Oracle seeking an injunction against Android as an "incompatible clone of Java" - Page 4

Why so?

According to Oracle's pleadings its biggest beef with Google is that Android destroys Java interoperability, which is a big no no because that stands against Java's write once run every where purpose. It is the same grievance Java's previous owner Sun had with Microsoft when Microsoft tried to create its own variant of Java that killed interoperability. As a data base company it only makes sense that Oracle would be interested in interoperability with Java between platforms.

I think Oracle wants 1) a big chunk of money from Google to address the past wrongs (far more the the 100 million Google would be willing to pay), and 2) for Google to comply with the Java license. If Google complies with the license, there is no need for Google to pay a future licensing fee.

I doubt Oracle wants to kill Android outright because that would be against its own economic interests. If it wants a reoccurring revenue stream, I doubt it would be large as Oracle wouldn't want to kill the revenue stream. Google is said to make about 6 a year on each Android device sold through advertisements. If so, Google could probably afford to give up a dollar a year and not be significantly hurt.

Thanks for the link. Wow ... It seems from this Google used very shady tactics. My question is why? Was it to fast track copying iOS from a standing start once Schmidt had the inside info or some other reason? Why didn't they used the same approach as others and stay legal?

So what if the guy has some bias. So do most things you read today, especially from so called News organizations like Fox News. That doesn't make the guy's views invalid. Further, "useless material" seems pretty harsh, considering the guy along with his opinions actual posts the legal pleading for you to read yourself so you can form your own opinions.

Most so called news outlets don't even post the actual pleadings. They give you the dumbed down version of the pleadings, which are also usually biased. Some might also appreciate that the legal pleadings Foss patents publishes would actually generally cost you money to obtain. Seems pretty valuable to me.


Perhaps you could suggest an alternative place where people can easily and without cost find the relevant legal pleadings for Apple's legal battles along with follow along commentary that isn't biased.

With apologies to Tallest Skil, here's today's next typo.

Nope, just want Google to come out with a bit of honesty and drop that "Don't be evil" rubbish...

...oh, and for all the seemingly brainwashed idiots to pause, think and stop supporting everything Google does on fora all over the Internet, in a sickening display of blind adoration.

Apple closed, yeah we get that, they never claim not to be.

Ouch..
Is this the case?
Any Android programmer here on the forum that can verify Oracle's take?

Good luck with that. There is no honor among thieves. ........ \

If it forces other manufacturers to develop their own OSs, rather than rely on others to do it for them .... it will be good for consumers. Who knows, maybe a miracle will happen and someone will develop something even better than Apple .... not likely, but it could happen.

Software thieves block innovation .... by taking away the motivation to innovate. Why innovate when you can just steal?

Whoa! Not so fast. Remember of the Golden Rule of Fandroidism: "When Google Does It, It's Not Evil."

Can we please kill the mindless "competition makes it all better" crap? It doesn't. It often has no good effect at all and sometimes makes things worse. We have crap for cell service in the US because of mindless free trade talk. Please for the love of all things good stop.

First of all there is no evidence at all that competition makes iOS any better. None. It might, it might not. Declaring it so by fiat is a logical fallacy, and pointless.

Second, even if competition did always make products better, which it still doesn't, that doesn't excuse theft. If google is effectively stealing by using an I implementation of java, then they are in the wrong, and the rightful owners can, to quote a post, nuke it from orbit if they wish.

I repeat for the mindless android/Linux zealots, theft is not freedom, and no philosophy or anthropomorphism of information makes it so. Grow up

Lastly, if competition does improve anything, it can be done by fair competition. Windows phone, for all the crap it gets, is the first original product MS has made since bob, and their only good product yet. Let that compete. Theft is not competition, it is theft. I am sorry it takes someone who works in ethics to point this out, but hey, here is your daily clue bat beating....

And you obliterated my irony meter.

So Google is guilty until proven innocent. Gotcha.

Some things shouldn't be patentable. Slide to unlock for instance.

We have become overly patenting beings. If the same efforts to "protect intellectual property" were in place since the beginning of man we'd be nowhere.

