Oracle seeking an injunction against Android as an "incompatible clone of Java" - Page 5

I am sorry that you cannot understand that, see the above post.




ironically none of things are really about iOS being better, but the physical hardware.

The point remains, while competition can improve things it is not always so, and the post I replied to stated that it did. Always. And even justified theft.


No, I wouldn't have a hard time with that. I have a car, you might as well. I didn't steal your car even if they are similar. Implementation of a concept can be done without theft. Many operating system do similar things without outright copying of code. That is not what is being implied in the lawsuit.

See how easy that was?


A lovely assertion, but lacking proof. Apple might certainly wish to cut the cord, to encourage people to buy an iPad or iPhone who might lack a computer. My goodness, that was easy too. You really should think this stuff through...



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

Your assumptions misguide you. I am a huge fan of Linux. I have 2 Linux servers here in my house and have used it since '98. What I dislike is the "I should get everything for free I file share all my music and stole photoshop" mentality in the community, which is why I stopped reading Linux boards. The mindless free market free information teabagger think is disgusting.


[/quote]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 [/QUOTE]

Again, I was NEVER talking about the lawsuit. I was refuting the "they can steal if it makes more competition post.

You suggest that I am concerned about android because it is popular. Yet multiple surveys suggest that to most consumers there is iOS and "whatever they have on the iPhone like smart phone that isn't working out that well so I will be trading up to an iPhone next". That doesn't seem like a concern, even if I where zealously looking out for iOS. I ain't. I don't make it. It isn't my home team. My day isn't ruined when they lose a customer. My ego is not dependent on apples stock performance.

I simply object to the original posters mindless open market dribble.

Although I am beginning ton object to your in ability to use your nickname.

Because it's well written, well regarded and disagrees with the freetard religion. Fosspatents IS biased but less rabidly so than Groklaw. The problem freetards have with it is that it's decently researched and doesn't come off sounding like loon zealotry...which means it gets quite a bit of traffic and reprint.

The other reason is that freetards realize that Google is in the wrong here on several different levels and that's causing significant cognitive dissonance.

Well, given that they've taken GPL code and made it Apache they don't have a license for it. So they didn't exploit it so much as steal it.


Except the GPL part. Without said license they are violating both copyright and patents (assuming that you accept the implicit grant in GPL 2 is sufficient)

Forcing Google to GPL Android would take a whole heap of wind out of it's sales (heh).


Google has managed to embrace, extend and extinguish Java ME. That's the primary difference between MS and Google. Everything else is a relatively minor detail.


Java owes lots of popularity to the fact that as a language it sucks a lot less than C++, the other major OO language when it was popularized. The open source part is simply something that happened under My Little Pony because, well, he's an idiot.

Frankly, Oracle should fork Android once ICS is open sourced with a J2ME compliant stack and all the Google stuff ripped out under a proprietary license and offer it for sale. Of course, they'd have to partner with MS for search...and that's just not gonna happen.

I think you'll find the actual quote is "thinnest iPhone yet".

At this point I gave up on your rant.

You're right, bro! Just look at what happened to iPods after ~2006: as soon as Apple dominated the market, the following models turned out pretty shitty, right?

Right?

Excuse me? What are we talking about? Google's taking of other's IP.

You would be wrong. Haven't you read what's been said here? Look, even the judge has told Google they would lose this in a court. Google seems to have given up denying infringement and is fighting the amount. If it does go to trial, which it will if they don't agree, they could be in very bad shape. Those two memo's are very damning, which is why Google fought so hard to get them excluded. They lost those battles.

Most of Oracle's points have been accepted. I don't see how you can believe what you said here, unless you haven't been following this at all.

If the FSF gets involved, it may be to sue Google over stolen Linux code. You better hope they stay away.

That's not exactly correct. While it's true that Lotus won because it was better, Excel, whatever its merits, won because MS held back Windows API's from third parties that competed with it, illegally. They lost a major case against the Feds over this in the early '90's. This was the first instance where MS had oversight. they also killed Wordperfect Corporation and, I forgot the name of the company right now, but they made DBase.

