or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Jury finds Google Android didn't violate Oracle's patents
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Jury finds Google Android didn't violate Oracle's patents - Page 4

post #121 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizzle View Post

Only the GPL'd portions of Honeycomb were made available.

 

As I wrote, I work very closely with other members of the team to get android on the Samsung Captivate so I'm aware of what is and is not included in the source drops. If you require further evidence for what I'm saying you can either take Google's own statements on the subject or download the source and look through it yourself.

 

Android is open-source, but it's licensed under apache instead of the GPL. The reason it's relicensed under apache is so that someone can take the code, make additions, and then keep it proprietary. This is all stated on their AOSP FAQ; page nothing I am pointing out here is hidden, controversial, or even inappropriate. The problem is that in order to relicense android under apache they had to delink the base from the GPL and the process to do that is where they have found themselves on questionable legal grounds. For all its open-ness the GPL is an extremely strict and complicated license. It has to be because it unwinds roughly a hundred years of legal assumptions and rewraps it into a package that can not be copyrighted and made proprietary throughout its entire derivatives. It's rather surprising that an open-source proponent would view what has happened in any good way.

 

What we find is that consumers taken by Google's marketing spiel, like yourself, consider this in line with open source ideals whereas developers, like myself, have to deal with the frustration of this orwellian double-speak about being "open" as we struggle to get it onto devices that are sometimes only a few months old.

 

In fact, it's interesting that you use two successful ventures that forked android to buttress your claim as to the "open-ness" of android but completely miss the fact that had they been able to do this prior to Google's relicensing trick they would have.

Samsung not releasing their drivers doesn´t make less open source Android.

 

Is like saying that Ubuntu is not open source because nVidia or Wifi card makers didn't release their drivers

post #122 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post
I'm half serious with this, but I'd go out on a limb and suggest that user names reminiscent of controversial topics could be discouraged in the TOS, if not even prevented by using a custom dictionary.

 

Ah, but they make our jobs FAR easier. Let them red flag themselves all they want!

 

The username really doesn't matter; the content does. Someone could have the username "AppleSucks" and speak respectfully in praise and in feature requests for Apple. Someone could have the username "ScrewGoogle" and be nothing but a Google shill.

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 #123 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by androiduser3 View Post

I like how there is no such thing as freedom of speech on here without hurting someone's feelings and everyone gets butt hurt whenever I comment or post something negative about Apple, iOS, or it's people. Grow up people and take criticism openly instead of attacking me because I'm not a fan of Apple products. And stop deleting my accounts, it's not like you can stop me from coming back with another name, lol.

 

Oh... I know who this is.

 

[that's your tell, buddy]

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #124 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuwafuwa View Post

I think your real DPI should be reduced by 1/3 because of the pentile, so the real DPI is 210.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post


Um. I am not sure about that. You maybe right. But I cannot see pixels with my phone, maybe my eye sight is not very good. To me dpi is not an issue and i was just replying and commenting to Tallest Skill.

 

fuwafuwa,

 

Its me again. I just found a Youtube video clip that compares iPhone 4s, Galaxy Nexus and Galaxy S2 in terms of screen display. Worth have a look!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8PQYgw62vY

post #125 of 157

I call a truce? What do you say? ;) I am serious.

post #126 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I'm not sure exactly what your claim is. ICS source code was released in November. There are Chinese manufacturers who started offering Android devices with Android 4.x as the OS not long after that. I'm no doubt you know much more on the subject than I do, so perhaps you could explain how the code release wasn't complete enough for a 3rd party to build the OS.  BTW, the last sentence lost me completely so perhaps you could re-word it.

 

I don't mind at all being advised I'm incorrect. The day's not complete unless I learn something new.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/11/google-makes-android-4-source-code-available/

 

At least we do agree on one thing in the meantime: Android is open-source. :)

My claim is the same as that made within the article you linked.

Did you read it from beginning to end?

 

I'll highlight the relevant parts and try to explain them to you more fully (this is from the article you linked):

 

The availability of ICS source code is especially significant because it marks the first time that Google’s tablet code has been opened to public scrutiny. Google previously withheld the source code of Honeycomb, the company’s tablet-centric version of the operating system, and only provided access to select partners. That disappointing move prevented the independent Android community from building custom ROMs for devices like the Motorola Xoom.

 

Google contended that corners were cut during Honeycomb development and that the software was held back because it was unsuitable for widespread availability. The decision to unilaterally withhold access to source code for competitive reasons undermined the company’s early claims about the extent of Android’s openness.

The Honeycomb source code is technically included in today’s ICS code drop, because ICS was developed on top of the Honeycomb code tree. Google has not actually tagged the specific Honeycomb releases, however, in order to discourage third-party developers from creating Honeycomb builds of Android.

The article you linked, and the portions I highlighted, corroborate my point that the only reason we have android code (and the extent that is released) is only up to Google. If it was anchored to the GPL (if they hadn't rewritten core parts and relicensed it under apache) then they could not maintain that level of control over the code. They would have to release it, they would have to do so upon request, and they could not pick and choose which companies get early access to it.

