Quote:

Originally Posted by VonBrick 

I love AppleInsider but covering the above Microsoft story while apparently pretending the following MS story doesn't exist is a bit self-serving.

 

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Wozniak-Windows-7-Phone-More-Beautiful-than-iPhone-857635/

Care to explain why I should care what an aging hippie who apparently never outgrew the 80s has to say?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayrodo 

I'm Thinking this has to do with the education market also for digital textbooks. If they can make a $50-$100 offering vs $350 for an iPad 2, I think they'll have success. They'll just have to make it extremely durable and larger display than 6".

There's no way to make a competitor to the iPad 2 for $50-100. It can't be done.

You can make an e-reader in that price range. Maybe even an entry level tablet where you cut every possible corner, but please explain again why there's so much fascination about the race to the bottom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FriedLobster 

Time to ditch Android B&N!

 

 

Java creator James Gosling: 'Google totally slimed Sun'

Gosling said that Sun was "wronged" by Google and that Oracle is right to sue Google for the way it used Java code in Android.

 

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57423754-94/java-creator-james-gosling-google-totally-slimed-sun/?tag=mncol;topStories

In testimony last week, former Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz basically dismissed Oracle's claims of infringement. He stated that Google didn't infringe on any Java intellectual property and didn't require any license from Sun as long as Android was not branded Java in any way.

Oracle will not get a penny and nothing will happen to Android. I know it's a dream of yours to have Android dismissed as an OS but it isn't going anywhere. This lawsuit was brought upon by greed, if Sun, the creators of Java didn't sue Google then why should Oracle the company that just acquired Sun do it, just for money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relic 

 

 

 

In testimony last week, former Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz basically dismissed Oracle's claims of infringement. He stated that Google didn't infringe on any Java intellectual property and didn't require any license from Sun as long as Android was not branded Java in any way.

 

Oracle will not get a penny and nothing will happen to Android. I know it's a dream of yours to have Android dismissed as an OS but it isn't going anywhere. This lawsuit was brought upon by greed, if Sun, the creators of Java didn't sue Google then why should Oracle the company that just acquired Sun do it, just for money.

 

 

 

I guess you're confused about the concept of property. Just because one property owner lets the neighbor's dog poop on his lawn, that doesn't mean that the new owner must do so if the property is sold.

There may be good arguments in Google's defense, but "Sun didn't file suit" isn't one of them, especially given the timing - that Android hadn't been out very long before Sun sold Java to Oracle. You have no way of knowing if Sun had planned to sue Google or not. Furthermore, Schwartz' testimony doesn't say anything like what you said. He didn't say there was no infringement. He said that Sun's business model was to encourage Java's use. That says absolutely nothing about whether Google's work was infringing or not. Furthermore, there's nothing that says that Oracle has to follow the same business model as Sun. Finally, of course, there's the discrepancy between Sun's claims that Java was to be open and unrestrictive and the fact that they got $100 M per year in licensing revenue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relic 

 

 

 

In testimony last week, former Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz basically dismissed Oracle's claims of infringement. He stated that Google didn't infringe on any Java intellectual property and didn't require any license from Sun as long as Android was not branded Java in any way.

 

Oracle will not get a penny and nothing will happen to Android. I know it's a dream of yours to have Android dismissed as an OS but it isn't going anywhere. This lawsuit was brought upon by greed, if Sun, the creators of Java didn't sue Google then why should Oracle the company that just acquired Sun do it, just for money.

 

 

 

The CEO's blog post is NOT a license or a permission to break copyright/licensing agreements.

Scott McNealy nullified everything Schwartz said.

Former Sun boss Scott McNealy sided with Oracle on Thursday in its dispute with Google over Android, testifying in court that companies needed a license to use Sun's Java programming interfaces.

For example, Schwartz suggested his blog at Sun reflected the company's corporate policy and that his blog posts were "the equivalent of holding a press conference." A 2007 post from Schwartz congratulating Google on Android's release has become an important piece of evidence at trial.

