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 3

post #81 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

Wow!

That is neat and faster and more responsive than Google Maps ever is.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #82 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

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.

What really happened was that Google was attempting to redefine it to their liking. After an agreement was made that turned out to represent the opinion of few actually affected by their actions, it was overturned. It's still in the courts. It hasn't been resolved.

Your definition based on your first paragraph has nothing at all to do with this. Google isn't a performer, interpreting a composition. Even if they were, your example is wrong. If the work is under copyright, permission must be obtained for a recording. Payment for a public performance. They are a copier, violating copyright. They've added nothing of their own to this. Yet, they've stated that their intent was to charge universities and researchers to use their scans. All this with no intention to seek out and pay anyone involved with the works themselves, as international law requires.

This is, as will all of Google's works, a matter of profits, and total disregard for others' rights.
post #83 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.

LOL. You nailed it!
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #84 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

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?

Some people just don't get the fact that it was Google who set the parameters for the word "evil".

From Google's Code of Conduct:

The Google Code of Conduct is one of the ways we put "Don't be evil" into practice. It's built around the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct.

http://investor.google.com/corporate...f-conduct.html

On edit:

In other words... I don't give a rat's ass what anyone else believes about the definition of evil... it was Google that set the terms... "measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct". Therefore, on Google's terms, anything outside of that can be considered evil.

... and this is about Google... not Apple, not Microsoft, not IBM or anyone else.... it was Google who said, "Don't be evil".
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #85 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

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?

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.
post #86 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Wow!

That is neat and faster and more responsive than Google Maps ever is.

And with them, you're beholden to the Chinese government. From the frying pan into the fire.
post #87 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

I am not a big fan of Apple (the company), but I am a fan of their hardware and software. So I have a love/hate relationship with Apple.

After reading more and more about Google's actions I am seriously considering dumping everything Google in my life. Why does Google's action's bother me more than if another company were to to the same thing? Because of Google's motto "Don't be Evil". If they choose to use this motto (unofficial or not) I expect them to follow through.

Transitioning to a Google-free life will not be an easy process. My email is 100% Google. One of my smart phones is a Sony Xperia X10a running Gingerbread. I use Google Voice/Google Docs/Google Maps/Google Translate...etc. My browser of choice on both Mac and PC is Chrome.

All Google would have to do (for me) is to admit what they did wrong and then make the appropriate actions to fix the situation. Yes, it would cost money to pay the licences, but they should have done this long ago.

Soon I,m switching to iCloud so to hell with Google.
One big massive email to all my contacts then that's it, Google is now my spam email
dam i cant wait for Fall
post #88 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hookoa View Post

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

Actually, the motto maker at the printer moved some letters around...

It really was supposed to read:

"O NO Devil"


And their logo is really:

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #89 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

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.

In your example, it isn't so cut and dry. If the email copies someone else in the company (Google) then the email would still be privileged because the client is Google and both parties are employed by Google therefore it is still attorney/client privilege. If the email copied someone outside the company, then you'd be correct.

Unfortunately for Google, none of that matters because the email was a draft and it's original content wasn't sent to the attorney. If I started a letter to my attorney saying I killed someone but didn't send it but sent another letter with similar information, privilege doesn't cover the original letter because I never sent it. This is why discovery is so crucial in these cases and why you see defendants "burying" the plaintiffs in discovery. In that strategy, you send any and all documents (relevant or not) in the hopes that the billable hours start to ratchet up for the plaintiff to the point where they get nervous about the litigation costs or their attorneys miss crucial info. This pressures the plaintiff into either settling the case quickly or dropping the suit altogether.
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 #90 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Actually, the motto maker at the printer moved some letters around...

It really was supposed to read:

"O NO Devil"


And their logo is really:


I think it actually was Go Ogle
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #91 of 354
Yet, most religions would suggest stealing is morally wrong. Further, Google set it's own definition of evil by suggesting it will conduct itself by the highest ethical standard.

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.
post #92 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

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. :/

Which means... that you certainly don't want to stand behind Google
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #93 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

Google IS the new evil. Bring it on Google - they're ready and able to put you in you place and show what you truly are - a simple, slimy, knowing thief of others IP.