Be careful though about accusations about patenting things that preexisted. That does happen, but it really is very rare, even though it may be popular to think so.

I know you have a lot of faith in all that Florian says, but I missed the part where the Judge tells Google they're going to lose at trial. Link?

And far from "most of Oracle's claims have been accepted", 17 of the original 21 patent claims were tossed.
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/j...kes-a-hit.html

If what you meant was that after the majority of patent assertions were tossed, what was left was largely permitted to proceed, that would be correct. One of those remaining was denied a couple weeks back, but otherwise the case is still on track for either October or sometime next year, depending on another case.

FWIW Florian is one of the few and by far the loudest voice pronouncing that all is lost and Google is in dire straits, as far as I can find. Some real attorneys have questioned his projections and motivations. That both Microsoft and Apple are clients wouldn't be any surprise to many. That doesn't mean he wrong, but I prefer to read several sources before forming any strong opinions.

And yes I include FOSSPatents in the mix. He's got some good info in his blogs that sometimes isn't mentioned in other articles.

No way in hell FSF sues Google.

Hint: Who could the FSF be afraid of enough to not make the Affero clause mandatory in GPL 3.0 and close the SaS loophole? There's all sorts of ways Google can be nasty to FSF's objectives.

Besides, the FSF doesn't have standing to sue Google over the violation of the GPL license for Java or Linux. Oracle is the only one who does for Java and kernel devs are the only ones who can for Linux. Doesn't seem likely any of the major kernel contributors will but I guess you never know.

For Java at most you'll see SFLC file some kind of amicus brief to promote some position or other. I doubt the SFLC will want to touch the linux issue with a 1000 ft pole.

ruel24 is more enthusiastic than really informed.

Who are the others? Few seem non-partisan.

They all may have agendas, which is the best reason of all to source several different writers.

Anyway, Groklaw, PatentlyO (a particular favorite) and ArsTechnica are some of my most often-used sources for patent/legal news and opinion. Network World is another that has insightful articles on the industry, and throw EWeek in as well, with articles and news before most others in some cases.

EDIT: I can't forget my favorite little known source, SEOByTheSea.

Now you know most of my secrets.

There's a couple of great articles I had bookmarked, and worth reading if you haven't yet.

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011...n-apple-1.html

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/n...redibility.ars

These have good information and opinions that help add balance to Florian's views IMO.

Add this one too if you're interested in how IBM figures into all of this.
http://www.seobythesea.com/2011/09/g...ust/#more-6675

It took me a while to look through my bookmarks for the article from which this is a part, but it certainly is interesting. This guy is pretty famous and respected. You can't do much better to find someone to quote:


The full article. Well worth the several page read:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/20...over-the-world

I find it interesting that some people, designer or not, that seem to think that adding a button, or changing its use, or dropping a page down from the only usable place is copying. Apple was asked, for some time, for the use of that button. They finally decided to acquiesce.

As far as the notifications go, if you bothered to find out about it, you would see that the drop down is the only thing that's the same. Apple can't pull from the left, because of Spotlight. They can't pull from the right because of more screens. Pulling from the bottom is considered a UI faux pas. So what should they have they done? Apple's new notifications is so far ahead of the primitive system Android has that comparing the two is embarrassing.

http://gadgetbox.msnbc.msn.com/_news...-ios-right-now

And how do you know that Apple hasn't been planning over the air upgrades, backups, and iCloud, for years? You don't. Quite a few people in the industry say that Apple plans ten years in advance. It seems pretty clear that Apple has plans that go well beyond its competitors. This is all part of the post PC vision Jobs stated a while ago.

But, we do know that Android is a copy of iOS, because Schmitt himself said so. He said that they first were targeting the BB, but when the iPhone looked as though it would be popular, they copied that instead. Ok, he actually said "targeted", but as it looks so similar, we know that he really meant copy.

So who is copying who?

Sorry a typo and not very clear, I was referring to the Java case by Sun against MS. Seems similar to me.