However, McNealy said twice he had never read Schwartz's blog, and that Sun's policy on blogs was that they were "not corporate but rather personal things."

They also disagreed on whether companies needed a license to use Sun's application programming interfaces for Java, a central issue in the case. McNealy said Sun licensed its APIs and compared them to "architectural drawings" -- similar to Oracle's characterization of the APIs as "blueprints."

http://www.pcworld.com/article/254578/exsun_boss_mcnealy_sides_with_oracle_in_google_dispute.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 

 

 

I guess you're confused about the concept of property. Just because one property owner lets the neighbor's dog poop on his lawn, that doesn't mean that the new owner must do so if the property is sold.

 

There may be good arguments in Google's defense, but "Sun didn't file suit" isn't one of them, especially given the timing - that Android hadn't been out very long before Sun sold Java to Oracle. You have no way of knowing if Sun had planned to sue Google or not. Furthermore, Schwartz' testimony doesn't say anything like what you said. He didn't say there was no infringement. He said that Sun's business model was to encourage Java's use. That says absolutely nothing about whether Google's work was infringing or not. Furthermore, there's nothing that says that Oracle has to follow the same business model as Sun. Finally, of course, there's the discrepancy between Sun's claims that Java was to be open and unrestrictive and the fact that they got $100 M per year in licensing revenue.

Schwartz did say it, have you clicked on the link I provided. It doesn't matter I still stand by thought that nothing will come of this. Just more lawyers getting rich, that's all. I truly believe Google did nothing wrong here, it's not called Java, they give it away for free, they post the source code for others to take including Oracle to do what they want with it as long as they follow the open source license and resubmit any changes to the community. The only money Google makes is threw add sales. Anybody can go to Google's site right now and grab the source, compile it for a phone and sell it without ever paying a dime to Google. Microsoft on the other hand charges $10 per instance of Android why aren't they being sued. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relic 

 

 

Schwartz did say it, have you clicked on the link I provided. It doesn't matter I still stand by thought that nothing will come of this. Just more lawyers getting rich, that's all. I truly believe Google did nothing wrong here, it's not called Java, they give it away for free, they post the source code for others to take including Oracle to do what they want with it as long as they follow the open source license and resubmit any changes to the community. The only money Google makes is threw add sales. Anybody can go to Google's site right now and grab the source, compile it for a phone and sell it without ever paying a dime to Google. Microsoft on the other hand charges $10 per instance of Android why aren't they being sued. 

You're obviously confused. Why in the world would Microsoft get sued because Google is using Java's APIs?

And what makes you think that Google could steal someone's technology because they're not profiting directly?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 

 

 

You're obviously confused. Why in the world would Microsoft get sued because Google is using Java's APIs?

And what makes you think that Google could steal someone's technology because they're not profiting directly?

You misunderstood Microsoft charges companies who use Android 10$ per unit, nothing to do with Java. I was stating Google doesn't charge anything for android and they didn't steal until proven guilty or am I mistaken how your judicial system works. Google followed the rules on the use of Java, it will all come out in time and nothing will come of this lawsuit. I will be more then happy to bet you on this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepkid 

 

 

Can I have some of what premium blend you're smoking? :)

You'd have to give up on Koolaid first - mixing them two potent drugs could prove fatal ;)

What Apple needs to do to win this game is

- provide content, then... provide more content,... and also, provide more content

- improve the readability in brighter lighting conditions

and they will blow away Amazon, B&N, and all the others not worth mentioning (yet).

The fact that on the iPad, one has access on a wealth of other applications, makes that Apple is way ahead of the others.

----

On Microsoft partnering with B&N I have this to say: B&N, watch out!

For Microsoft (or should I say Ballmer?) has [sarcasm] golden [/sarcasm] hands when touching something.

Watch Nokia and others(*) going down the drain.