Aw c'mon, people. You know the rules: When Google is does it, it's not evil because Google's Not Evil, therefore, they must be righteous. The Taliban use the same logic to justify mass slaughter.

"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 #94 of 354
Same here. After that I will not need Google at all. I get by with Bing, which is improving (and Microsoft pays me points to use). I have Navigon on my iPhone for maps.

I suspect Google's Gmail will take a significant hit with the introduction of iCloud provided Apple rolls it out properly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by caribbean_mac View Post

Soon I,m switching to iCloud so to hell with Google.
One big massive email to all my contacts then that's it, Google is now my spam email
dam i cant wait for Fall
post #95 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Your definition based on your first paragraph has nothing at all to do with this. Google isn't a performer, interpreting a composition. Even if they were, your example is wrong. If the work is under copyright, permission must be obtained for a recording. Payment for a public performance. They are a copier, violating copyright. They've added nothing of their own to this. Yet, they've stated that their intent was to charge universities and researchers to use their scans. All this with no intention to seek out and pay anyone involved with the works themselves, as international law requires.

It certainly isn't the exact same thing but it's analogous - converting a piece of copyrighted, or non-copyrighted material into another medium can produce another piece of copyrighted material. This is something that publishers have done for decades or more, slightly modifying a work and then claiming copyright on the derived version, this is why when a museum digitizes an artwork they can hold the copyright on the image, whether the art is an old master or by a living artist.

As to requiring permission, that's exactly where Google's fair use argument fell. Most of the books that it digitized were out of print with unclear rights, and thus the legal argument was that the requirement to get permission ceased to apply. In fact the requirement to get the author's permission is a relatively new one in law in most jurisdictions, and as far as I am aware it does not apply in the US, where music composers only get license fees. For example Shostakovich sought to prevent the use of one of his compositions in the US and was refused.
( Shostakovitch v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.).

The EU does have legal protection for so called 'moral rights' and so if you want to release your recording in Europe you do have to get the composer's permission, but this isn't universal.
post #96 of 354
I'm betting Google will weasel their way out of this
post #97 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

If it's done knowingly, then yes.

There are also some situations where the patent issues are not clearly defined -- often a competitor will use the uncertainty to let the courts resolve the issue.

I do not believe, however, that there was any uncertainty in Google's use of Java.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #98 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by SavedByTechnology View Post

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

Normally, I would agree but I'm not too sure about that. Google has been pissing this judge off left and right. Google had the audacity to claim $0 in damages which the judge not only threw out but called "soviet-style.". Also, that draft email points out that Google not only had prior knowledge that they were infringing, but also intent to move forward anyway. That alone would triple Oracle's requested damages.
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 #99 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Yet, most religions would suggest stealing is morally wrong. Further, Google set it's own definition of evil by suggesting it will conduct itself by the highest ethical standard.

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

The argument that Google has failed to meet 'the highest ethical standard' is a much better one, but that's a far cry from being evil. Even then it's not an open and shut case, because one has to ask if it is inethical to knowingly infringe a patent which you do not believe is or ought to be valid.

Why do people feel the need to bring ethics or morality into what is a purely legal issue? Google is potentially infringing a patent owned by a huge and determined software firm. It has gone to the courts and there will be a big legal bun fight at the end of which one of the two will come out a winner. It makes no more sense to paint Google as evil here than it does to paint Oracle as evil. It's hard to think of a time when an IT firm was uncontrovertibly inethical, MS destroying netscape perhaps?
post #100 of 354
You are correct, Google's postion was it owned the data base with all the images it scanned, not the content itself. Since Google paid to have people scan all the images I don't' see how Google was in the wrong. Microsoft (a big objector to Google's plan) could have paid to have somebody scan the same works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

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 #101 of 354
Reading this article made me all tingly inside! The possibility of Google's Android gambit being brought down is deeply satisfying to me.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #102 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I do not believe, however, that there was any uncertainty in Google's use of Java.

More than is generally acknowledged. For starters Google is certainly using the Java language but that's not the problem, as far as I'm aware Oracle isn't claiming that the use of the language is an issue.

