or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Oracle seeking an injunction against Android as an "incompatible clone of Java"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Oracle seeking an injunction against Android as an "incompatible clone of Java" - Page 2

post #41 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

I think Google should pay *something* for their use of Java.

Should Tom Love and Brad Cox be paid by Apple for using the Objective C programming language? If you develop in C++, should you pay Barnstrup or AT&T? Seriously? I'm sure they have licensed development environments that do that and give them the licensing necessary.
post #42 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post

Are you people crackers or something?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post

I believe Google has the money to just buy Oracle.



Oracle's market cap is in the order of 143 billion dollars. Google has around 25 billion in cash reserves. They're really not in a position to buy Oracle in an hostile acquisition. On the other hand, they would have no trouble ponying up the billion or so that Oracle is asking for allegedly infringing on patents they own.
post #43 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty321 View Post

YES!!! You go, Oracle!!! Time to finally fight back against the thieves!!!

Those bastards at Google need to be taught a huge lesson. This certainly isn't the first thing Google has stolen & raped & pillaged:

http://brianshall.com/content/google-are-pussies

I used to really like apple when they were only a search business. they had a very creative and great work environment and treated their employees well. Then they went all high and mighty
post #44 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrGoon View Post



Oracle's market cap is in the order of 143 billion dollars. Google has around 25 billion in cash reserves. They're really not in a position to buy Oracle in an hostile acquisition. On the other hand, they would have no trouble ponying up the billion or so that Oracle is asking for allegedly infringing on patents they own.

To buy a company doesn't mean you have to own them in their entirety. You simply have to own enough, or controlling interest. Bill Gates has controlling interest in MS and his ownership is something in the league of 30%. Many times, controlling interest is much less than that, depending on other factors, such as Ford's former stake in Mazda, where much of Mazda's parts and platforms were derived from Ford's worldwide operations. With that in mind, Google would simply need to purchase "enough" of Oracle to nullify this mess. What number would you think that could be? 15%? 20%? Some of that could even be borrowed money... Then that would also allow Google to benefit from Oracle's operations, as well.
post #45 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

That's some seriously misguided freetard-speak there, buddy.

Patents protect innovators against blatant copying. Just as Samsung.

Here. Let me Bing that for you: http://binged.it/rt7h91

No let me point you to why it's a mess and needs fixed or wiped out completely:

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/patent-i...ews-12603.html
post #46 of 202
Way to go Larry Ellison! Oracle is doing phenomenally, he has called the HP board boneheads, and he's a good Apple ally. Now this? Take that cheap nerdy knockoff android OS back where it belongs... The trash can!
post #47 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragon View Post

The intrigue I have with these legal patent battles is equal to that of reading a Robert Ludlum book.

Um.... except you only get to read the first chapter and the final page of the book...
post #48 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post

Are you people crackers or something? Us iPhone users WANT Android to succeed and be better and better. Competition fules innovation. If iOS had no competition, it wouldn't move ahead so far so quickly. As a user, you WANT the competition to be successful just enough to fuel the manufacturer of your product to constantly strive to release a better product.

I believe Google has the money to just buy Oracle. Don't tempt them... Honestly, this software patent crap is so far out of hand it's ridiculous. It used to not be this way and we had lots of innovation. Software patents block innovation.

Rules are rules. They stole software in order to get onto the market faster, they need to pay a price. We should all be fine with what the law says on this issue, whether its a fine or being blocked in the market.

I don't think Android has done much of anything to drive iOS, more like the other way around. Now if Apple went out of business, that would really hurt Android is what you mean.

You might've had an argument until your last line there. That's some pretty insane talk.
post #49 of 202
Oracle is contradicting its own license - a clone of Java is perfectly valid under GPL v2. The source for Java rumtime and libraries are published in internet at openjdk.net with GPL V2 and GPL V2 with class path exception (Google can convert Android into GPL v2, problem solved).

GPL v2 published at www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html:

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
post #50 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by boby_k View Post

Oracle is contradicting its own license - a clone of Java is perfectly valid under GPL v2. The source for Java rumtime and libraries are published in internet at openjdk.net with GPL V2 and GPL V2 with class path exception (Google can convert Android into GPL v2, problem solved).

Don't you think it's weird that all of Oracle's and Google's high priced lawyers couldn't find and interpret that legalese as well as you did?

Ever wonder if that means you're missing something important?

Also - fantacy has an S.
post #51 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by boby_k View Post

Oracle is contradicting its own license - a clone of Java is perfectly valid under GPL v2. The source for Java rumtime and libraries are published in internet at openjdk.net with GPL V2 and GPL V2 with class path exception (Google can convert Android into GPL v2, problem solved).

