or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google engineers defend source code, email in Oracle lawsuit over Java
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google engineers defend source code, email in Oracle lawsuit over Java

post #1 of 66
Thread Starter 

Two Google engineers, both of whom formerly worked for Sun, testified on Thursday about their role in developing the Android mobile operating system, defending their current employer from Oracle's accusations that it copied code and admitted internally that it needed to negotiate a license for Java.

 
The Lindholm draft
 
Oracle has put forth drafts of an email by Google engineer Tim Lindholm as a vital piece of evidence that the company knew it needed to license Java from Oracle when it was developing Android.
 
"What we've actually been asked to do (by [Google founders] Larry [Page] and Sergey [Brin]) is to investigate what technical alternatives exist to Java for Android and Chrome," Lindholm wrote. "We've been over a bunch of these, and think they all suck. We conclude that we need to negotiate a license for Java under the terms we need."
 
Google had previously sought to have the email suppressed due to attorney-client privilege, but the judge on the case denied the request.
 
The email is apparently so damning that the judge claimed "a good trial lawyer would just need that document 'and the Magna Carta' (arguably the origin of common law) to win this case on Oracle's behalf and have Google found to infringe Oracle's rights willfully," as reported by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents
 
When questioned in court by an Oracle attorney on Thursday, Lindholm said he did not mean that Google should get a license from Sun, The Wall Street Journal reports.
 
"It was not specifically a license from anybody," he said.
 
The engineer's defense, however, is not helped by the fact that he served as one of the original developers of Java at Sun before joining Google in 2005. Oracle acquired Sun, and the rights to Java, in 2010. Lindholm did admit that he worked on Google's negotiations with Sun at one point because of his background with Java, but he added that most of his work has actually been focused on Google's data centers, rather than Android.
 
I don't recall
 
Joshua Bloch, informally known as Google's Chief Java Architect, also served as a witness at the trial on Thursday. Oracle questioned Bloch on whether he had copied nine lines of "rangeCheck" code that he had contributed to Android from his previous work at Sun, as noted by The Verge.
 
"I don't recall," Bloch testified. However, he suggested in a deposition from 2011 that the fact that the code is in the same order and has the same name is "a strong indicator that it is likely" that he did copy the code. Bloch went on to say that he doesn't remember accessing copyrighted code, but that it might have happened.
 
"Under the circumstances I wrote the code, yes, I'm perfectly willing to believe it," he said. "If I did, it was a mistake, and I'm sorry I did it." 
 
Google claims to have created a "clean room" for its engineers as they were developing Android.  It's not clear, though, how Google would have created a clean environment for an engineer who had written the code himself.
 
"According to Bloch, nobody at Google ever spoke with him about whether it was appropriate for him to work on Android given his prior employment at Sun," the report read.
 
Google removed the code in question from Android with the release of version 4.0 of its software.
 
Oracle has sought an injunction against Android, claiming it is an "incompatible clone of Java." The company had previously argued for billions of dollars in damages from Google, but it has since lowered its demands.
post #2 of 66

1) Talk about damning evidence; this is not looking for Google.

 

2) When do Google's lawyers use the Infinite Monkey Theorem to claim that while implausible it's possible he could write the same code at times? Is it before or after the Chewbacca Defense?


Edited by SolipsismX - 4/19/12 at 9:42pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #3 of 66

How can he not remember?

post #4 of 66

Wow new look.  Different but I will adapt.  Cool.

An Apple man since 1977
Reply
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
post #5 of 66

Why would they use the Chewbacca defence?

 

I mean, it just doesn't make sense.

 

Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense.

 

So, why would they use it?

 

They won't use it.

 

Ladies and gentlemen of the forum, I rest my case.

post #6 of 66

Google is phucked !

 

They have their hands in the cookie jar, and this is just the beginning.

 

I hope Oracle rings them though for outright theft.

post #7 of 66

 

And in other news, Florian Mueller turns out to work for Oracle...

 

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/04/19/1357207/florian-mueller-outs-himself-as-oracle-employee

 

post #8 of 66

What did the programer not know he coded, and when did he know he did not know it?

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #9 of 66

 


"And in other news, Florian Mueller turns out to work for Oracle...