There are two issues here, one of copyright and one of violating some software patents on Java that relate to such things as the internals of a runtime. Leaving the copyright issue aside, the patent infringement is far from clear cut, as is evidenced by the fact that a lot of the preliminary rulings on oracles patents have been negative.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...e-patents.html
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...dates-entire

Now these preliminary results don't mean that Oracle has lost by any stretch, but they do surely indicate that Google can justifiably claim that there is doubt about the validity of these patents, and that the infringement of them, even the wilful infringement of them is thus hard to categorize as 'evil'.
post #103 of 354
I'm not sure how the Google Books thing became a topic, but I think the issue that publishers and authors had was that even if the books in question were out of print, they would have the opportunity to have a reprinting based on audience demand. If Google digitizes them and people could get information based on those, then there is little to no incentive to request a new edition. I'm not saying whether that is right or wrong, but I can understand that particular position.
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 #104 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

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.

The music/recording analogy is not necessarily a good one -- there are situations where an artist can record a "cover" of someone else's recording and copyrighted music. This has limitations -- the "cover artist" cannot sell the material without "permissions" and, likely, "royalty payments" -- but the material can be freely played without violating anyone's rights. YT is full of such "covers"

Here are some YT covers of a friend:

If I Were A Boy - Beyoncé - ( SheenaMelwani )


Sheena is free to post these covers -- but she cannot record them as a "for sale" CD or Music Video without "permissions".

But, Sheena is certainly benefiting from the exposure that the "covers" give to her and her music.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #105 of 354
Even if Google loses I'm struggling to see what would actually change. Google can easily afford to pay a multibillion dollar settlement.

Also unlike Microsoft or Apple, Oracle does not have a product that competes with Android. The best solution for Orale is Android becomes even more successful whilst paying them a license fee. Android could become Oracle's golden goose. But if they kill off Android or make the terms bad enough that Google switches to another language they lose out on future license fees.
post #106 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.

Also unlike Microsoft or Apple, Oracle does not have a product that competes with Android. The best solution for Orale is Android becomes even more successful whilst paying them a license fee. Android could become Oracle's golden goose. But if they kill off Android or make the terms bad enough that Google switches to another language they lose out on future license fees.

I think the issue would be how much is Google willing to pay to continue android. Google has been a bit vague on how much it actually profits on android. I've seen $1 billion dollars in 6 mos. and I've read that they HOPE to make $10 per handset, but I've never read any solid numbers each and every quarter. If it begins to cost Google more than they expect to earn AND it costs handset makers more on already razor thin margins, then what would be the incentive for them to continue. It's not like Google has never killed projects before.
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 #107 of 354
I don't necessary disagree with you, but those Humphrey Bogart clips at the beginning of rented movies provided curtesy of the MPAA would like you to believe something else. The RIAA and MPAA certainly liken copying of their content as theft, which in most cases the copyright code would actually disagree with that sentiment. I also think the founders of Pirate Bay will disagree with you regarding not going to jail for infringement.

Evil is a very strong word, so in my mind Google has not been evil. However, Google is the one who set the standard for what qualifies as evil by essentially defining how it intends to act. It is hard to see how willing taking somebody's IP meets the highest ethical standard. So, if Evil means something akin to Dr. Hannibal Lecter, then I think Google is OK. However, if it means failing to meet the highest ethical standard, then I think Google has fallen into the abyss.



Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

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

The argument that Google has failed to meet 'the highest ethical standard' is a much better one, but that's a far cry from being evil. Even then it's not an open and shut case, because one has to ask if it is inethical to knowingly infringe a patent which you do not believe is or ought to be valid.

Why do people feel the need to bring ethics or morality into what is a purely legal issue? Google is potentially infringing a patent owned by a huge and determined software firm. It has gone to the courts and there will be a big legal bun fight at the end of which one of the two will come out a winner. It makes no more sense to paint Google as evil here than it does to paint Oracle as evil. It's hard to think of a time when an IT firm was uncontrovertibly inethical, MS destroying netscape perhaps?
post #108 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.

The argument that Google has failed to meet 'the highest ethical standard' is a much better one, but that's a far cry from being evil. Even then it's not an open and shut case, because one has to ask if it is inethical to knowingly infringe a patent which you do not believe is or ought to be valid.