Incidentally, just watch the increase in MSFT's very own stock ever since Steve Ballmer stepped in as CEO.

(*) e.g., pc makers (think Dell, HP) being coerced into packaging Windows only on their machines

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relic 

 

You misunderstood Microsoft charges companies who use Android 10$ per unit, nothing to do with Java. I was stating Google doesn't charge anything for android and they didn't steal until proven guilty or am I mistaken how your judicial system works. Google followed the rules on the use of Java, it will all come out in time and nothing will come of this lawsuit. I will be more then happy to bet you on this.

 

Google followed the rules on the use of Java? The owner of Java (Oracle) says that they did not. Where's the evidence that Google followed Oracle's license terms? Oh, wait, there isn't any - that's why Oracle is suing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 

 

 

Google followed the rules on the use of Java? The owner of Java (Oracle) says that they did not. Where's the evidence that Google followed Oracle's license terms? Oh, wait, there isn't any - that's why Oracle is suing.

Google says they did. ;) They also say they didn't violate any licensing terms from Oracle.

We'll all have more to go by within a few days once the jury gives their opinion and the judge rules on copyrights and API's, assuming he needs to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

 

 

Google says they did. ;) They also say they didn't violate any licensing terms from Oracle.

 

We'll all have more to go by within a few days once the jury gives their opinion and the judge rules on copyrights and API's, assuming he needs to.

One person from Sun says in an unofficial blog that Sun wasn't seeking license revenues (even though they earned $100 M per year on licensing revenues - which makes the statement somewhat questionable from the start). He didn't say that Google's product didn't infringe Sun's IP - just that Sun (at the time) didn't care. Another Sun official contradicts the statement that Sun didn't care.

Meanwhile, there's the fact that Oracle is not Sun. Even if Sun said that they didn't care about the licensing revenues, that doesn't mean that Oracle has to go along.

It will be decided by the court, but the point is that your "Google is innocent" is unfounded. The data does not support that conclusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 

 

 

One person from Sun says in an unofficial blog that Sun wasn't seeking license revenues (even though they earned $100 M per year on licensing revenues - which makes the statement somewhat questionable from the start). He didn't say that Google's product didn't infringe Sun's IP - just that Sun (at the time) didn't care. Another Sun official contradicts the statement that Sun didn't care.

Meanwhile, there's the fact that Oracle is not Sun. Even if Sun said that they didn't care about the licensing revenues, that doesn't mean that Oracle has to go along.

It will be decided by the court, but the point is that your "Google is innocent" is unfounded. The data does not support that conclusion.

But the point is your "Google is guilty" assertion is unfounded. The data does not (yet?) support that conclusion.:)

As for the "unofficial" CEO blog, you might take note of this statement from the related 2008 10K. Part 1, paragraph #5. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/709519/000119312508187118/d10k.htm

Additionally, we provide notifications of our material news including SEC filings, investor events, press releases and CEO blogs as part of the Official Investor Communications section of our Investor Relations web site.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

 

 

But the point is your "Google is guilty" assertion is unfounded. The data does not (yet?) support that conclusion.:)

 

I guess the fact that I never said any such thing escaped your notice.

What was it you said in a different thread about straw man arguments?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 

 

I guess the fact that I never said any such thing escaped your notice.

What was it you said in a different thread about straw man arguments?

I guess the fact I never said anything like what you claimed either escaped your notice. Lots of strawmen to go around huh?

(BTW, I think you're confused about who used "strawman" in a discussion with you today. That wasn't me.)

I wonder how much Microsoft invested in their new Bing homepage. It looks awfully familiar. 

http://www.bing.com/community/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Blogs-Components-WeblogFiles/00-00-00-41-77-metablogapi/1348.Bing_2D00_dubley_5F00_4C0A2EAA.jpg

EDIT: 9to5 has an article about it here:

http://9to5google.com/2012/05/02/bing-check-out-our-new-look-you-cant-tell-you-arent-using-google/