 

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/04/19/1357207/florian-mueller-outs-himself-as-oracle-employee"

 

 

 

And in even more news:

 

Who cares?

 

Florian Mueller isn't going to be judge, jury, and executioner of this case.

 

Surprisingly, the legal system will be handling this.

post #10 of 66

SJ and Larry Ellison were quite close. Perhaps in this case Oracle is an indirect proxy for the overall Apple vs. Android story. Oracle obviously has no intention of a mobile device, their core expertise is enterprise bloatware. Although I normally despise Oracle products, in this case I do hope they are victorious vs. Android. Seems like not only did Google steal from Apple in terms of UI and design, now they've stolen from the fundamentals as well.

post #11 of 66

By the way, since the AI article doesn't mention it, the "damning" Lindholm email isn't from when Google was developing Android. It was written in 2010 after Oracle made known it's intent to bring suit. The judge got the impression from Oracle that it was written in the early development years for Android and thus his comment. According to the same Florian Mueller the judge no longer has the same opinion of the "Lindholm email". 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #12 of 66

deleted


Edited by stelligent - 4/20/12 at 3:42am
post #13 of 66

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

How can he not remember?

 

 

If you have done extensive programming, you'd understand.

 

Most of us reuse code. When we reuse code for different clients or employers, we would try to alter them to avoid IP conflict.  The changes are sometimes substantial and sometimes superficial. Sometimes, you paste in code and intend to change it,  but you forget or run out of time.

 

When you're young, you remember every small change you make. After decades of programming and burning the midnight oil many many times, the old memory just isn't the same.

post #14 of 66

The problem for Oracle is that the copyright case while extremely strong, is also quite weak in terms of actual damages. The copyright case itself is not going to hurt Google too much - most likely it will be a slap on the wrist of the developers involved, and some token compensation to Oracle at best. The actual code that was copied is not extremely significant - and it is debatable whether it is part of a shipping device any more. It might have been shipped in devices at some point, but might have been removed. In such cases, a token penalty for past infringement is the most Oracle can win.

 

The patent case is where Oracle can really turn the screws on Google - but here, Google has the case going in its favor. A lot of the claims were removed as Oracle was forced to streamline the case, and of the remaining patents, a lot were invalidated by the patent office. Oracle can of course file a fresh case and add on more patents - but that will take a whole lot longer.

 

The best option for Oracle is if they can come to some sort of settlement with Google based on the copyright case. If Google loses the copyright case, they might be willing to settle the patent case as well - because a future patent case by Oracle could be strengthened if Google loses the copyright case now. That is probably the best option for Oracle now. Alternately, they can leverage the copyright case and try for an injunction - it takes only one bullet to kill, as Google itself would agree!

 

It is also extremely interesting that Oracle is choosing to use the Lindholm email and other smoking guns in the Copyright case. If you think about it, the Lindholm and Rubin emails are about licensing - which is not connected to copyright per se. But these smoking guns paint Google in a very bad light, and could easily sway the jury in favor of Oracle.

 

Yet another point that most people haven't realized. Judges know that it is extremely difficult to "prove" copyright violations. Even in cases of actual copying, there would be some minor changes made, even by an automatic code indenter, that would change the code substantially. The fact that Oracle has found 37 files that are copied verbatim should not be looked at as if it is minor insignificant files. It should be considered that these 37 files are just the immediately visible signs of blatant copying, and if these insignificant files were copied verbatim, there would be dozens more that would be tweaked marginally to evade automated copyright checkers! While this aspect would be immediately obvious to the judge, the jury might not be able to see it that way.


Edited by macarena - 4/20/12 at 4:08am
post #15 of 66
It messes up the "clean room" defence.

As far a Google claiming they "used open source", why did they change the license of their code which was not permissible under the license the open source software was released under?
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 #16 of 66

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo View Post
... Google is claiming that because the Java language is open source, and because those 37 APIs are essential to it, that they should be open source as well...

 

An argument that is both nonsensical and ironic.

post #17 of 66

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

By the way, since the AI article doesn't mention it, the "damning" Lindholm email isn't from when Google was developing Android. It was written in 2010 after Oracle made known it's intent to bring suit. The judge got the impression from Oracle that it was written in the early development years for Android and thus his comment. According to the same Florian Mueller the judge no longer has the same opinion of the "Lindholm email". 