They may be guilty. Sure. And if so they should pay. But some of these violations are against patents that shouldn't exist in the first place. Tech always built off tech. Hence why Android shifted into a more icon based OS after the reveal of the iPhone, hence why iOS 5 has notifications clearly inspired by Android. Hence why phones are getting thinner and faster hence why resolution is improving hence why tech. Is advancing period. Stealing is wrong sure. But the system is wronger.

I am all for punishing flat out copying (certain galaxy S phones and touchwiz overall) but this is simply getting out of hand.

Nobody is suggesting that other devices can't be made .... only that the software that they run on not be a blatant copy of someone else's design.

Yep, that is why I included "if" they stole.

So you can't read as well as being a mindless drone? Gotcha.

<edit> BTW, nice massive edit to your post. Doesn't make it any more reasonable.

Whether you are unhappy with all this litigation or not, neither you nor google can break laws or contracts. That remains wrong. If (that magic word that points out that I am not god like or omniscient and do not know whether they have or not) google has either stolen, copied, or simply remade against the contract they accepted by using java as a frame work, then they should be taken to task for it. Because you feel bad about all these lawsuits means exactly nothing. Get over it.

Oh no, they'll have their day in court. And then they will be proven guilty.
This is the just the pre-game show featuring the usual commentators. I thought you knew that.

The rest of your comment showed you already made up your mind. Don't try and play the semantics game like you all love to do.

Ok "reasonable rational" person, explain what in my comment says I have made up my mind at all. The vast majority of it is about people who worship at the foot of the god of the totally open market. I only mention google because that was what started the talk. I personally know nearly nothing about the case.

That is some weapons grade projection there I think. Let me know if it works out for ya...

You're waaay too dramatic.

First how do you equate the "end of Android" with the "end of choice"? RIM, Microsoft, HP, and even Samsung just called to say, "hello, we're still here." If Android went away tomorrow, what do you think their former licensees would do? Hint: it's not pack up and die.

Second, Oracle isn't going to kill Android. They're going to get Java IP properly licensed and paid for. Google thought they could get away with it, now they can't. Fine. Now they're going to have to grow up and be responsible corporate citizens and technology player like the firms that have been doing this for 30 years or more. Play time is over, Google: finish your apple juice and get your licensing in order.

Third, there will always be choices. The global cell phone market (heck, even just the global smartphone market) is HUGE and Apple's no where near 100% of that market.

Fourth, Mazda 3s drives a Hyundai?

I read it all the tine, and you're wrong. He's a very respected expert. He's not even in favor of software patents. But you don't like him because he tells it like it is. And that bothers people who don't like seeing Google on the short side of the stick.

Well, it's true. These issues are very complex.

...and prefers BMW. Next we will find out "macrulez" uses windows 98 and "absolutedesignz" has no design sense.

Actually, I suspect all the "z in place of s" names are a single 400 lb Linux user troll. He also compiles kernels and downloads porn at the rate of 3 terabytes per day.

What do you say to that Zuddenly Newton? Your alter ego expozed in one fell zwoop?!

-zhen

I imagine that it was a big part of it. The Android they bought, along with Andy Rubin was far from a useful OS when they first got it.it takes years to do it from scratch, so they "borrowed". What I don't understand is how they thought they could get away with it.

Aiight you made me lol.



absolutedesigns was taken at the time (2003 I think) on Yahoo and Gmail later

plus it's a name I can use on almost every site because "Absolute" is often taken


and 3 Terabytes is childs play...we do petabytes up in here son.

Get away with what?

Granted it is an assumption but the apparent tone of your post and your word choice (with forced qualifiers) indicated that, to you, Google is guilty as sin.

How and when recently have google pushed the envelope.

8% of the common stock according to whenever someone reviewed the SEC filings and updated Wikipedia last. I'd guess there are probably other stock options other than common stock involved too. Still, no one owns a bigger chunk of the company than he does. Kind of like how Jobs owns 7% of Disney and is still the largest shareholder of their stock.

This is the key point. Seems the article and most of the commenters take this for granted, that Google is stealing Oracle's IP and "destroying" Java.

The first claim is very debatable : Java is open-souce and Google just found the loophole in the license and exploited it. They are just using a popular programming language. The Android platform, Dalvik VM, all the other components are original work, which even Apple blatantly copy sometimes (notifications in iOS 5, I am talking to you). There is nothing that violates the Java open-source license in Android. Most of Oracle's claims has already been dismissed. I wouldn't say that Oracle is in any great shape to win this legal war. Quite opposite.

