Judge interprets '263 patent in Apple's favor in HTC Android appeal - Page 4

Originally Posted by jragosta

I don't have any idea. Ask StevenN.

I was just pointing out that your 'rebuttal' was wrong.

Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz

Few anti-Google posts have any attempts at objectivity...
Most of my anti-whatever posts are geared towards the iPhanboys who, no matter what, see Apple as rosie...period...and that anything that merely competes with Apple, even if barely, is automatically wrong and must be destroyed, bought out, deleted, absorbed, etc...
...Anywho...no one here thinks like that though (it seems) all they see is XX v. Apple? WELL FUCK XX!!!!!!
No real thought, no real reason why they side with Apple...the entire position is rather irrational...
Apple is always right...except maybe someone doesn't like an icon in an app update...but anything beyond that Apple is always right.

Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz

We have very different definitions of evil I guess...evil to me are the diamond brokers and oil executives purposefully polluting, harrassing and terrorizing locals to get at their land.

Nothing that Apple, Google, etc has done would ever fall under "Evil" in my eyes. Ever...at least not yet.

Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz

Like I say...Apple...a great friend to innovation, an enemy of progress. (which is easily debatable I know)

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

Which I appreciated. . .

EDIT: Here we go, from the actual court docs:
"Oracle’s Opposition concedes that, with the exception of portions of 12 out of several thousand files, it has no evidence of any copying by Google of any Oracle source code. Aside from those 12 files, Oracle’s copyright claim is premised on “non-literal” infringement and the incorrect notion that the Java language APIs—separate and apart from their implementations, which Google did not copy—are copyrightable."
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....10902071933374

So it appears there's 12 files at issue, not either 100 or 37 as two of us thought we recalled. The Oracle/Google claims seem to change nearly every week, so there's no certainty that it's still 12. I know the number of patent claims has been severely trimmed due to both the court and patent re-exams indicating they weren't valid to begin with..

Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz

and being that I am anti-software patent nothing can change that stance unless it can be explained to me why an idea, I mean an "implementation of a method" can be patented without code and how a vastly different code that results in something that looks different and acts different except for maybe a small area where some patented "and/or" was infringed (or "stolen" on this board) can be banned indefinitely.

I am no enemy of Apple...never was...I just do not agree with their patent blitzkrieg. I do not see it as being anything but bad for the future of tech.

Like I say...Apple...a great friend to innovation, an enemy of progress. (which is easily debatable I know)

Originally Posted by Corrections

The number of files and or APIs isn't critical in determining if Google illegally took Oracle's IP. What is in question is whether Google took any IP, and whether it used this to a) illegally benefit and b) to deprive Oracle of its rightful revenues.

It's clear Google has benefitted tremendously and will continued to benefit from the work Oracle claims as illegally derived from its own.

It's also clear that Oracle's Java business has been irreparably harmed by the work Oracle claims as illegally derived from its own.

It doesn't matter if it was just one file, or two files, or some small percent of the overall code one could find within a phone running Android.

Your attempts at minimizing Google's wrongdoing by saying it was some small number of files is irrelevant. What matters is the money involved. Google saved a lot of money by slapping Android together from sources that already existed, ranging from (as Apple claims) OS IP and high level UI IP from Apple and (as Oracle claims) JVM IP from Sun.

You can argue that Google's work isn't infringing and/or isn't infringing in a way that the courts can or will address, but it's a waste of your typing to tell us that it only amounted to some certain percentage of all the files that might actually appear on an Android phone.

And if that's central to your argument as a Google apologist, it doesn't bode well for Google.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

It's not central to anything I'm arguing. It's simply facts as opposed to opinions or misinformation. If Google is found to have infringed some Oracle IP they should be required to pay for the rights or remove it. Simple.

With that said it won't ever get that far IMO. Just as Apple chose to settle with Nokia rather than take chances in court, Google will do the same with Oracle if they feel they're obviously at a disadvantage. With the money they have, none of these major players like Apple, Google, MS will take a take a chance and roll the dice if the chances are fairly good they'll lose, and Google may lose this one.

Originally Posted by Pendergast

I've heard this argument before, that software patents are evil, and that copyright is sufficient. Regardless of what you call it, ideas should be somewhat protected if they are sufficiently unique, whether it's a patent or a copyright or a whatever.