 

The last sentence of mine was in reference to your examples of Amazon and other vendors using android base code for their own development. By the way, you might be interested to know that amazon did *not* use ICS for their Fire precisely due to the concerns I've raised in my posts. They're using a very old version of android, 2.3.4 (gingerbread) in fact, which is before ICS and before Honeycomb. Google prevented amazon from using Honeycomb on their tablet, not enabled them. They could not create proprietary versions of the java code because the GPL license precluded them from doing it previously when Sun GPL'd it. They could have made commercial versions of it but they would have been forced to keep it under GPL *and* for embedded devices pay a license fee. Google took that technology and relicensed it under apache. No else has done this, not because they weren't capable of it, but because it's fairly clear cut that it's not ethically right to do so and the belief that the law prevented it. Google's own internal memos on the topic point to the fact they knew this. They sub-contracted andriod's development out and turned a blind eye to what they themselves termed "sketchy" behavior.

 

Right now they have a business interest to see android devices flooding the market. At some point in the future that business interest will cease to be and there will be nothing preventing them from refusing to release any code. If Oracle prevails in the copyrightable portion of this trial, android will have to be brought back into the java fold (where many of us believe it rightfully belongs). It will be anchored to the GPL and Google will lose it's stranglehold over the android platform.

 

Google is not doing any proponents of open source development any favors with it's behavior other than the fact that companies can now maintain certain contributions proprietary. If they couldn't they likely wouldn't invest in development. So in one sense it was a necessary move to usher in the widespread use of android but in all other senses it cuts against the grain of what those of us who have been open source proponents and developers for decades have been trying to accomplish. Google's behavior is damaging to the open source community in the long run and it also sets a dangerous precedence. Try to imagine a future where every large scale open source endeavor now has to content with a commercial venture based on its code--not in the sense of competition (which is perfectly fine and already occurs) but in the sense where the code base can be wholesale copies, then core parts of it rewritten to exclude compatibility, and then relicensed to unshackle it from the GPL! That's what has happened here and Google has been banking on the fact that it's free services are ubiquitous and popular along with people's general lack of information about how the GPL and open-source software in general works to perpetrate this and so far it's working.

post #127 of 157

OK, so back to my original post which you took issue with. What parts were incorrect because it's still not clear to me?

 

I don't believe I ever claimed it was Java-compatible, can't see any necessity that it is (turns out Java isn't completely open anyway since Oracle took charge a couple years ago), nor commented on how it was developed. I don't know how any of that that would affect my points.

 

Instead I said that Honeycomb code was now released (tho it's not terribly useful, except perhaps to Amazon), guessed on a reason why it may have been delayed, noted that ICS source code was also fully published and apparently complete enough to be used for 3rd party development based on Chinese releases sans Google services. In addition I noted Google's commitment to make Android free and open-source for at least the next five years which you haven't commented on, contrary to your claim that much of the code would never be released. That it's up to Google to distribute the code wouldn't be any surprise since they bought the original rights and taken the lead in development. Why is that bad and how has it negatively affected the licensees? 

 

Perhaps I'm just not up to speed tonight and no doubt I'm missing something.  I don't see an error in what I wrote, but at the same time I don't expect you to take significant time attempting to explain it to me. Thanks for the time and effort you already put in tho.  

 

As for whether Google did any favors to open-source with it's Android development, that's a tough one to answer IMO. What other mobile OS had the possibility of being as open, freely available and widely used? Oracle themselves did Java no favors by pushing the idea of API copyrightability, a claim that could pour icewater on Java's use. There's no clean hands in this one IMO.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18192110

http://www.readwriteweb.com/mobile/2012/05/poll-how-much-has-oracles-lawsuit-against-google-damaged-its-reputation-among-developers.php

 

and this one had details I hadn't seen yet. Did you know that only the jury foreman believed Google to be guilty, tho he eventually convinced two other jurors to share his view?

http://community.nasdaq.com/News/2012-05/google-wins-big-against-oracle-analyst-blog.aspx?storyid=144004


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/24/12 at 5:59pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #128 of 157

Yes, I'm aware of the foreman's position. I'm also aware that the judge had to previously overrule the jury's conclusion (when it erroneously ruled in favor of google) during the infringement phase because, as he stated, "no reasonable jury could have reached that conclusion [that google had not infringed upon oracle]". The jury's position that you are reading there is only in regards to the patent phase. Try to read the patents...I say try because even with my background I have a difficult time trying to understand the ins and outs of them. We have a number of reasons to suspect that the jury was pro-google, agnostic or outright anti-oracle, and lack a fundamental technical background to understand patents and/or patent law. Keep in mind that jurors who exhibit any amount of expertise in these areas will be challenged from the pool.

 

Let's not too hung up on that, however, I respect the rule of law and our jury system even though my professional hat and expertise is in the deficiencies in our legal model (full disclosure: my hobby hat is in software development as a amateur whereas my professional hat is in criminology and law as a phd holder). I respect the jury's decision although I disagree with it. I merely point out these things in the paragraph above to illustrate that we ought not rely on the lay person's desire or lack of desire to rule in Oracles favor as any significance to the points you and I are discussing.

 

 

That said, Google did not buy any rights. That's the main issue. If they had bought any rights I would be in full agreement with you. What they did was take open-source code and design, re-write the core portions of it, then *relicensed* it under a more commercial version of an open-source model. This might be confusing but licenses are not to restrict, licenses are to release. That means, when I create something it's *already* protected. In order to give it to you and allow you to do what you will with it I have to relinquish it under some form of license. Previous to copyleft license structures the structure was one of copyright. All the rights are and will remain with the original creator unless specifically given away--and the Oracle case won't change that one way or the other if they win copyrightability of APIs.