The other claim is downward ridiculous : How is Android "destroying" Java ? This is very different from the Microsoft case many years ago. Microsoft was Sun's licensee and violated the terms of this license. Google is not licensing the Java or the Java TCK, because they don't have to. They never claim the applications on Android are running in Java VM. They just use Java language, and Java compiler, because the open source license allows them to do so.

Java owes a lots of it popularity to the fact that it is open source technology, that is free to use except few limited cases, where you need a license (to distribute Java VM). If anyone is undermining Java, its Oracle. You can't have the same thing open and closed at the same time.

They don't have the money and if they did it would never be approved, one database company buying the other largest database company.

J.

I think Python would have been a better choice than Java. Java is a slow lumbering piece of shit anyway. If it wasnt for Android it would be dead

This is really the key point. Why did they think it was OK to rip off Sun's/Oracle's IP? Why did they think it was OK to illegally copy and distribute thousands and thousands of books? Why did they think it was OK to profit off illegal drug sales? Why do they think it's OK to compile a huge database of personal information on millions of people? Why do they think it's OK to manipulate their search results for profit? Why do they think it's OK to lie, cheat and steal? Why, how and when did Google become a giant criminal enterprise?

I think it's a combination of too much drinking their own kool aid and a lack of moral compass in their leadership. They thought they could get away with it all because of their own hubris, being drunk with money and power, and a perverted sense of "righteousness".

We see this sort of corruption happen to politicians all the time: so much so that it doesn't even shock any longer. We see it often enough with corporations that it really shouldn't be surprising, either. And, the fact is that it is the ugly side of human nature that we would all prefer to deny. A lack of a firm moral grounding, and too much wealth, power and influence gained too quickly is a recipe for corruption.

All this talk of Google having free reign to Java use and licensing issues can all be summed up in Google's attempt to keep hidden (suppress from evidence) the damning internal emails that talk of Google knowing they didn't have a legitimate license so "to hell with it we're using it anyway".

Internal Google emails reveal brazen attitude regarding Java licensing and Android
http://www.edibleapple.com/internal-...nsing-android/

One telling quote from an Andy Rubin email
"This attitude of nonchalance was evident in another Google email, this one from Android founder Andy Rubin where he suggested that Google " 'Do Java anyway and defend our decision, perhaps making enemies along the way.' "

Past AppleInsider article
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...cles_java.html

Easier to ask forgiveness after the fact than permission before it.

This admitted attitude toward freely using others' IP says it all and no wonder Google tried to hide it's internal workings and thinking it can do whatever it wants.

I'm sorry, but as an Engineer minoring in business this is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I don't mean that you yourself are incompetent, but that that statement is so beyond incorrect that I couldn't even sugar coat my response.


Is that so? Do you recall that when the iPhone 4 was announced Apple pitched it as the "thinnest" phone yet? Notice the suffix "est." They wanted to make their phone more pocketable than their competition. The retina screen that is so gorgeous? That's Apple's response to competing screens such as SuperAMOLED screens. The camera button (volume down) announced for iOS 5? That was pitched as a Windows Phone selling point (I distinctly remember a comercial of someone skydiving claiming they can get to their camera faster). I don't know if Android phones have that ability, but I'm guessing a few do as well.

However, if you were only assuming that iOS itself (and not the device) has not advanced because of competition, let me disprove that as well. You'd have a hard time arguing with anyone that Notification Center wasn't stolen from Android notifications, let alone inspired by them. If it wasn't for Apple being railed with constant "I like their notification system better" complaints I doubt they would have changed it (especially since they hadn't since the original iOS).

You know how nice it is that you'll be able to cut the chord from your computer with iOS 5? You can probably thank competitors for that as well. Both Android and Windows Phone 7 are HUGE supporters of wireless updates, syncing, sharing, etc. Again, if Apple didn't think that they might be losing customers/losing customer satisfaction because the competition offers something they didn't, they wouldn't have changed it.