We accept this in other mediums. In literature, for instance, it's not okay to wholesale steal ideas without permission, even if the words, sentence structure, names, etc. are different.

I can't write a book today about a kid growing up in a village on an alien world who fights against an evil government and battles his father using a mystical power, can I?

I can't write a play about concert hall, where a disfigured woman haunts the musicians and falls into an obsessive love with a young violinist and battles his childhood sweetheart for his affections, right?

If you subscribe to the notion that only code itself should be protected, then by the same token only specific sentences, words, paragraphs, character names, etc. should be the only things protected, and I can write a knockoff of Star Wars or Phantom of the Opera, as long as I change some things up. Would that benefit literature? You might argue that it wouldn't hurt, but I'd say this: what truly drives ANY industry in a capitalistic society is money; why would I spend time writing a piece of literature if someone can simply change some things around and essentially release the same thing, depriving me of potential money I could have made? The motivation behind progress would be hampered.

I understand the logic of believing that the world would be better if information would be shared freely; communism sounds great on paper, too. Trouble is, the world is not motivated by love; on the contrary, humans are base creatures who are motivated by greed and lust, and thinking otherwise involves a utopian vision that won't succeed unless humans are changed at their core. From my position, companies like Google abuse the idealistic open source community by praising its virtues and garnering its respect with one hand while raking in profits with the other. They don't care about idealism or a world where information is shared freely; they care about making money plain and simple. At least Apple is more upfront about it.

Originally Posted by Corrections

Your concluding argument sums up your position nicely. You are a IP communist. You imagine a world where the masses can seize the works of others and use them any way they like, and any laws to hinder the outright theft of other people's work is considered an affront to "progress."

The only real difference between IP Communists and old style Communists of 100 years ago is that you want to make all IP public domain and don't believe you have to obey intellectual property laws, while the old Communists wanted to make real estate public domain and didn't believe in real estate property law.

Originally Posted by Corrections

so if somebody steals my car and lies about it, saying they are a reputable member of society, I'm bad for suing them because in your mind, the thief isn't doing anything wrong because there are people who commit mass murder, and from that perspective the theft of my car isn't that big of a deal.

Bravo, troll. You have unlocked the ability to minimize anything anyone could possibly do wrong while at the same time finding ways to vilify their victims. A true master liar. You should enter politics or religion and control vast numbers of people with your brilliant efforts to turn the truth upside down.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

You may be aware of only a select part of what this is all about going by your comments. The Oracle copyright claims are far from solid, widely disputed in the open-source community, and questioned by a number of software engineers. There's places that good discussion of the points both Google and Oracle are trying to make are discussed. If you're really interested in what's going on and not simply spinning the parts you like, you should take the time to visit these if you haven't already, paying particular attention to the comments:

Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz

What?

Seriously. What are you going on about here?

I'm saying evil is thrown around far too loosely. You can say bad, despicable, etc. But evil?

That's just hyperbolic nonsense.

Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz

Ideas should never be patented (and allegedly can't be)

And literature is protected by copyright. What isn't patented is "story arc in which main protagonist starts off in a low place then after some turmoil and or sorrowful event in the middle followed by a meeting with an intriguing character and or object grows in spirit and or confidence and wins the day and or accepts his fate"

Originally Posted by Pendergast

You can be charged with plagiarism if you steer too close to what someone else wrote, even if the words, etc. are changed around.

In my post, I equated words, etc. with code. We accept that you can't plagiarize someone else's story, so why shouldn't the same principle apply here?

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

Oracle's third attempt to forge a damages report (aka Cockburn Report) added four Oracle "experts" to the list of those contributing to it. Guess what? One of Oracles own engineers and contributing expert witness for them has written this, now removed of course as soon as Oracle got wind of it.
"For the other commenter who thinks Android is "based on Java", you are incorrect. While it is true that the programming language for Android is the Java programming language, the Android platform itself uses the Dalvik virtual machine and processes Dalvik bytecode, not Java bytecode, so the Android platform is NOT based specifically on Java ME technology.

Huh? Isn't that part of the basis for the suit, that Google is using Java ME without permission?

Toss that one in with the Lindholm report from Google, as another document that one of the combatants wishes wasn't ever seen. This time it's Oracle. To add injury to embarassment, the Judge in the case has already ruled that Google can depose that engineer.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20210080453710