GPL v2 published at www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html:

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

Apart from J2ME, which is what is involved here.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #52 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

See, I agree with this. I think that Google should be sued for all of its infringements and pay up dearly. But take it off the market? Come on!

I just die a little inside when it's assumed that Apple makes the best solutions for everyone. Killing Android will not be a good thing for consumers.

In the short run, you may be correct. In the long run, however, consumers benefit when INNOVATORS exist. Copyists do not really benefit consumers in the long run.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

If Google is in the wrong, they should pay whatever damages that are due to other companies. But to suggest that another OS simply be wiped off the market just because it benefits AAPL? Who are we kidding here

No one is suggesting that Android should be killed because it benefits Apple. Oracle is suggesting (if the article is correct) that Google should be enjoined from blatantly stealing technology that they do not have a right to.

Let's say I steal your car and make a business out of using it as a taxi service. Is it wrong for my taxi service to be put out of business solely so you can get your car back? Of course not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rp2011 View Post

Agree 100% We need hungry companies like Google. They push the envelope.

No, we don't. We need REAL competitors, not thieves. And Google has never pushed the envelope in technology - unless you consider "how much more stuff can we steal?" to be pushing the envelope.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post

Are you people crackers or something? Us iPhone users WANT Android to succeed and be better and better. Competition fules innovation.

And Google is simply copying, not innovating.

Notice how WebOS and Windows 8 haven't gotten anywhere near the bitterness of Android. At least they tried to innovate.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #53 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Apart from J2ME, which is what is involved here.

Sorry, this has nothing to do with J2ME. You can check yourself "PolicyNodeImpl.java" yourself. That is one file in question.
post #54 of 202
No J2ME is involved.
post #55 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

If Google really did infringe on Oracle's Java, and Oracle is able to win in court, then sure, Google should be punished if you ask me. I see it as a simple case of right and wrong.

Well said.
post #56 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

Don't you think it's weird that all of Oracle's and Google's high priced lawyers couldn't find and interpret that legalese as well as you did?

Ever wonder if that means you're missing something important?

Also - fantacy has an S.

We have not got there yet. Right now, Google's objective is reduce the amount for any past infringement if at all ****for mixing GPL v2 with Apache*****.

And..... this case is about 12 files (already deleted from android) and 37 specifications (class & method names). That is .0001% of android. Oracle can ask for $1
post #57 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

In the short run, you may be correct. In the long run, however, consumers benefit when INNOVATORS exist. Copyists do not really benefit consumers in the long run.

Currently, if I want an iPhone, I have to choose from either Verizon or AT&T. Want a slide-out keyboard? Sorry, screw you. Want LTE? Sorry, screw you. Want WiMAX? Sorry, screw you. Want a screen size larger than 3.5 inches? Sorry, screw you. Want a dual-core processor, removable battery, removable storage (microSD), HDMI-out? Sorry, screw... oh well, you get the point.

I'm not going to sit here and lie and say that Google is a saint when it comes to patent laws on the SOFTWARE side. But to say that consumers don't benefit from having the variety that Android HARDWARE brings? I think that's being a bit disingenuous.

The problem with many in this community is that we've been taught that if Apple says that "It should be done this way", then we just go along with it. If Apple says no to LTE, it must because they have a good reason. If Apple says no to removable storage, then they know better than everyone else. If Apple says keyboards suck, well so be it.

Not all consumers want to be told what they can and can't have when it comes to a device that's on them 24-7-365. For me, my iPhone 4 is perfect. But I'm glad that Android manufacturers give consumers the choice that Apple doesn't.

Quote:
No one is suggesting that Android should be killed because it benefits Apple. Oracle is suggesting (if the article is correct) that Google should be enjoined from blatantly stealing technology that they do not have a right to.

I don't have a problem with this. If Google f**ked up, then by all means punish them. But Android is "Too big to fail"
post #58 of 202
Litigations between these tech firms just seems to be getting more & more murky. I've got a headache just reading this article.
post #59 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

See, I agree with this. I think that Google should be sued for all of its infringements and pay up dearly. But take it off the market? Come on!

I just die a little inside when it's assumed that Apple makes the best solutions for everyone. Killing Android will not be a good thing for consumers.

The point you might be missing is that other creative companies would come in and fill that void. The need for competion in the market does not make it ok for Google to steal and lie. Justice would not be served if Oracle were not allowed to insist that their stolen property be returned to them.
post #60 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryb View Post

The point you might be missing is that other creative companies would come in and fill that void. The need for competion in the market does not make it ok for Google to steal and lie. Justice would not be served if Oracle were not allowed to insist that their stolen property be returned to them.