Why do people feel the need to bring ethics or morality into what is a purely legal issue? Google is potentially infringing a patent owned by a huge and determined software firm. It has gone to the courts and there will be a big legal bun fight at the end of which one of the two will come out a winner. It makes no more sense to paint Google as evil here than it does to paint Oracle as evil. It's hard to think of a time when an IT firm was uncontrovertibly inethical, MS destroying netscape perhaps?

Your wrong here.

First, you are making an irrelevant distinction between criminal illegality and contract breaking or infringement, when in the colloquial sense of the term (the way most people use in every day), both are "illegal." So while your distinction is technically accurate it is also irrelevant to what's being discussed. You are just doing your usual thing of running people over the coals for inaccurate speech.

Secondly, morals, ethics, and law are all inextricably intertwined. In many cases, things are made "illegal" expressly because of the fact that many people find the behaviour immoral. While I personally would agree that just because something is immoral (a necessarily subjective assessment), it doesn't have to be also illegal, the fact is that most of the time it is.

As to the substance of the argument, what we are talking about here is clear evidence of wilful infringement. Google did what they did intentionally, and for clearly stated reasons that fail your standard. The evidence indicates rather clearly that Google knew they should develop their own language, but "didn't have the time" in their view to do so. That's not a legal defence and basically amounts to saying that they just couldn't be bothered to follow what they knew was the law. They've also shown evidence of guilt in terms of the machinations they performed to cover things up.

Finally, your argument that supposes (without any evidence I might add), that the Googler's were coming from some moral high ground where they eschewed patents altogether, and were thus okay doing what they did because they did it in light of their belief that patents shouldn't exist, is just silly. In the first case there is ample evidence that they did not in fact believe this in the way they handle their own patents, and in the litigations they have been in in the past. Secondly, "wishing the laws were different" is not a defence, just as ignorance of the law can never be a defence either.

The only legal or historical precedent for that kind of thing is civil disobedience, wherein it is the duty of a citizen to oppose a "bad" law. But to equate stealing Java and re-branding it as your own, with the lofty goals of the civil rights movement is distasteful at best. The idea that there is some kind of equivalency between "patent law is screwed up" and people being killed and tortured for their beliefs is just abhorrent. At least it is to me.

Google is also deeply involved in shady practices around the world, and has it's own army of lobbyists fighting *for* the very patent system that we are (mostly you) are assuming they have some kind of moral distaste for.
post #109 of 354
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

I'm not sure how the Google Books thing became a topic, but I think the issue that publishers and authors had was that even if the books in question were out of print, they would have the opportunity to have a reprinting based on audience demand. If Google digitizes them and people could get information based on those, then there is little to no incentive to request a new edition. I'm not saying whether that is right or wrong, but I can understand that particular position.
post #110 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

The music/recording analogy is not necessarily a good one -- there are situations where an artist can record a "cover" of someone else's recording and copyrighted music. This has limitations -- the "cover artist" cannot sell the material without "permissions" and, likely, "royalty payments" -- but the material can be freely played without violating anyone's rights. YT is full of such "covers"

As I explained in an earlier post, there is definitely a requirement to pay the songwriter/composer a license, but there is generally no requirement to get permission to record - even for sale, though it does depend on jurisidiction. Back in the 60s and 70s Burt Bacharach would write songs for Dionne Warwick, and before she could get them released in the UK, Cilla Black would have released a cover.
Warwick famously said 'I honestly believe that if I'd sneezed on my next record, then Cilla would have sneezed on hers too.',

Now as it happens I think Cilla Black is evil, but that's more to do with her voice than copyright issues

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykd71...eature=related

See? Now that's evil!
post #111 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).

Oh I know that. My point was that if a person can get whatever information s/he needs via Google's digitized version, then there is no need to for them to request a new edition be printed. This is why I didn't say whether Google's position in that matter is right or wrong because IMO it equates to the olden times where you had to buy a whole CD for a couple of songs that you like.
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 #112 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.

Also unlike Microsoft or Apple, Oracle does not have a product that competes with Android. The best solution for Orale is Android becomes even more successful whilst paying them a license fee. Android could become Oracle's golden goose. But if they kill off Android or make the terms bad enough that Google switches to another language they lose out on future license fees.