 

Read the comments to the article you linked. It's telling that people responding are not necessarily agreeing with the author. Keep in mind, however, to read any and all published and personal commentary about Oracle with a hefty dose of salt. Many people have a negative view of Oracle purely because of the loss of Sun. That sentiment is going to naturally bleed into any endeavors they do.

 

 

The issue I'm taking with your posts is the conception you have of the nature of "open". You seem to be operating under the belief that Google's android is open and free. It's only open and free in so far as Google wants it to be. Even your repeated claim that they will retain openness of the platform for at least 5 more years. Consider the fact that if it were really, truly open and free and if the way they were licensing it (and historically behaving) were in line with the open source community then that would not have to be said.

 

Do you know of other open source projects that "promise" to maintain their development open and free for X amount of time? Does Apple make that announcement regarding webkit? Does ubuntu publicly announce a roadmap for open and free development? Did Mint tell everyone, don't worry guys, we're going to keep this thing free for you for at least a few years when they forked ubuntu? No. The reason is because when something is chained to the GPL license it can't be unchained. It will remain free *forever*. If you can figure out how to monetize that, like Red Hat for example, then more power to you. But one can't just copy how something works and relicense it under a more commercial version of an open source license (well not until now)!

 

The reason why this is important, and why it's important to understand why java and android are not compatible, is because android is now forcing java developers to either adopt their platform or die out.

 

I'm trying to think of a great analogy. I don't know if this will work but here goes: Did you use to have a washington mutual bank account? Before Chase bought WaMu many of us had accounts with our checks and etc. When Chase bought WaMu they pledged to support our grandfathered accounts. Many people, like myself, did not immediately change banks. We had our old accounts, our numbers, everything linked to those accounts and it all continued to work. The problem arose a couple years later when Chase decided to stop issuing free checks and establishing service charges for various things that were previously free to WaMy Free Checking customers. When I asked what happened to my account the bank manager explained to me that the pledge was only to get WaMu customers accustomed to the "Chase way of doing things" and that I had, in fact, been "upgraded." I explained that the only things I had seen "upgraded" were the fees I had to pay! His response was understanding...he was, after all, my Washington Mutual bank manager for the past ten years. He gave me some free checks...he didn't have to and he doesn't have to keep doing it but none of that is really the point. I'm not particularly hurting for $20 dollar check orders.

 

That scenario roughly approximates what has happened so far with Google and java. It's compatible enough that developers could readily adapt to it, familiar enough that no one had to make large expenditures to understand how to code for it (well, except for Sun who developed it and Oracle who bought Sun's property), but incompatible enough that developers can't make their stuff run on both java and android--which I should point out is (was) the core strength of Java! The point of java was write once, run everywhere.

 

Rest assured that if Oracle wins the copyrightable issue it will not be the end of open source development. In fact, that's already the case currently. No company can take webkit, for example, tweak it, then *relicense* it under a commercial license. Google's position is the "innovative" one in this scenario and Google's behavior threatens the future of java--not the other way around. And that position I hold seems in direct contradiction to your position but perhaps I am misunderstanding your opinion.

 

I think you are of the opinion that Google somehow freed Java from Oracle and is now giving it to the community.

In reality, Google wrested control of java from Oracle by rewriting certain portions of it so that they could release it without abiding by the terms of the GPL.

 

Incidentally, in regards to the damage it's doing to Apple and MS, the reason android devices can be sold so inexpensively is because they do not have to pay the same license fees as other companies. But they don't have to pay license fees, not because the companies that developed the technology granted them that right, they do it because of stolen technology.

post #129 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizzle View Post

That said, Google did not buy any rights. That's the main issue. If they had bought any rights I would be in full agreement with you. What they did was take open-source code and design, re-write the core portions of it, then *relicensed* it under a more commercial version of an open-source model.

 

What license changed Google?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bizzle View Post

Incidentally, in regards to the damage it's doing to Apple and MS, the reason android devices can be sold so inexpensively is because they do not have to pay the same license fees as other companies. But they don't have to pay license fees, not because the companies that developed the technology granted them that right, they do it because of stolen technology..

 

 

What stolen technology?

post #130 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizzle View Post

That scenario roughly approximates what has happened so far with Google and java. It's compatible enough that developers could readily adapt to it, familiar enough that no one had to make large expenditures to understand how to code for it (well, except for Sun who developed it and Oracle who bought Sun's property), but incompatible enough that developers can't make their stuff run on both java and android--which I should point out is (was) the core strength of Java! The point of java was write once, run everywhere.

 

 

That write once run everywhere never was true, J2EE, J2SE and J2ME were not compatible

post #131 of 157

Bizzle, a couple of comments. Yes the judge overruled the jury, but not for the reason you imply. By answering "YES" to part one of question three he said that it would be unreasonable to then answer "NO" to part 2. Had they come back with "NO" on the first part the verdict would likely have stood as is.

 

Secondly, you question why it had to be said that Google would keep Android free and open-source for at least 5 years. I'm certain you already know. The Chinese required that announcement as a condition for their approval. 

