming up with a new language for android to avoid infringement, that brings up even more headaches business-wise. I'm no techie, but I do have a mind for business and I don't see any handset maker falling for a "free" OS from Google again unless Google is prepared to offer indemnification. Why? Because if HTC loses it's case against Apple then Apple will go after every other handest maker. In order to trust Google again after this legal mess, they all will need/require some kind of insurance that the same issues will not happen yet again.
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 #80 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Evil? Really? You americans have abused that word to within an inch of meaninglessness. Even knowingly infringing isn't evil - did you stop using web browsers when you found out about the gif patent? Did you stop using JPEGs when it became clear that the standard was encumbered? If not you're evil too.

The only reason why most software developers aren't knowingly infringing something is because we choose not to look at the horrors that have been patented. We are wilfully ignorant because it would be simply too depressing to find out exactly what it was we cannot do.

Infringing isn't evil - it's a civil offense, it's about as evil as jay walking or using a region free DVD player.




Covering it up by illegally deleting emails might be evil. Making an email inadmissible by arguing that it is a privileged communication clearly isn't - unless you believe that the law is itself evil.

The word "evil" isn't a definition of law, it's a definition of morality. If you know you are doing something wrong, then what would you call it? Is evil just a level of immorality, or is it immorality itself? Do you want to get into a philosophical discussion over this?
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