 


Regardless of when it was written, it's still an admission of guilt.

post #18 of 66

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

How can he not remember?

 


Because he's probably written thousands of lines of code since he wrote it. Thousands of lines of very similar looking code most likely.

 

If I read a couple lines from a paper you had written in college, do you think you'd remember writing them?

post #19 of 66

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

 

 


Because he's probably written thousands of lines of code since he wrote it. Thousands of lines of very similar looking code most likely.

 

If I read a couple lines from a paper you had written in college, do you think you'd remember writing them?

 

I'd say he's still being disingenuous. Does he remember the exact moment he copied and pasted the code? Maybe not. Does he know he copied it? Almost certainly.

post #20 of 66
That is exactly how I think this is playing out. Apple are still very close to Oracle, isn't the new data center an Oracle set up for example? Like you I hope this is serious trouble for those thieves at Google.

I hope I am replying to the correct post, on my iPad I am not seeing what I am replying to in this new system ...??? Why is this mods?

Ah I see, I hit reply not "quote" ..... Sorry bout that, not awake yet.
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
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.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
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.
Reply
post #21 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by superdx View Post

SJ and Larry Ellison were quite close. Perhaps in this case Oracle is an indirect proxy for the overall Apple vs. Android story. Oracle obviously has no intention of a mobile device, their core expertise is enterprise bloatware. Although I normally despise Oracle products, in this case I do hope they are victorious vs. Android. Seems like not only did Google steal from Apple in terms of UI and design, now they've stolen from the fundamentals as well.


I suspect you are correct.
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
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.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
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.
Reply
post #22 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena View Post

The problem for Oracle is that the copyright case while extremely strong, is also quite weak in terms of actual damages. The copyright case itself is not going to hurt Google too much - most likely it will be a slap on the wrist of the developers involved, and some token compensation to Oracle at best. The actual code that was copied is not extremely significant - and it is debatable whether it is part of a shipping device any more. It might have been shipped in devices at some point, but might have been removed. In such cases, a token penalty for past infringement is the most Oracle can win.

 

I have to disagree. A win might not be huge for Oracle cash wise, that is true. However it does paint a different face upon Google in he court of public opinion. It is just another piece of evidence demonstrating how Oracle ignores the law and pretty much steals what they think they need.
Quote:

The patent case is where Oracle can really turn the screws on Google - but here, Google has the case going in its favor. A lot of the claims were removed as Oracle was forced to streamline the case, and of the remaining patents, a lot were invalidated by the patent office. Oracle can of course file a fresh case and add on more patents - but that will take a whole lot longer.

From Oracles standpoint is hat a bad thing. Think about it they can bleed Google for years.
Quote:

 

The best option for Oracle is if they can come to some sort of settlement with Google based on the copyright case. If Google loses the copyright case, they might be willing to settle the patent case as well - because a future patent case by Oracle could be strengthened if Google loses the copyright case now. That is probably the best option for Oracle now. Alternately, they can leverage the copyright case and try for an injunction - it takes only one bullet to kill, as Google itself would agree!

The patent cases are very specific. In as such I don't see the copyright case having any impact at all.
Quote:

 

It is also extremely interesting that Oracle is choosing to use the Lindholm email and other smoking guns in the Copyright case. If you think about it, the Lindholm and Rubin emails are about licensing - which is not connected to copyright per se. But these smoking guns paint Google in a very bad light, and could easily sway the jury in favor of Oracle.

It is called evidence.
Quote:

 

Yet another point that most people haven't realized. Judges know that it is extremely difficult to "prove" copyright violations. Even in cases of actual copying, there would be some minor changes made, even by an automatic code indenter, that would change the code substantially. The fact that Oracle has found 37 files that are copied verbatim should not be looked at as if it is minor insignificant files. It should be considered that these 37 files are just the immediately visible signs of blatant copying, and if these insignificant files were copied verbatim, there would be dozens more that would be tweaked marginally to evade automated copyright checkers! While this aspect would be immediately obvious to the judge, the jury might not be able to see it that way.