 

I believe the crux of your issue is not that Google hasn't treated Android as open-source, but that someday they might change their mind. If that's the big sticking point, you have a valid concern IMO. With the way that Google developed it, Androids future is certainly in their hands, so FOSS advocates (of which Mr. Mueller is no longer a member sadly) can legitimately claim it's not completely and truly open. At the same time you've already acknowledged why it needs to be that way. Without Google holding the keys there would be no vibrant Android developer community.

 

So at the end of the day it's not that Google hasn't made Android source code available, freely and openly. It's not that they've let down the open-source community by breaking commitments. It boils down to they might. . . someday... if they chose to due to the way Google has done the licensing.  Is that correct in general?

 

Yet you've shown no concern about Oracle and their implied intent to monetize and re-establish tighter control of  Java, contrary to Sun's handling of it. One seems just as capable of doing damage to open-source as the other to me. Between the two Oracle is the only one to tilt their hand so far.

 

I do want to thank you for the very polite and respectful reply tho. I completely understand someone taking issue with Android and how it was developed. I can also completely understand others who take issue with Oracle's claims and tactics. There's no black and white here.

 

FWIW if this were a European court there would be no question on the API copyrightability, so there's far from clear-cut evidence that Google stole anything belonging to Sun other than 9 lines of code (out of several million) that don't even exist in a shipping Android version.

 

EDIT: On a somewhat related note it's reported that the developers of the Enyo Javascript code (also licensed under Apache, no surprise), used as the basis for webOS,  have left for Google.

 http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/05/team-behind-webos-enyo-framework-reportedly-leaving-hp-and-joining-google/


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/25/12 at 6:50am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #132 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Bizzle, a couple of comments. Yes the judge overruled the jury, but not for the reason you imply. By answering "YES" to part one of question three he said that it would be unreasonable to then answer "NO" to part 2. Had they come back with "NO" on the first part the verdict would likely have stood as is.

 

Secondly, you question why it had to be said that Google would keep Android free and open-source for at least 5 years. I'm certain you already know. The Chinese required that announcement as a condition for their approval. 

 

I believe the crux of your issue is not that Google hasn't treated Android as open-source, but that someday they might change their mind. If that's the big sticking point, you have a valid concern IMO. With the way that Google developed it, Androids future is certainly in their hands, so FOSS advocates (of which Mr. Mueller is no longer a member sadly) can legitimately claim it's not completely and truly open. At the same time you've already acknowledged why it needs to be that way. Without Google holding the keys there would be no vibrant Android developer community.

 

So at the end of the day it's not that Google hasn't made Android source code available, freely and openly. It's not that they've let down the open-source community by breaking commitments. It boils down to they might. . . someday... if they chose to due to the way Google has done the licensing.  Is that correct in general?

 

Yet you've shown no concern about Oracle and their implied intent to monetize and re-establish tighter control of  Java, contrary to Sun's handling of it. One seems just as capable of doing damage to open-source as the other to me. Between the two Oracle is the only one to tilt their hand so far.

 

I do want to thank you for the very polite and respectful reply tho. I completely understand someone taking issue with Android and how it was developed. I can also completely understand others who take issue with Oracle's claims and tactics. There's no black and white here.

 

FWIW if this were a European court there would be no question on the API copyrightability, so there's far from clear-cut evidence that Google stole anything belonging to Sun other than 9 lines of code (out of several million) that don't even exist in a shipping Android version.

 

EDIT: On a somewhat related note it's reported that the developers of the Enyo Javascript code (also licensed under Apache, no surprise), used as the basis for webOS,  have left for Google.

 http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/05/team-behind-webos-enyo-framework-reportedly-leaving-hp-and-joining-google/

I have no idea where you are obtaining your information but I suggest you be more skeptical of the source in the future because it is giving you factually incorrect information.

The judge over-ruled the jury because the infringement was blatant.

 

Here is an article on the ruling if you don't want to take my word for it:

 

Judge William Alsup ruled that evidence presented during the trial had shown that Google infringed on Oracle’s copyrights by decompiling eight Java files and copying them in their entirety for use with Android.

Previously, the jury in the case decided that Google had not infringed with its use of these eight files.

Last week, Oracle filed an extensive brief (.pdf) arguing that Google’s use of the eight decompiled files — source code in seven “Impl.java” files and the one “ACL” file — could not be considered “de minimis,” or insignificant. Oracle also noted that Google did not dispute that the files were copied.

“When compared on a file-to-file basis (per the Court’s jury instructions), it is clear that Google’s copying of the eight files was not de minimis,” read the brief by Oracle lead counsel Mike Jacobs. “Google copied each entire file, so by definition, the copying is both quantitatively and qualitatively significant.”

 

With his ruling, Judge Alsup agreed. “No reasonable jury could find that this copying was de minimis,” he wrote.

 

-- http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/05/google-oracle-decompile/

 

You've cited Florian Meuller more than once now so I read what he had to say on the topic. Here is a copy of the judgement

http://www.scribd.com/doc/94578158/12-05-23-Oracle-Google-Patent-Verdict

 

As you can see, there is no answer of "yes" from the jury in regards question 3.

 

 

As for your summation of my position of whether Google has been violating open source standards or whether Google merely poses a threat of doing so, now only did I point out numerous times where Google has already done so but you posted a link that outlined multiple times Google has done so. The concerns I laid out are not theoretical but historical fact.

 

Finally, in regards of why I do not point any fingers at Oracle my answer is simple: Oracle paid Sun. Google paid neither Oracle nor Sun.