If you pick up something offered free on the street, will you call it steal? The entire source code for java run time and libraries are offered free at openjdk.net by none other than Oracle itself. Under GPL v2, you are free to create a clone of Java. In Faq, Oracle says "Go hack yourself".
post #61 of 202
deleted
post #62 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

Currently, if I want an iPhone, I have to choose from either Verizon or AT&T. Want a slide-out keyboard? Sorry, screw you. Want LTE? Sorry, screw you. Want WiMAX? Sorry, screw you. Want a screen size larger than 3.5 inches? Sorry, screw you. Want a dual-core processor, removable battery, removable storage (microSD), HDMI-out? Sorry, screw... oh well, you get the point.

I'm not going to sit here and lie and say that Google is a saint when it comes to patent laws on the SOFTWARE side. But to say that consumers don't benefit from having the variety that Android HARDWARE brings? I think that's being a bit disingenuous.

The problem with many in this community is that we've been taught that if Apple says that "It should be done this way", then we just go along with it. If Apple says no to LTE, it must because they have a good reason. If Apple says no to removable storage, then they know better than everyone else. If Apple says keyboards suck, well so be it.

Not all consumers want to be told what they can and can't have when it comes to a device that's on them 24-7-365. For me, my iPhone 4 is perfect. But I'm glad that Android manufacturers give consumers the choice that Apple doesn't.



I don't have a problem with this. If Google f**ked up, then by all means punish them. But Android is "Too big to fail"

Firstly, there are other software alternatives that utilize most if not all of those hardware features that you listed. Secondly, why do you think you are entitled to all of those choices from a single company? AFAIK, a company gets to decide what it produces, not the customer. In fact, that's why OEMs (handset and computer) are in trouble. They try to offer everything to every possible market which leads to thin profit margins or losses.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #63 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by boby_k View Post

We have not got there yet. Right now, Google's objective is reduce the amount for any past infringement if at all ****for mixing GPL v2 with Apache*****.

And..... this case is about 12 files (already deleted from android) and 37 specifications (class & method names). That is .0001% of android. Oracle can ask for $1

Again, don't you think it's weird that YOU have managed to boil the case down to this, and yet teams and teams of lawyers appearing in front of judges have not managed to get across that there's this little at stake?

Perhaps there are more elements of this case in play. Perhaps.
post #64 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by boby_k View Post

No J2ME is involved.

Not directly but the monetization opportunities it offered Oracle to recoup it's investment in Sun has been pretty much destroyed by Google's misuse of Java in Android.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #65 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Not directly but the monetization opportunities it offered Oracle to recoup it's investment in Sun has been pretty much destroyed by Google's misuse of Java in Android.

Let us get to the facts. Download source for Java VM and class libraries from Oracle site www.openjdk.net and look at license in headers. Then got to gpl v2 license description (its simple to read). Nowhere it says I should not take the free source and not create a derivate work for mobile. Please take a look at it and share your feedback.
post #66 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

Firstly, there are other software alternatives that utilize most if not all of those hardware features that you listed. Secondly, why do you think you are entitled to all of those choices from a single company? AFAIK, a company gets to decide what it produces, not the customer. In fact, that's why OEMs (handset and computer) are in trouble. They try to offer everything to every possible market which leads to thin profit margins or losses.

1) You're right, but no other OS out there is as popular as Android or has as much variety. WP7 phones are pretty slim pickin's.

2) Who said that it had to be a single company? That's the beauty of Android being available from a wide variety of manufacturers and carriers. You can pretty much pick out your perfect device. You want LTE, a dual-core processor and 4" screen, there's probably an Android smartphone out there for you.

I'd liken the iPhone to a BMW dealership telling me that all I can have is a BMW 3-Series in black or white -- take it or leave it.
I'd liken Android phones to be walking into a Toyota dealership and them telling me you can have a sedan, or a crossover, or a minivan, or a pickup truck, or a coupe, etc.

3) Consumers don't give a crap about profit margins. Only geeks like us and investors talk about that kind of stuff. All consumers care about is getting the product they want. If Motorola were to drop dead tomorrow, customers would just go to HTC or Samsung.
post #67 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendrazi View Post

Again, don't you think it's weird that YOU have managed to boil the case down to this, and yet teams and teams of lawyers appearing in front of judges have not managed to get across that there's this little at stake?

Perhaps there are more elements of this case in play. Perhaps.

Oracle conveniently removed GPL v2 headers from the source files submitted to the judge. Google asked Oracle to add it back.