You are assuming juries are stupid. Further the code would be supplied to them as written/typed documents that they would have to read. I really don't see a problem with the copyright case.
post #23 of 66

A couple of things come to mind.

 

Greg Ham who was the flautist on Men at Work's Land Downunder was found dead yesterday. Apparently he became depressed after a court case found MaW had breached copyright after Ham used a like from a 75-year-old song 'Kookaburra Laughs in the Old Gumtree'. Google's lifting of Java is much more recent and probably much more serious in terms of commercial damage.

 

My second point is that Android is weird, at least the Dalvik VM it is based on. Who would put in programmer-accessible registers? Who would throw out stack-machine operation? They are both backward steps. That is just taking the programming profession back to the 1950s with arcane low-level machine features making it into languages, because certain machine instruction sets had those capabilities. If these guys show so little understanding, I think Android will just fall over under its own weight.

post #24 of 66

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


I have to disagree. A win might not be huge for Oracle cash wise, that is true. However it does paint a different face upon Google in he court of public opinion. It is just another piece of evidence demonstrating how Oracle ignores the law and pretty much steals what they think they need.

 

I suspect you meant 'Google' in the last sentence.

Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
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.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
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.
Reply
post #25 of 66

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

How can he not remember?

 

He was coached by a lawyer after he put in foot in his mouth during a deposition... The problem with engineers in cases like this they tell the truth, generally speaking engineer do not lie, lying usually means someone could die, since most engineer are risk adverse. I am an engineer as well as business person and I have learned how to first not put anything in writing which maybe not factually or could be debated or have larger implications. Second only answer the specific question do not elabortate. I have been deposed by lawyer before and knew they were fishing since they really did not know what they were looking for so I only answer their question, not provide the answer they may have been fishing for.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

 

 

 

If you have done extensive programming, you'd understand.

 

Most of us reuse code. When we reuse code for different clients or employers, we would try to alter them to avoid IP conflict.  The changes are sometimes substantial and sometimes superficial. Sometimes, you paste in code and intend to change it,  but you forget or run out of time.

 

When you're young, you remember every small change you make. After decades of programming and burning the midnight oil many many times, the old memory just isn't the same.

 

If you are working independently and write code and reuse code for your various clients this is fine. But if you work for a company and they are paying you to develop code for them and you know they copyrighted the code then it is your responsible not to copy and past that code when you work for another company.

 

You could always argue they for a particular function it can only be done one way or limited ways so the fact it looks the same is reasonable to expect, but when the code used all the same variable names and rountine names and such they can easily conclude it was a copy and past.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena View Post


It is also extremely interesting that Oracle is choosing to use the Lindholm email and other smoking guns in the Copyright case. If you think about it, the Lindholm and Rubin emails are about licensing - which is not connected to copyright per se. But these smoking guns paint Google in a very bad light, and could easily sway the jury in favor of Oracle.

This is just one piece of a much larger issue that is going to unfold. If Oracle win here and Apple and MS win their cases it will show that Andy Rubin who as Apple characterize him as a low level engineer with no original ideas stole idea and know he was doing it. This all help to show Android was stolen ideas from many companies. In the Invention and IP world there are Creators and Gatherers. The creators is obvious, these are people have come up with truly unique ideas. The gatherers are those who go around and collect ideas form other sources and pull them together in a possible unique ways, however, most times not.

 

If Oracle and others can paint the picture that these guys are not Creators but Gatherers than the whole entire Android platform was stolen from all the companies these people worked for. We all know that Oracle's Larry Ellison was very close friend with Steve and you can imagine that Steve ask Oracle to pursue this and not settle it out of court. They want this all part of the public record since Apple and MS will also use this in their cases as well.

 

 

It part of the Thermal Nuclear war on Android in spite of what Larry Page thinks. Apple has an all out attack on Google right now and they are coming at them from every which way.


Edited by Maestro64 - 4/23/12 at 8:40am
post #26 of 66

Although I think Google is on poor legal ground, the range check code sounds like boilerplate code to me.  It is kinda like saying someone copied something like "Once upon a time" or "The end." from their book.  It is not substantial enough to be a copyright violation.  Particularly when something like this is likely related to a programmers style.  Kinda like a writing style, anytime you encounter a particular problem you are going to write it the same way.  Just because you write in a particular style doesn't mean you copied the overall design.  Just the same, I think Google may be on poor legal ground for other reasons.

post #27 of 66

deleted due to posting glitch

post #28 of 66

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

 

I'd say he's still being disingenuous. Does he remember the exact moment he copied and pasted the code? Maybe not. Does he know he copied it? Almost certainly.