 

At this point I've repeated my position and supporting evidence more than once, more than twice in some instances, so I'm afraid I'll have to leave the discussion to others.

post #133 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Bizzle, a couple of comments. Yes the judge overruled the jury, but not for the reason you imply. By answering "YES" to part one of question three he said that it would be unreasonable to then answer "NO" to part 2. Had they come back with "NO" on the first part the verdict would likely have stood as is.

 

Secondly, you question why it had to be said that Google would keep Android free and open-source for at least 5 years. I'm certain you already know. The Chinese required that announcement as a condition for their approval. 

 

I believe the crux of your issue is not that Google hasn't treated Android as open-source, but that someday they might change their mind. If that's the big sticking point, you have a valid concern IMO. With the way that Google developed it, Androids future is certainly in their hands, so FOSS advocates (of which Mr. Mueller is no longer a member sadly) can legitimately claim it's not completely and truly open. At the same time you've already acknowledged why it needs to be that way. Without Google holding the keys there would be no vibrant Android developer community.

 

So at the end of the day it's not that Google hasn't made Android source code available, freely and openly. It's not that they've let down the open-source community by breaking commitments. It boils down to they might. . . someday... if they chose to due to the way Google has done the licensing.  Is that correct in general?

 

Yet you've shown no concern about Oracle and their implied intent to monetize and re-establish tighter control of  Java, contrary to Sun's handling of it. One seems just as capable of doing damage to open-source as the other to me. Between the two Oracle is the only one to tilt their hand so far.

 

I do want to thank you for the very polite and respectful reply tho. I completely understand someone taking issue with Android and how it was developed. I can also completely understand others who take issue with Oracle's claims and tactics. There's no black and white here.

 

FWIW if this were a European court there would be no question on the API copyrightability, so there's far from clear-cut evidence that Google stole anything belonging to Sun other than 9 lines of code (out of several million) that don't even exist in a shipping Android version.

 

EDIT: On a somewhat related note it's reported that the developers of the Enyo Javascript code (also licensed under Apache, no surprise), used as the basis for webOS,  have left for Google.

 http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/05/team-behind-webos-enyo-framework-reportedly-leaving-hp-and-joining-google/

 

The source that indicated to you the reasoning for the judge overruling the jury was factually incorrect:

 

Last week, Oracle filed an extensive brief (.pdf) arguing that Google’s use of the eight decompiled files — source code in seven “Impl.java” files and the one “ACL” file — could not be considered “de minimis,” or insignificant. Oracle also noted that Google did not dispute that the files were copied.

“When compared on a file-to-file basis (per the Court’s jury instructions), it is clear that Google’s copying of the eight files was not de minimis,” read the brief by Oracle lead counsel Mike Jacobs. “Google copied each entire file, so by definition, the copying is both quantitatively and qualitatively significant.”

 

With his ruling, Judge Alsup agreed. “No reasonable jury could find that this copying was de minimis,” he wrote.

 

-- http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/05/google-oracle-decompile/

 

You've referenced Florian Mueller more than once now. Here is a copy of the judgement he posted:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/94578158/12-05-23-Oracle-Google-Patent-Verdict

 

It clearly demonstrates that the jury did not answer "yes" to question three nor any other question.

 

I'm not sure what relevance you find in who Google promises anything to. They would not have to promise anything to anyone if there was no basis of concern of them not releasing the source in an appropriate fashion. It's fairly simple logic. I encourage you to use Google for what's it's good for--use the search engine to find out the basis for the Chinese asking Google to make that agreement.

 

Not only have I explained multiple instances where Google refused to release source code to the community, you posted a link detailing Google's failure to make android freely and openly available to the community. The concerns I raised are not theoretical threats in the future. They are historical facts.

 

There is no basis to criticize Oracle's behavior in regards to its code. Oracle paid Sun. Google paid neither Oracle nor Sun, hence they have no right to establish when or how java is used. Your opinion about Oracle handling unlicensed embedded java implementations tighter than Sun is factually incorrect.

 

Given that we are not in Europe the rulings of a European court are irrelevant. "What it's worth" is absolutely nothing. Your conclusion based on that erroneous premise is invalid in a US court system.

 

At this point I've repeated myself more than once, in some instances more than twice, so rather than devolve the thread into repetition I'll leave it for others to discuss.

post #134 of 157

The source that indicated to you the reasoning for the judge overruling the jury was factually incorrect:

 

Last week, Oracle filed an extensive brief (.pdf) arguing that Google’s use of the eight decompiled files — source code in seven “Impl.java” files and the one “ACL” file — could not be considered “de minimis,” or insignificant. Oracle also noted that Google did not dispute that the files were copied.

“When compared on a file-to-file basis (per the Court’s jury instructions), it is clear that Google’s copying of the eight files was not de minimis,” read the brief by Oracle lead counsel Mike Jacobs. “Google copied each entire file, so by definition, the copying is both quantitatively and qualitatively significant.”

 

With his ruling, Judge Alsup agreed. “No reasonable jury could find that this copying was de minimis,” he wrote.

 

-- http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/05/google-oracle-decompile/

 

Here's a copy of the verdict demonstrating there is no necessary linkage between question 3a and 3b:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/92724336/12-05-07-Oracle-Google-Partial-Jury-Verdict-on-Copyright

 

The jury was given evidence that portions of code were copied verbatim and they concluded that there was no copying.