That's a good Gadgetbox link. Thanks.

As for Apple not being concerned with the competition, that might have been true once upon a time. Pretty obvious to me and probably most others that they've given HTC, Moto, & Samsung a lot of attention the past 18 months, ever since they became competition.

If anything, he's biased against software patents. We know, from his own admission, that he was an activist against software patents. But he does a very good, and fair analysis of these matters.

He's even stated that while he isn't always happy with what he finds, the law is the law.

FWIW, Mr Mueller is not as universally trusted as some might write, with claims of his working with Microsoft on a FUD campaign against IBM, and more recently working with Microsoft again in a new campaign against Motorola. Of course he's welcome to make an income from anyone he chooses. The man has to make a living. If he's attempting to set himself up as offering fair analysis of patent matters tho, a little transparency might be in order. It's not as if he hasn't been asked what his association is. He would just rather not answer apparently.

http://techrights.org/2010/04/11/flo...nd-erika-mann/

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....10605163439627

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-sourc...ck-in-ibm/6202

As I said earlier, he's a good source for details that might not post at other sites, but to say he offers a fair and balanced analysis of patent suits, particularly if Apple or Microsoft is involved, doesn't hold water IMO. He may not be any more biased, nor have any greater hidden agendas than some other sources, even some I mentioned. Read from more than one and form your own opinions. Depending on FOSSPatents alone isn't going to give you an honest analysis in my view.

Anyway, 'nuff said about it.

deleted

Actually, patent attorneys have agreed with him. With Oracle's case, as with all of these, patents are often asserted over the specific ones involved. You'll notice this in all suits. But of the important areas, Oracle did very well. Oracle was asked to cut down their assertions because it was thought it would confuse the jury.

It's hard to find exact quotes, but this article has a couple that relate to this:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...acle-case.html

Another quote, from the FOSS site:


Another:

I've always liked this though. Kind of ironic:



Can you supply links to these attorneys?

Oh, you know i'm not serious that they would do it. It was a point that Google isn't that friendly to open source.

I already did. You read my links didn't you?

Well, you know, Ryan isn't exactly objective himself.

Yes, we got it straightened out.

What he meant is that Apple doesn't concern themselves with keeping up with them in features. They certainly should be concerned when someone is stealing from them.

I can't necessarily disagree that Ryan isn't objective either. As stated, that's why I use several sources before forming a solid opinion. And even that is open to change as new information is presented. Florian is more of a one-trick pony IMO with a single-minded mission. Google, Motorola, IBM or anyone else that might threaten MS or Apple? Bad bad bad. Always. On every issue. Every time. That hardly looks like balanced analysis.

Sure helps explain why IBM appears willing to throw some assistance Google's way. They already went thru the alleged Microsoft-financed and directed Florian attacks.

But I still find his blog valuable, and I read it several times a week.

We can go on and on about the. But Techrights is known for it's agenda. It attacks anyone who doesn't agree with it.

The Groklaw article itself is typically prejudiced as are many of them. An attorney speaking or writing about a case that isn't theirs doesn't refer to one side (that they obviously don't like) as a "monopolist". Very fair.

While I might agree with that statement, I'm not pretending to be objective on a "law" blog.

I also don't get this last one. IBM did promise to never use patents against open source. They are. So where is Mueller wrong? It also links to an article that doesn even mention him as far as I can tell.

Not links to attorneys, but links to blogs of various people. Also after the post I responded to.

There are two parts of this argument. The first, and most important is the laying out of facts. Mueller gets that part correct. The second part is the opinion. I care less for the opinions of those writing, no matter who they are. I can come to my own conclusions.

I like Mueller because he has a good grasp of the facts, and lays them out well.

We pretty much agree on that.

If you're truly interested in facts, I've got a great link for you Mel. It's a very revealing peek at what some of the Linux/Redhat and development community thinks, how Florian fits in, and how the community reacts to some of the statements made.

http://lwn.net/Articles/424107/
It so worth a read just for the information that Mr Mueller doesn't tell you.