Now the discussion is mostly about damage amount (in case of an infringement found). The real game is not yet started, players just warming up now.
post #68 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by boby_k View Post

Let us get to the facts. Download source for Java VM and class libraries from Oracle site www.openjdk.net and look at license in headers. Then got to gpl v2 license description (its simple to read). Nowhere it says I should not take the free source and not create a derivate work for mobile. Please take a look at it and share your feedback.

So it's your assertion that no one working for Google or Oracle noticed this? That the entire lengthy, expensive, intense litigation is based of a simple, boneheaded misunderstanding concerning the fundamentals of Java licensing, one the neither the CEOs of Google or Oracle nor the army of extremely high priced lawyers in each company's employ happened to notice?

And then what, at some point (perhaps you yourself rush into the courtroom brandishing your printout of the headers) someone thinks to read the actual license and everyone slaps their foreheads and cries "Oh shit! What were we thinking! Now we really have egg on our face!"?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #69 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post

I believe Google has the money to just buy Oracle. Don't tempt them... Honestly, this software patent crap is so far out of hand it's ridiculous. It used to not be this way and we had lots of innovation. Software patents block innovation.

Nope. As of today, Oracle market cap is $143 billion while Google market cap is $168 billion. Buying Oracle would take approximately $180 billion with the typical premium offer to current stock price.
post #70 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

Currently, if I want an iPhone, I have to choose from either Verizon or AT&T. Want a slide-out keyboard? Sorry, screw you. Want LTE? Sorry, screw you. Want WiMAX? Sorry, screw you. Want a screen size larger than 3.5 inches? Sorry, screw you. Want a dual-core processor, removable battery, removable storage (microSD), HDMI-out? Sorry, screw... oh well, you get the point.

I'm not going to sit here and lie and say that Google is a saint when it comes to patent laws on the SOFTWARE side. But to say that consumers don't benefit from having the variety that Android HARDWARE brings? I think that's being a bit disingenuous.

The problem with many in this community is that we've been taught that if Apple says that "It should be done this way", then we just go along with it. If Apple says no to LTE, it must because they have a good reason. If Apple says no to removable storage, then they know better than everyone else. If Apple says keyboards suck, well so be it.

Not all consumers want to be told what they can and can't have when it comes to a device that's on them 24-7-365. For me, my iPhone 4 is perfect. But I'm glad that Android manufacturers give consumers the choice that Apple doesn't.



I don't have a problem with this. If Google f**ked up, then by all means punish them. But Android is "Too big to fail"

So hardware manufacturers have to have Android software to offer those features? I don't think so. I also don't see why you choose to describe the iPhone as not having those features. Who cares? If someone wants those things in a phone then the don't want iPhone, they want another phone. Apple does not have a monopoly on phone hardware.
post #71 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

How dare you rain on our parade with your attention to relevant detail!

Why can't we just grab our pitchforks and torches and burn the witches alive as our blood-lust demands?

What a killjoy....

I know! Not only is he shaming the entire board with his keen legal insights, but he's proven that the entire legal profession, and indeed the top management of both Google and Oracle, are complete morons! Joy has indeed been killed!
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #72 of 202
Google should just drop the Android system and the Motorola Mobility purchase and focus on Chrome OS. They could morph that into a tablet product and sell it or lease it. With the right pricing they could dominate a segment of the market.

If they spent $12.5 billion subsidizing their own tablet or Chromebook they would be earning their profits back much faster through people utilizing their online products.

We all remember just how fast the Web OS tablets sold out when they were priced at $99 and $149. If Google did that with a tablet and Chromebook their products would spread super fast and dominate. I know I'd buy a Chromebook with either i3 or i5 dual core chips for $249. That subsidy from Google would get me using their products and I'm sure it would be way cheaper for Google to just have Samsung and Acer keep making such things for them than actually needing to run a company like Motorola Mobility.
post #73 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The reason why they're going for an injunction isn't to stop Google and Android. It's to get into a better position to demand higher licensing fees. If they just go after the licensing, and the product remains on the market, they have less bargaining power than if the product is not allowed to be marketed and sold.

Is that what they dealt with Microsoft's infringement? I forget the details now.
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 #74 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

1) You're right, but no other OS out there is as popular as Android or has as much variety. WP7 phones are pretty slim pickin's.

2) Who said that it had to be a single company? That's the beauty of Android being available from a wide variety of manufacturers and carriers. You can pretty much pick out your perfect device. You want LTE, a dual-core processor and 4" screen, there's probably an Android smartphone out there for you.