Even more simple: You weren't able to change your wallpaper before iOS 4 (I think it was 4. Someone correct me if I have mispoken). This was more than likely in response to the anti-Apple campaign citing a lack of customization compared to the competition.
There's a reason Apple only implemented these once Android was starting to pick up steam/they finally had competition. Before they didn't feel like it mattered; they had no good competition. Tech people probably read complaints about the following things and thought "you want to be able to change your wallpaper? Too bad. Go to another product. There's no good replacement to the iPhone? Sucks for you." (I doubt they were actually thinking that, but you get my point.


I find nothing wrong with this statement unless you aren't following his sarcasm. If not...well


Your strong distaste for Google/Linux might explain your misguided thought process on this matter


Suddenly we're not talking about the Oracle lawsuit? Anyway, are you aware that Microsoft essentially infringes on a lot of the same the patents that Android manufactures have been sued for? I realize this will probably start a different debate, but I can't help but think that the reason many people here don't hate MP7 as much as Android is because it isn't as successful. Reading AI a year or two ago people thought Android would be good competition to make iOS better (weird huh?). It would be a small niche platform for nerds, but could also be a decent alternative to the few people that didn't want an iPhone. Now that Android has overtaken iOS in popularity, suddenly they're evil and WP7 should be the competition. Just something I've noticed

I think the Free Software Foundation is going to get involved in this and we'll see... Sometimes high priced lawyers aren't what they're cracked up to be. Usually, they have a team of law clerks doing the real work. Those lawyers just show up for court and press appearances armed with information lesser lawyers have worked on with the team of law clerks. I've been involved in a suit that hired a big name lawyer before, and that's how it worked. He was there for the press interviews and a couple of meetings with all of us, but a lesser attorney, that wasn't even a partner, did the bulk of the work.

Why innovate when you'll just be sued into bankruptcy by patent trolls and companies like Microsoft that patent things that preexisted? Seems like this just keeps the small developer from even entering the market.

It never used to be like this. You could write a competing application as long as you didn't use the competition's code. This is how Visicalc lost out to Lotus, which also lost out to Excel in the marketplace. That's competition. There has never been a lack of innovation and development as a result.

You mean, one company that maintains a database of information buying out a company that develops databases? Last time I looked, that's called vertical integration. That would not be buying out competition, and thus would be approved.

All Google has to do is be a major investor, not a complete owner. There is a difference.

No, we have crappy cell service because of a lack of competition. There are only 2 major carriers in the race, and 2 lesser ones. That's an oligopoly and it causes the situation we have. All the other players are basically not even worth mentioning because of their lack of ability to compete on the same playing field.


Sorry, completely wrong and devoid of all economic theory. iOS 5 will be getting some features that Android has had for quite sometime and Apple has refused, thus far, to put in iOS. Competition breeds better products and innovation in the marketplace. It's a basic principle in economic theory. Oligopolies and monopolies stymie competition and innovation. Competition provides incentive, whereas the lack of competition doesn't. Go back and study a college course on micro-economics.


You are assuming there has been a theft. But that has to be determined by a court of law, not someone in ethics. This is a complex situation that does not need to be tried here. However, those Apple zealots that claim Android needs to be blasted into orbit are just ignorant, just as you are.

And yet many places with only a single service or services forced to actually compete on the same tech have better service. Looks like your theory has flaws. A similar case is found in ISPs in the US verses Europe. This is all pretty well documented. Competition forced differentiation of band and method and created the 2 separate standards that locks people into a carrier. This has all been discussed, played out, and documented. It is as close to fact as evolution.



I get my information from working with economists at a college. The initial competition is what created oligopoly friendly conditions. Maybe you need to take an Econ class. I can recommend one, I teach the ethics half of the class.


No, I am assuming that theft is wrong, as I already pointed out I don't know the case and can't say if there is theft involved. Your inability to accept that ambiguity from me when my concern is the zombie like "competition always good, brains" thinking of many is not my problem. The post I responded to implied that even if android is largely or even wholly stolen property, it is ok because competition makes it good. That is wrong, and doesn't need to be tested in a court.

Theft remains wrong whatever it may do for the market. Further, competition is not always a magic pill that makes things better. These are basic facts, and true no matter what google has or has not taken. That is all I have claimed so far.