The judge concluded they either could not understand or did not care but regardless the evidence that the code was copied was indisputable so he overturned their verdict.

 

I'm not sure what relevance you find in who Google promises anything to. They would not have to promise anything to anyone if there was no basis of concern of them not releasing the source in an appropriate fashion. It's fairly simple logic. I encourage you to use Google for what's it's good for--use the search engine to find out the basis for the Chinese asking Google to make that agreement.

 

Not only have I explained multiple instances where Google refused to release source code to the community, you posted a link detailing Google's failure to make android freely and openly available to the community. The concerns I raised are not theoretical threats in the future. They are historical facts.

 

There is no basis to criticize Oracle's behavior in regards to its code. Oracle paid Sun. Google paid neither Oracle nor Sun, hence they have no right to establish when or how java is used. Your opinion about Oracle handling unlicensed embedded java implementations tighter than Sun is factually incorrect.

 

Given that we are not in Europe the rulings of a European court are irrelevant. "What it's worth" is absolutely nothing. Your conclusion based on that erroneous premise is invalid in a US court system.

 

At this point I've repeated myself more than once, in some instances more than twice, so rather than devolve the thread into repetition I'll leave it for others to discuss.


Edited by bizzle - 5/25/12 at 7:57am
post #135 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizzle View Post

The source that indicated to you the reasoning for the judge overruling the jury was factually incorrect:

 

Last week, Oracle filed an extensive brief (.pdf) arguing that Google’s use of the eight decompiled files — source code in seven “Impl.java” files and the one “ACL” file — could not be considered “de minimis,” or insignificant. Oracle also noted that Google did not dispute that the files were copied.

“When compared on a file-to-file basis (per the Court’s jury instructions), it is clear that Google’s copying of the eight files was not de minimis,” read the brief by Oracle lead counsel Mike Jacobs. “Google copied each entire file, so by definition, the copying is both quantitatively and qualitatively significant.”

With his ruling, Judge Alsup agreed. “No reasonable jury could find that this copying was de minimis,” he wrote.

I owe you an apology and note that I didn't correctly recall the judges comments on part B question 3. You are correct that he ruled use of those 8 files, not used in any shipping Android code but still a part of tests, could not be de minimus if they were deemed infringing at all. While 3(C) remained non-infringing, the judge did overrule the jury on 3(B). thank you for calling my attention to it so I don't repeat the misstatement.


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/25/12 at 9:15am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #136 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizzle View Post

Given that we are not in Europe the rulings of a European court are irrelevant. "What it's worth" is absolutely nothing. Your conclusion based on that erroneous premise is invalid in a US court system.

Not really. So far there's never been a specific judgment on API copyrightabililty in a US court, claims that there have been by both Oracle and Mr. Mueller notwithstanding. With the judge already raising the question about the EU High Courts ruling on API's, your claim that it amounts to nothing is obviously incorrect. It's already noted as worth consideration by the judge in this case as he formulates a ruling.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #137 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizzle View Post

I'm not sure what relevance you find in who Google promises anything to. They would not have to promise anything to anyone if there was no basis of concern of them not releasing the source in an appropriate fashion. It's fairly simple logic. I encourage you to use Google for what's it's good for--use the search engine to find out the basis for the Chinese asking Google to make that agreement.

OK, I've used Google to follow various links to why the Chinese required the statement from Google. I found nothing surprising. Some referred to the Chinese OEM maintaining access to Android code and one mentioned China being "spooked" by Google's vertical integration of MM. Is there some indication or claim that Google actually intended to stop open-source of Android or something else I'm missing. You seem to imply there is.

 

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/75173.html

http://www.gsmdome.com/motorola/china-approves-motorola-purchase-by-google_31428

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NE26Dj04.html

 

Is there some basis other than ensuring Chinese OEMS have access to versions of Android as they're released, allowing un-official (lacking Google services) devices to continue production at their factories? Seems eminently fair on Google's part. They make nothing nor gain any benefit from those Chinese OEM  devices yet happily allow them to use Google's Android OS free of charge. Hard to see how that could be construed as anything but helpful to the open-source community. 

 

Perhaps you've depended on the consistently anti-Google posts at FOSS-patents without following other sources for balance. I can't find anything Google has done  with Android to date that would cause serious consternation in the open-source community. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #138 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post

Motorola is not owned by Google - Motorola Mobility (a division of Motorola) is owned by Google.

Motorola Mobility is NOT a "division of Motorola." There is no "Motorola" anymore -- hasn't been for almost 1-1/2 years.

What was Motorola (MOT) split into two separate, completely autonomous companies: Motorola Mobility (MMI) and Motorola Solutions (MSI).

Mobility is consumer-centric and Solutions is now focused on government and business customers.

Subsequently, Google offered to purchase Motorola Mobility, which transaction officially closed within the past two weeks (after receiving the final necessary approval, which was from China).
post #139 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

It's not all about tweaking the system for speed, in fact that is the smallest priority in the list. It's about adding features that aren't normally available from the corp and are from the open source community. Things that the big boys overlook or take to long to implement. For instance there a projects now that add support for windows in Android 4.04, this gives you true multitasking capabilities now that you can have more then one app opened at once on the same screen. Minimize, maximize, resizing all of those normal desktop functions. There are projects to install a LAMP server or a Tomcat server on a tablet. There are projects that help you install Gnome or KDE over the normal Windows Manager, what ever you wish there is probably already an open source project that's doing it. Where as iOS you are at the mercy of Apple, nothing wrong with that of course but some of us are beyond the normal consumer user and want beyond the normal consumer user features. Yes we are the minority but we are also the ones the build kernels, device drivers, design the OS's.