 

I suspect you are still in the first half of your projected life span.  Later on in life, you will experience watching an old movie on video and you know you've seen the movie before but you don't remember the plot at all.

post #29 of 66

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

 

I'd say he's still being disingenuous. Does he remember the exact moment he copied and pasted the code? Maybe not. Does he know he copied it? Almost certainly.

 


Of course you'd say that. You have a vendetta against Google.

 

In coding, there's only so many ways to solve a problem. You find a solution that works and you keep using it. Do you remember all the places you used that particular solution? Probably not. In this instance, you're talking nine lines of code. You do have some grasp of how miniscule that amount of code is right? Especially in something as large and complex as a computer operating system.

post #30 of 66

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

Of course you'd say that. You have a vendetta against Google.

 

In coding, there's only so many ways to solve a problem.

 

And the higher-order the problem, the easier it is to solve with different code. 

At any rate, it doesn't matter if it's line-for-line independent invention. Oracle owns the right to whatever those lines are.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #31 of 66

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

By the way, since the AI article doesn't mention it, the "damning" Lindholm email isn't from when Google was developing Android. It was written in 2010 after Oracle made known it's intent to bring suit. The judge got the impression from Oracle that it was written in the early development years for Android and thus his comment. According to the same Florian Mueller the judge no longer has the same opinion of the "Lindholm email". 

 

Nice try.

 

Here's another one from Lindholm - July 26 2005 (Slide 21):

 

“Must take license from Sun”

 

 

“Google/Android, with support from 
Tim Lindholm, negotiates the first 
OSS J2ME JVM license with Sun”

 

Here's a second one from Andy Rubin - October 11, 2005 (Slide 42)

 

 

“My proposal is that we take a license that specifically 
grants the right for us to Open Source our product.  
We’ll pay Sun for the license and the TCK.”

 

 

Oracle Slides:

 

http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/features/opening-slides-1592541.pdf

 

CNN: Obamacare largest tax increase in American history

 

FORBES: ObamaCare's 7 Tax Hikes On Middle class

Reply

CNN: Obamacare largest tax increase in American history

 

FORBES: ObamaCare's 7 Tax Hikes On Middle class

Reply
post #32 of 66

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

If you are working independently and write code and reuse code for your various clients this is fine. But if you work for a company and they are paying you to develop code for them and you know they copyrighted the code then it is your responsible not to copy and past that code when you work for another company.

 

 

If you truly program for a living and have worked for more than one company, you reuse/recycle code as a matter of course. There are different ways of doing it. Never met a true programmer who does not recycle code in some ways.  Copying and pasting is VERY common but it is wise to modify it after you are close to a deadline. My point was that, sometimes, we just forget to *fix* everything.

post #33 of 66

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

 

 

If you truly program for a living and have worked for more than one company, you reuse/recycle code as a matter of course. There are different ways of doing it. Never met a true programmer who does not recycle code in some ways.  Copying and pasting is VERY common but it is wise to modify it after you are close to a deadline. My point was that, sometimes, we just forget to *fix* everything.

 

Lots of high school students copy their essays from Wikipedia, too. That doesn't make it right.

 

Anyone working as a programmer should learn something about copyright laws and what they are allowed to do and not to do.

"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 #34 of 66

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 

 

Lots of high school students copy their essays from Wikipedia, too. That doesn't make it right.

 

Anyone working as a programmer should learn something about copyright laws and what they are allowed to do and not to do.

 

There are two fundamental misunderstandings in your perspective.  First of all, we are talking about reusing one's own code, not plagiarizing (although plagiarism is rampant too).  Now, arguably, that's still illegal (well, perhaps there is no argument about that) if you develop code on someone's payroll.  

 

Second, programmers do not need any lesson here.  It's a matter of practicality.  Reality is that the software industry simply CANNOT function with code recycling. It's an unspoken but universal practice.  Some try to as ethical as possible and take care to reuse an algorithm but not the code.  Some change the variable names, etc.  Sometimes, when you have to deliver something functional in 24 hrs, you just copy and paste, and fix the copyright problem later.  