I'd liken the iPhone to a BMW dealership telling me that all I can have is a BMW 3-Series in black or white -- take it or leave it.
I'd liken Android phones to be walking into a Toyota dealership and them telling me you can have a sedan, or a crossover, or a minivan, or a pickup truck, or a coupe, etc.

3) Consumers don't give a crap about profit margins. Only geeks like us and investors talk about that kind of stuff. All consumers care about is getting the product they want. If Motorola were to drop dead tomorrow, customers would just go to HTC or Samsung.

1) glad you acknowledge that. Also, popularity has zip to do with it. If Android was unavailable to handset makers, do you not think they would throw in as much resources (ad dollars and handset variety) as they originally did for Android?

2) I mentioned "one company" because you acted as if people who like Apple's products were brainwashed into not knowing about or caring about hardware differentiations. I doubt the majority of iPhone owners think that. Instead, they realize there are compromises that must be made if the overall value is high/useful enough. My point still stands with your analogy btw. What makes you feel entitled to dictate how many models and colors BMW makes? Yes, you can take it or leave it. Period.

3) sure consumers don't care but investors do. If profits are too small or non-existent, how long do you think these companies would last? Eventually, you'll end up with one or two OEMs and there goes that all important "competition" people spout off about when making statements against Apple. So competition is great when seen as a dig against Apple but bad when you can't get exactly what you want at the price you want?
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 #75 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by boby_k View Post

If you pick up something offered free on the street, will you call it steal? The entire source code for java run time and libraries are offered free at openjdk.net by none other than Oracle itself. Under GPL v2, you are free to create a clone of Java. In Faq, Oracle says "Go hack yourself".

If that is true, the court will throw out the case shortly. I'm surprised it has gone on this long. Aren't you?
post #76 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

So it's your assertion that no one working for Google or Oracle noticed this? That the entire lengthy, expensive, intense litigation is based of a simple, boneheaded misunderstanding concerning the fundamentals of Java licensing, one the neither the CEOs of Google or Oracle nor the army of extremely high priced lawyers in each company's employ happened to notice?

And then what, at some point (perhaps you yourself rush into the courtroom brandishing your printout of the headers) someone thinks to read the actual license and everyone slaps their foreheads and cries "Oh shit! What were we thinking! Now we really have egg on our face!"?

I wonder if you have been reading forian muller's useless writing and whole press that write his throw up.

The trial has not started yet and it is not good at this point to mention this for Google or Oracle. For Google, it will look like immediate changing of the header to Gpl free to Apache free. For Oracle, it will be a hard one one saying they are giving it all these free under GPL in the first place and encouraging everyone to "hack" (exact words from Oracle site) the code.

At this point Oracle wants more money. Google wants the extra freedom in Apache license. It is very likely this gets settled before trial. That is the only way both can be satisfied. Otherwise, both lose.
post #77 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryb View Post

So hardware manufacturers have to have Android software to offer those features? I don't think so. I also don't see why you choose to describe the iPhone as not having those features. Who cares? If someone wants those things in a phone then the don't want iPhone, they want another phone. Apple does not have a monopoly on phone hardware.

No, they don't need to use Android, but it's not like WP7 is exactly wowing consumers over. Symbian is dead, webOS is dead, RIM is treading water.

That pretty much leaves the iPhone which doesn't exactly cater to all audiences.
post #78 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

No, they don't need to use Android, but it's not like WP7 is exactly wowing consumers over. Symbian is dead, webOS is dead, RIM is treading water.

That pretty much leaves the iPhone which doesn't exactly cater to all audiences.

What difference does that make? So you think it's impossible for some other company to develop something new? I mean according to some people, everything Apple has done with iOS is completely "obvious."
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 #79 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

I say Oracle should just nuke Android from orbit.

Only way to be sure...

Post Of The Week!
post #80 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryb View Post

If that is true, the court will throw out the case shortly. I'm surprised it has gone on this long. Aren't you?

I have to admit I am. Here is what I am thinking: At this point Oracle wants more money. Google wants the extra freedom in Apache license. It is very likely this gets settled before trial. That is the only way both can be satisfied. Otherwise, both lose.

One exception is Oracle's claim of 5 patents or so. Two of them got invalidated by patent office currently. So, there is this 3 patents in question. Not sure about the timings, but Google bought 2000+ patents from IBM plus 17000 + 7500(pending) will be added via Motorola. Some of the patents from IBM target parallel database features in Oracle databases. Maybe, Google is preparing to strike against Oracle's patent claims.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Oracle seeking an injunction against Android as an "incompatible clone of Java"
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Oracle seeking an injunction against Android as an "incompatible clone of Java"