"A finding that Google willfully infringed upon Java would also enable Oracle to demand triple its actual damages. Such a ruling could also help establish that Google has a history of willful infringement of rival companies' intellectual property, a finding that would make it easier for others, including Apple and Microsoft, to seek damages from Google and potentially its Android licensees."

It's the last part of this quote from the article that addresses your point. Google can afford it, but it's licensees--who actually make and sell the vast majority of the phones themselves--who will be killed off. Maybe Google will become the single manufacturer of the Googlephone, just like Apple and the iPhone?
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #113 of 354
It is interesting to compare on what Google's thoughts were regarding Microsoft's innovative way of improving its search results using Google's own search results and Google's taking Java for its own use. Google lambasted Microsoft saying it should do its own work. Apparently what is good for the goose isn't good for the gander.
post #114 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Evil is a very strong word, so in my mind Google has not been evil. However, Google is the one who set the standard for what qualifies as evil by essentially defining how it intends to act. It is hard to see how willing taking somebody's IP meets the highest ethical standard. So, if Evil means something akin to Dr. Hannibal Lecter, then I think Google is OK. However, if it means failing to meet the highest ethical standard, then I think Google has fallen into the abyss.

I absolutely agree with you... as I stated earlier... Google's own Code of Conduct states:

"measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct"

Not the highest ethical standard... but the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct. Google itself has said that anything that falls outside of that, for itself, is evil.

Is willfully infringing upon ip of the "highest possible" standard of ethical business conduct? Of course it isn't. Therefore Google, by its own standard, is evil.

Can Apple, IBM, MS or any other company be included as "evil" doers in this same context... in my mind, no, but by Google's standards... sure.... but the other companies never wrote "Don't be Evil" in their code of conduct... maybe they're not quite that stupid (or naive).
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #115 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.

If living authors were screwed over in regards their own works, that is indeed a bad thing but the law is crystal clear and they should be able to seek restitution from Google.

I haven't (yet) seen any evidence that this actually happened though. I've heard "copyright holders" complain, but to me the only thing that really matters is the actual creators/authors.

The entire problem with copyright today is that the interests of the buyers and sellers of the IP are treated as if they are the same as the creators of the IP when in fact they are all leeches of one kind or another. The only thing that really matters is the people who actually create the stuff IMO.
post #116 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

First, you are making an irrelevant distinction between criminal illegality and contract breaking or infringement, when in the colloquial sense of the term (the way most people use in every day), both are "illegal." So while your distinction is technically accurate it is also irrelevant to what's being discussed. You are just doing your usual thing of running people over the coals for inaccurate speech.

The problem is that the inaccuracies build up. Once you accept infringement as theft, then it is indeed immoral and indeed criminal rather than merely illegal. I'm not running anybody over any coals, I'm just trying to keep some pretty significant distinctions clear.

Quote:
Secondly, morals, ethics, and law are all inextricably intertwined. In many cases, things are made "illegal" expressly because of the fact that many people find the behaviour immoral. While I personally would agree that just because something is immoral (a necessarily subjective assessment), it doesn't have to be also illegal, the fact is that most of the time it is.

Things that are immoral are often illegal, things that are illegal are often immoral, some things are universally considered immoral, some things are universally considered illegal. I would agree that things that are universally considered immoral are also universally considered illegal - murder is the obvious example - but trying to take it further you get into very very sticky territory. There are too many exceptions for it to be a good argument.

Quote:
As to the substance of the argument, what we are talking about here is clear evidence of wilful infringement. Google did what they did intentionally, and for clearly stated reasons that fail your standard. The evidence indicates rather clearly that Google knew they should develop their own language, but "didn't have the time" in their view to do so. That's not a legal defence and basically amounts to saying that they just couldn't be bothered to follow what they knew was the law.

Ok, there are some key points here. First off the problem isn't that Google didn't develop their own language. As far as I am aware there is no legal issue with the fact that the language front end to Dalvik is identical to Java, any more than there is an issue that Objective-C is a superset of C. The problems are more subtle than that.