Aren't any of you scared for your children using such a cookie cutter system. I grew up in a world that if you wanted something done you had to do your self. I taught myself basic I had to as I only had the hardware and no software. I leaned assembly, Cobal then C++, Java, PHP, Python ect. I did that because when I was young I didn't have a machine that did everything for me. Sure a child might be interested in learning how to write a app or two for their iPhone but they'll most likely use  drag and drop frameworks that some site provides. What's going to happen 20 years from now after all of our children have grown up using nothing but iPhones and iPads.

1. I don't believe that bmason1270's point had anything to do with tweaking for speed (complete non sequitur: aren't meth addicts known as "tweakers"?) -- it was a general point re: customization and used 20 HP as the example

2. Apple hasn't "overlooked" or "taken too long to implement" what you call "true multi-tasking" (which I would call a battery hog that sucks your batteries dry faster than you can say Ice Cream Sandwich) with a semblance of on-screen "windows."

Apple has defined a paradigm of content-centric, well designed, beautiful and elegant hardware and OS.

99.9999999% of the people on the this planet will never, ever, ever want to "install Gnome or KDE over the normal Windows Manager" or "install a LAMP server or a Tomcat server." Those users want something that works, works well, works beautifully, works simply, and works without the battery running down. If you identify yourself as being in that 0.0000001% minority, you aren't special, you are unusual.

You may as well complain that you hate airplanes because they're useless underwater. Guess what? They weren't designed to be used underwater!

(FYI, airplanes also were not intended for "people" to "install Gnome or KDE over the normal Windows Manager" or "install a LAMP server or a Tomcat server...")
post #140 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slang4Art View Post

Some people still make mix tapes. Go figure.

Except now they're called playlists... ;-)
post #141 of 157

As a wrap-up to the Google-Oracle trial (So far. There will no doubt be appeals) it's now clear some bloggers, Florian Mueller in particular, and a handful of reporters who had assumed that Oracle was "oh so close" to winning outright were completely backwards. The hung juries in both the copyright and patent phases were overwhelmingly in favor of Google and found Oracle's arguments well short of persuasive. In fact at one point only the jury foreman was holding up a clear Google win in the copyright phase. The case was no where near the slam-dunk that was predicted by FOSSPatents.

 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/oracle-v-google-jury-foreman-reveals-oracle-wasnt-even-close/

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #142 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

As a wrap-up to the Google-Oracle trial (So far. There will no doubt be appeals) it's now clear some bloggers, Florian Mueller in particular, and a handful of reporters who had assumed that Oracle was "oh so close" to winning outright were completely backwards. The hung juries in both the copyright and patent phases were overwhelmingly in favor of Google and found Oracle's arguments well short of persuasive. In fact at one point only the jury foreman was holding up a clear Google win in the copyright phase. The case was no where near the slam-dunk that was predicted by FOSSPatents.

 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/oracle-v-google-jury-foreman-reveals-oracle-wasnt-even-close/

 

And now Florian is blaming the judge for misleading the jury. If Judge Alsup would have instructed better the jury, they wouldn't make the mistake of not consider Google guilty. because is totally clear that the jury has made a mistake. The case is totally clear for him.

 

And he is betting that the judge will say that API's are copyrighteable

post #143 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

 

And now Florian is blaming the judge for misleading the jury. If Judge Alsup would have instructed better the jury, they wouldn't make the mistake of not consider Google guilty. because is totally clear that the jury has made a mistake. The case is totally clear for him.

 

And he is betting that the judge will say that API's are copyrighteable

If you read my linked article from ArsTechnica the jury foreman is blaming the judge too, but for a much different reason than Mr. Mueller. He says Google was found guilty for infringement on question 1 because the judge's instructions said they must assume the API's were copyrighted. Had the judge not added that stipulation then Google may not have received an infringement finding at all on question 1.  Definitely at odds to the slant FOSSPatents put on it.

 

That may be the reason for Mueller's sudden about-face on how copyrightability might affect the the software industry. Contrary to previous blogs he now acknowledges that copyrighting API's may stifle innovation in some ways. His new solution is to add FRAND requirements, tho he thinks some API's probably shouldn't get copyrighted anyway. . . ???

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #144 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

That may be the reason for Mueller's sudden about-face on how copyrightability might affect the the software industry. Contrary to previous blogs he now acknowledges that copyrighting API's may stifle innovation in some ways. His new solution is to add FRAND requirements, tho he thinks some API's probably shouldn't get copyrighted anyway. . . ???

 

It was very curious that a FOSS activist didn't daid that API copyrighteability would not affect the software industry.

post #145 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

 

And now Florian is blaming the judge for misleading the jury. If Judge Alsup would have instructed better the jury, they wouldn't make the mistake of not consider Google guilty. because is totally clear that the jury has made a mistake. The case is totally clear for him.