 

Do you honestly believe there are that many people who can produce 1000 lines of original code day in day out?

 

Do you honestly believe that there are an infinite number of ways to code certain fundamental functions?

 

How do you think full-featured apps and websites can be developed so fast?

 

Many experienced programmers have code catalogues.  There are even programs that recycle code automatically (with basic changes). 

 

 

 

 

post #35 of 66

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

deleted due to posting glitch

 

You shouldn't post glitch.

post #36 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

You shouldn't post glitch.

 

Yeah, that tends to be b҉ad̸ ̧n͟e͘w͡s͘ nͧͮoͬ̀ͣ̊͛̿̉͟͞ ̵̨̍ͮ̆ͮm͑̍a̶ͯ̏͂ͤ͞t̸̋̍̽͑͐̎ͮͦͤ͝t̉̔̑ͯ͟͏̧e͆̆҉r͒̈ ̾̃͗ḣ̶̛ͪo̷̒̉͛̆҉̷wͧ̋̀̓̏̄ͫ̽y̵͎͚̲̬͎̖̫ͭ͗͑ͩ̄̒ͩ̑͛́ͨͥ͟͢o͌̽ͯ͋ͯ̈́͟͏͕͍͈̤̝̖͙̼̣́ͅu̵̞̼̻͈͎̭̮̹̖͓̹̮ͪ̽̄̈̃ ̵̹̻̗̼͂͑͌͌͂̃͊̄̕͝͝lͩͫ̍͌ͫ̾̌ͧ̉̈́̈́ͫ͂͊͗̚҉̷͏͓͈̫̦̰̝͢ó̀ͬ̊̑̃̒͒͑̔̅͒̌ͨ̌ͦ͏̸̼͔̪̟͈̲͙͓̞ȍ̸̡͉̣̤̫̮̞͙͆̽ͬ̐ͥ͂̓̈͌ͮ̌̓ͤ̾͛ͅk͎̝̦͚̲͔̠̝͍̗̳̟͓̻̤̹̟͋ͯ̍̏̕͞͡ͅ ̶͛ͮ̊͑͑͜҉͏̞̞̗̞̫̘͖͓͕̥̼͕͖͖͢a̡̼̟̗̯̘͙̓̌ͭ̋͛ͭ͐ͮ͋ͩͥ̓̄ͩ́́̚̚͟͝tͨ̽̓ͩ̾ͫ̋̀̉͛͌ͭ̄ͨ͏͉̯̺̞͙̥̤̦͓̫̙͓̟̰͎͟ͅͅͅ ͥ͒̏͒͌̿͋͜͏͠͏̫͓̣̤̻͇̯̺̜͉̝̺̻̥̖̻ͅǐ̶̛̛̬̪̱̬͇̣̳̦̜̮̰̯̥͓̥ͤ̓̆ͬ́ͬ̓́ͮ̊ͣ̓͟ͅt̨̧͑̽̿ͭ̑̈̄͒̅͛̓͢͏͖̞̟͙͔̬̥̜͍̺̝̦̩͇̯.̶̢̢̛͚̪̹̣̟͙͔̟̂̇ͮ̓̒ͪͩͯ͗͟ͅ