The evidence definitely indicates that Google knew that they were infringing Sun/Oracle's patents, and if the patents end up holding up then that will indeed constitute wilful infringement, but we're not at that stage yet. The patents may well be invalidated in whole or in part, the rulings on them so far have not been in Oracle's favour. Can we really call wilful infringement of a patent which the USPTO has issued a preliminary ruling against inethical let alone evil?

Quote:
They've also shown evidence of guilt in terms of the machinations they performed to cover things up.

They have a legal right to counsel, and they have a right to attorney client privilege. Whether or not the letter is admissible, Google's attempt to claw it back will almost certainly not be admissible as evidence of guilt. Their 'machinations' are entirely legal. By the way Oracle deleted a SUN executive's blog posting that had a potential negative impact on their case, but I didn't see any cries of cover-up from you then. Does that deletion indicate that they really did grant Google permission? Of course not, any good lawyer would have sought to remove it from view to avoid muddying the waters. Good legal tactics should never be mistaken for nefarious machinations.

Quote:
Finally, your argument that supposes (without any evidence I might add), that the Googler's were coming from some moral high ground where they eschewed patents altogether, and were thus okay doing what they did because they did it in light of their belief that patents shouldn't exist, is just silly. In the first case there is ample evidence that they did not in fact believe this in the way they handle their own patents, and in the litigations they have been in in the past. Secondly, "wishing the laws were different" is not a defence, just as ignorance of the law can never be a defence either.

No, my argument only supposes that they felt that these particular patents were plausibly invalid. Given the USPTO's recent first office actions, that's not an entirely unreasonable argument now is it?

I don't think that there's any way that Google can claim that they've a historic opposition to software patents, though I would certainly like it if in future they lobbied hard against them. However I also don't think that one can ever call infringement, even wilful infringement of a patent immoral - because infringing - even wilfully - is often a reasonable legal tactic in the modern patent minefield.
post #117 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

Oh I know that. My point was that if a person can get whatever information s/he needs via Google's digitized version, then there is no need to for them to request a new edition be printed. This is why I didn't say whether Google's position in that matter is right or wrong because IMO it equates to the olden times where you had to buy a whole CD for a couple of songs that you like.

Yes, and it's also akin to going into the library to read that bit of the book, which is a classic fair use exception. The fact is that there are far too few books are available as print-on-demand, and the vast array of out of print books represent a kind of cultural vandalism.
post #118 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Yes, and it's also akin to going into the library to read that bit of the book, which is a classic fair use exception. The fact is that there are far too few books are available as print-on-demand, and the vast array of out of print books represent a kind of cultural vandalism.

The problem with using libraries in your example is that not only have libraries paid for the book, but they are a source for new edition requests. If the out of print book has been damaged or not returned, they are the majority of customers who request reprintings. Google would never need to do that. Don't get me wrong. I'm not lamenting the publishers' loss of revenue on issuing new editions of books with zero new information at all. I just see both sides.
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 #119 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

In your example, it isn't so cut and dry. If the email copies someone else in the company (Google) then the email would still be privileged because the client is Google and both parties are employed by Google therefore it is still attorney/client privilege. If the email copied someone outside the company, then you'd be correct.

Unfortunately for Google, none of that matters because the email was a draft and it's original content wasn't sent to the attorney. If I started a letter to my attorney saying I killed someone but didn't send it but sent another letter with similar information, privilege doesn't cover the original letter because I never sent it. This is why discovery is so crucial in these cases and why you see defendants "burying" the plaintiffs in discovery. In that strategy, you send any and all documents (relevant or not) in the hopes that the billable hours start to ratchet up for the plaintiff to the point where they get nervous about the litigation costs or their attorneys miss crucial info. This pressures the plaintiff into either settling the case quickly or dropping the suit altogether.

That's not correct. Not every statement to your lawyer in a corporate setting is privileged. In this case, google screwed up, because this e-mail was apparently a response to a question from the CEO, so even if it were to the lawyer as well, it wouldn't be privileged.
post #120 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.

Theft is evil in every religion, as far as I know. It doesn't matter whether it's criminal or civil. The people doing it are still stealing property that isn't theirs, and they are doing it willfully.
And has been brought up a couple of posts ago, Google has their own definition of evil, and their actions should be measured against the standards they set up for themselves.
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