As I understand it, if the judge and lawyers didn't make any mistakes, then the jury's decision isn't, in itself, directly subject to appeal.  Any successful attempt to appeal the case will necessarily depend upon somebody finding an error by the judge or lawyers.  So of course, if somebody like Mueller, starts out with the conclusion that the outcome was "unjust", it follows that that person must start looking for evidence that the judge made mistakes.

post #146 of 157

Today Judge Alsup denied Oracle's request to have Google found guilty as a matter of law, overruling the jury.  Oracle argued that no reasonable jury could have concluded that Google was innocent. In the Judge's denial of Oracle's claim he instead openly questioned their primary witnesses' honesty.

 

"The foregoing is sufficient but it is worth adding that Oracle’s infringement case was presented through Dr. Mitchell. A reasonable jury could have found his many “mistakes” in his report merely to be convenient alterations to fix truthful admissions earlier made before he realized the import of his admissions. For this reason, a reasonable jury could have rejected every word of his testimony."

 

... !

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #147 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Today Judge Alsup denied Oracle's request to have Google found guilty as a matter of law, overruling the jury.  Oracle argued that no reasonable jury could have concluded that Google was innocent. In the Judge's denial of Oracle's claim he instead openly questioned their primary witnesses' honesty.

 

 

This quote is even funnier:

 

 

 

Quote:
A reasonable jury could have found his many “mistakes” in his report merely to be convenient alterations to fix truthful admissions earlier made before he realized the import of his admissions.
post #148 of 157
Judge Alsup has ruled that the 37 API's are not copyrighteable.


The trial that would bury Android has converted in 9 lines of code and 7 test files that have no value
post #149 of 157

"The overall name tree, of course, has creative elements but it is also a precise command structure — a utilitarian and functional set of symbols, each to carry out a pre-assigned function. This command structure is a system or method of operation under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act and, therefore, cannot be copyrighted. Duplication of the command structure is necessary for interoperability."

 

That's a biggie, and pretty much puts this part to rest for now. You can't infringe on what can't be copyrighted. No doubt Oracle will appeal this, tho I'd be surprised to see any appeals on the patent phase which they lost handily. 

 

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120531173633275

 

Ars has an easy read explanation of the decision. In a nutshell it's over for Oracle's goal of biting off a chunk of Android for themselves. IF there's an appeal we're looking at years from now before it's adjudicated. All that Oracle has any hope of seeing from Google is a max $150,000, and likely much less than that. Even Oracle's own damages expert gave no value to RangeCheck.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/google-wins-crucial-api-ruling-oracles-case-decimated/


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/31/12 at 4:29pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #150 of 157

A final note, and another embarrassing stab at Oracle. They've been ordered to pay Google $300,000+ towards their legal costs (and already have cut the check) as payment for Google needlessly having to respond to several flawed damage reports submitted by Oracle. Ellison ends up reimbursing Google more in attorney fees than he'll see from their Android lawsuit.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #151 of 157

Ready for the damages that Google was ordered to pay Oracle?

 

$0. Nada.

 

On the other hand Oracle still may be required to pay some more of Google's attorney fees in addition to the expert witness fees and additional fees associated with Oracle's flawed damage reports that they've already paid, in excess of $300K so far.

 

So much for slam-dunks Mr. Mueller....

 

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/google-paying-0-in-statutory-damages-as-oracle-plans-appeal/80407?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #152 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Ready for the damages that Google was ordered to pay Oracle?

 

$0. Nada.

 

On the other hand Oracle still may be required to pay some more of Google's attorney fees in addition to the expert witness fees and additional fees associated with Oracle's flawed damage reports that they've already paid, in excess of $300K so far.

 

So much for slam-dunks Mr. Mueller....

 

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/google-paying-0-in-statutory-damages-as-oracle-plans-appeal/80407?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed


This case is absolutely, certainly, undoubtedly NOT finished yet.  Oracle submitted a stipulation asking for $0.00 in statutory damages, specifically because they KNEW they were going to appeal, so there was no longer any value in wasting more legal fees putting forward arguments at this lower-level court.

post #153 of 157

I quite agree. Oracle is going to seek an appeal, with very uncertain chances that it will be granted.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #154 of 157

To put a period at the end of this case for now, Google has submitted their bill to the court for Oracle's reimbursement of their legal expenses. How much is Google claiming? Perhaps the cost of another yacht for Larry Ellison: Just north of $4Million 

 

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1216.pdf

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #155 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Perhaps the cost of another yacht for Larry Ellison: Just north of $4Million [/URL]

A $4 million yacht isn't expensive enough to taxi him to his actual yacht. He easily spend more on yearly maintainance for a super yacht.

"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 #156 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


A $4 million yacht isn't expensive enough to taxi him to his actual yacht. He easily spend more on yearly maintainance for a super yacht.

I stand correctedlol.gif

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #157 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I stand corrected:lol:


Ellison reportedly paid $200 million for the his 2004 yacht the Rising Sun. Assume it was commissioned at least 3 years earlier. He sold within the last few years to David Geffen. It's the 8th largest yacht in the world.

262

Apparently Ellison didn't want to be as flashy 😷 with a 138 meter yacht so he had an 88 meter yacht commissioned. He went halvesies with Mark Cuban for his new yacht that was completed in 2010. I'm guessing you get a discount when you get two made of the same design.

253

331

The new one is surely a lot more modern inside but I like the external design of the old more.


This is what Ellison takes to get to his yacht (assuming the helicopter is in the shop). I bet that's a couple hundred thousand right there.

359

"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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Jury finds Google Android didn't violate Oracle's patents