As an aside, I was sincerely disappointed in his apparent attempts at helping Oracle craft more attacks. So was the Linux community according to posts.

Just GOOG making one bad decision after another. It's like a teenager is making all the decisions saying I will show them, they can't do that to me...

deleted

Utter BS. As an iPhone user, I don't mind competition, but I still believe in fairness. Everyone deserves a fair shake. It doesn't matter if that happens to be a rich and successful corporation. It is only fair that one is entitled to all the benefits of his/her labors. This is the very foundation of the idea of patents and other "exclusive rights," an idea enshrined in the US Constitution. And I'd argue that patents actually help innovation. Why can't Google innovate around the patent? It's easier said than done, but still, Google has some very smart people working for them and they have plenty of capital to spend.

I am amazed at the utter lack of respect for intellectual property. The person who devotes time and resources to developing a piece of technology is entitled to every ounce of benefits from it. If others want to use that technology, they have to pay the piper. Google willfully refused to license Java from Oracle. Oracle has every right to seek redress in the courts.

Well, all of these groups have their own agendas. In fact, we all have our own agendas. If someone won't admit that, they are an outright liar.

When it comes to Google and open software organizations, I find a great deal of hypocrisy. These groups are so desperate to see Linux in any form represented, and having a possibility of becoming a majority OS, even if it isn't compatable with any real Linux distro in any way, they they will compromise their souls to see it happen.

That's what is happening now. Not only is Google stealing from Apple, Microsoft and Oracle, but they are stealing from the Linux Foundation as well. So while some can explain away this theft from companies making profits, there is no real way they can explain away Google steaing from a non profit organization or community. But will this community fight back as they have in other venue's? Likely not, because if they do, they would win, and that could prove to end the chance Linux has, even in this very bastardized form, of becoming dominant, which is something they've always predicted, and hoped would happen.

So they've remained quiet so far. Of course, there are so many that contributed to this, that if even just one person decides to take this to court, it could all be over.

But the open software community itself is so filled with hypocrisy, squabbling, and personalities who only want glory for themselves, and are willing to put down the "opposition" that the community will never get its act together.

I'm not impressed with anything they have to say on this account. I've followed it from the beginning.

You're correct that it looks like a few competing agendas are represented in the thread, but the general consensus is they don't believe what Mr. Mueller has to say, and question his motives. It would be fairly easy to perhaps dismiss their comments at just wanting to support Linux in what ever form it takes were it not for ArsTechnica holding some of the same opinions and pointing out some of the same Florian Mueller discrepancies. Things are less clearly "stolen" from Oracle if you consider the linked thread and this one.

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/n...moking-gun.ars

Motives aren't important. That only matters if you're accused of a crime. What matters is the accuracy of the information, and while he isn't perfect, he presents the cases better than anyone else. He provides most all of the detail, while others present a small part that illustrates their agenda. What he thinks the results will be can be argued, but I have to
point out that if you go back and read his postings from a ways back, you will see that his predictions as to outcomes are more accurate than these others.

And again, remember that he's been an activist FOR open software and AGAINST software patents. So you would think that he would take a line against Apple, Oracle and Microsoft.

Yes you might think that, which is why his pro-Microsoft/pro-Apple bias can only be attributed to money IMO. There's every indication MS was and probably still is a client of his, which he doesn't deny. You can add Apple to the client list now IMHO.

Ummm, Apple apparently doesn't need anything to spur innovation. Heck, they don't even use focus groups or ask their customers what they want! Maybe to Apple, that makes as much sense as a Pixar story editor asking people what they want the story to do. Nope, they write that stuff, all outta their own brains. So your thesis that competition fuels innovation misses the mark , at least in Apples case.

The patent crap is out of hand, but don't blame Apple for that. This will certainly take a while, but companies got to learn you can't swipe someone else's stuff and stick your logo on it and claim it's not copying because it has your logo on it!

Actually, you can't add Apple to the list, because his name hasn't ever been linked to them, and you know nothing about it.