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #37 of 66

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Yeah, that tends to be b҉ad̸ ̧n͟e͘w͡s͘ nͧͮoͬ̀ͣ̊͛̿̉͟͞ ̵̨̍ͮ̆ͮm͑̍a̶ͯ̏͂ͤ͞t̸̋̍̽͑͐̎ͮͦͤ͝t̉̔̑ͯ͟͏̧e͆̆҉r͒̈ ̾̃͗ḣ̶̛ͪo̷̒̉͛̆҉̷wͧ̋̀̓̏̄ͫ̽y̵͎͚̲̬͎̖̫ͭ͗͑ͩ̄̒ͩ̑͛́ͨͥ͟͢o͌̽ͯ͋ͯ̈́͟͏͕͍͈̤̝̖͙̼̣́ͅu̵̞̼̻͈͎̭̮̹̖͓̹̮ͪ̽̄̈̃ ̵̹̻̗̼͂͑͌͌͂̃͊̄̕͝͝lͩͫ̍͌ͫ̾̌ͧ̉̈́̈́ͫ͂͊͗̚҉̷͏͓͈̫̦̰̝͢ó̀ͬ̊̑̃̒͒͑̔̅͒̌ͨ̌ͦ͏̸̼͔̪̟͈̲͙͓̞ȍ̸̡͉̣̤̫̮̞͙͆̽ͬ̐ͥ͂̓̈͌ͮ̌̓ͤ̾͛ͅk͎̝̦͚̲͔̠̝͍̗̳̟͓̻̤̹̟͋ͯ̍̏̕͞͡ͅ ̶͛ͮ̊͑͑͜҉͏̞̞̗̞̫̘͖͓͕̥̼͕͖͖͢a̡̼̟̗̯̘͙̓̌ͭ̋͛ͭ͐ͮ͋ͩͥ̓̄ͩ́́̚̚͟͝tͨ̽̓ͩ̾ͫ̋̀̉͛͌ͭ̄ͨ͏͉̯̺̞͙̥̤̦͓̫̙͓̟̰͎͟ͅͅͅ ͥ͒̏͒͌̿͋͜͏͠͏̫͓̣̤̻͇̯̺̜͉̝̺̻̥̖̻ͅǐ̶̛̛̬̪̱̬͇̣̳̦̜̮̰̯̥͓̥ͤ̓̆ͬ́ͬ̓́ͮ̊ͣ̓͟ͅt̨̧͑̽̿ͭ̑̈̄͒̅͛̓͢͏͖̞̟͙͔̬̥̜͍̺̝̦̩͇̯.̶̢̢̛͚̪̹̣̟͙͔̟̂̇ͮ̓̒ͪͩͯ͗͟ͅ

 

Can't say I totally agree. 

 

post #38 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

 

I'd say he's still being disingenuous. Does he remember the exact moment he copied and pasted the code? Maybe not. Does he know he copied it? Almost certainly.

 

I suspect you are still in the first half of your projected life span.  Later on in life, you will experience watching an old movie on video and you know you've seen the movie before but you don't remember the plot at all.


I certainly hope you're right about my lifespan, but your analogy is, well, shall we say not analogous.
post #39 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

 

I'd say he's still being disingenuous. Does he remember the exact moment he copied and pasted the code? Maybe not. Does he know he copied it? Almost certainly.

 


Of course you'd say that. You have a vendetta against Google.

 

In coding, there's only so many ways to solve a problem. You find a solution that works and you keep using it. Do you remember all the places you used that particular solution? Probably not. In this instance, you're talking nine lines of code. You do have some grasp of how miniscule that amount of code is right? Especially in something as large and complex as a computer operating system.


A vendetta implies revenge, and I have nothing to seek revenge against Google for. I don't like them, I think they are a dangerous, outlaw company, and I'd like to see them held accountable for their actions, but that's beside the point here.

The issue isn't whether programmers commit copyright violations all the time, it's about whether it happened in this instance and whether the testimony wasnthenwhole truth.
Edited by anonymouse - 4/20/12 at 5:01pm
post #40 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by FriedLobster View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

By the way, since the AI article doesn't mention it, the "damning" Lindholm email isn't from when Google was developing Android. It was written in 2010 after Oracle made known it's intent to bring suit. The judge got the impression from Oracle that it was written in the early development years for Android and thus his comment. According to the same Florian Mueller the judge no longer has the same opinion of the "Lindholm email". 

 

Nice try.

 

Here's another one from Lindholm - July 26 2005 (Slide 21):

 

“Must take license from Sun”

 

 

“Google/Android, with support from 
Tim Lindholm, negotiates the first 
OSS J2ME JVM license with Sun”

 

Here's a second one from Andy Rubin - October 11, 2005 (Slide 42)

 

 

“My proposal is that we take a license that specifically 
grants the right for us to Open Source our product.  
We’ll pay Sun for the license and the TCK.”

 

 

Oracle Slides:

 

http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/features/opening-slides-1592541.pdf

 


Typical Gatorguy.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google engineers defend source code, email in Oracle lawsuit over Java