or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google moves toward Chrome as Oracle threatens to establish Android's Java infringement
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google moves toward Chrome as Oracle threatens to establish Android's Java infringement - Page 2

post #41 of 112
Simple story is that Mueller has form, and that takes away his credibility. Just Google his name, blog name and Groklaw in the same sentence, and his track record as a paid shill is laid bare. Honest bloggers declare any financial interest; it doesn't normally need Techcrunch or Judge Alsup to out them first.

Who he selectively picks words from is of no consequence. He makes his own bed as far as credibility is concerned.
post #42 of 112
Why does 'exterminate', 'exterminate' come to mind when reading this article ?
post #43 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by willizen View Post

so unless I'm not understanding this correctly, the new Android Run Time is Google's response to the situation with Dalvik. As I understand it, ART allows the CPU to directly execute the native code of android apps, rather than having to first be interpreted, a la Dalvik (this is how java works as well). The advantages are obvious in terms of performance.

And the best part? you can enable ART right now, and most apps are working fine without any tweaks. Many apps have benefited with a noticeable increase in performance, as well. I'm running ART on my nexus 5/7, and all my apps are working with the exception of whatsapp. here is a good explanation of ART vs. Dalvik

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/170677-android-art-google-finally-moves-to-replace-dalvik-to-boost-performance-and-battery-life

So in summary, I think the premise of this article is flawed. chrome is not the solution, ART is, and it's already baked into Android 4.4

Very good read, and for those who  thing ART is the fix, think again. It just another band-aid in an already poor architecture Andy choose to go forward with. I never realize that Android was an interrupter and the apps were not actually compiles. This allows for bad programming habits and explain why Android apps just do not work as well as they iOS equivalent. 

 

The google store will still be load with Apps design to run in a Java environment and you have to guess how long it will take developers to convert all their apps to be compiled code. You know as long as old non-ART version are still out there developers will hold off. Every time you load an apple it have to make sure the ART feature is enable so that it compiles the program so it will run faster otherwise it will be like running on non-ART systems. What a kludge they have put together here.

 

As I said before it will be another level of fragmentation they will introduce to developers and consumer to deal with.  

post #44 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post
 

 

Running the VM on a 64bit processor is one thing,  the virtualized environment where apps are running is still a 32 bit one.

Is there anything preventing 32bit apps in the VM from nonetheless benefiting from the improvements in AArch64? If I understand correctly, It's important for programs running directly on the CPU to be recompiled for AArch64 because ARMv8 only exposes its new instructions and other architectural improvements to to programs compiled for AArch64; 32 bit apps run on ARMv8 essentially using an ARMv7 compatibility mode and perform as if they are running on an ARMv7 chip. This is different from the situation with Intel CPUs, where both x86 and x86-64 programs can use instructions like AES-NI and SSE. If you are virtualizing a processor, however, what prevents you from, for example, providing 32 bit virtual AES instructions to applications which the VM executes using the AArch64 AES hardware instructions? 


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 12/4/13 at 1:53pm
post #45 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickwalker View Post

If their solution was better than Android, one would think they'd emphasize it.

My comment was written in the hypothetical situation that Android is dead in the water and they have no other option. That is what I'd call a win win. 1biggrin.gif
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #46 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

How awesome.

After hearing so long about Apple's supposedly gloomy future it appears the reverse is true:

Android is doomed.

1wink.gif

I'll drink to that! 1smoking.gif
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #47 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccherry View Post

Android is pathetic and it served as the os for all those cheap ass black Friday $49.99 tablets Best Buy had tossed into those big ole plastic grab and go(suckers) containers.

They are that expensive! Really?
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #48 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post
 

 I never realize that Android was an interrupter and the apps were not actually compiles. This allows for bad programming habits and explain why Android apps just do not work as well as they iOS equivalent. 

An interpreter you mean? Yes and no, DalvikVM is a JIT compiler which is an in-between from interpreter and compiler. The byte code output from source code is like an intermediate pre-digested from of compiled code ready to be interpreted at runtime, which obfuscate the source code in distributed apps and offer greater performance than plain interpreted codes. 

 

But all this magic doesn't gives you performance on par with true compiled apps, like you said those are band-aids solution for heterogenous hardware platform mess that Android already is. 

post #49 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post
 

An interpreter you mean? Yes and no, DalvikVM is a JIT compiler which is an in-between from interpreter and compiler. The byte code output from source code is like an intermediate pre-digested from of compiled code ready to be interpreted at runtime, which obfuscate the source code in distributed apps and offer greater performance than plain interpreted codes. 

 

But all this magic doesn't gives you performance on par with true compiled apps, like you said those are band-aids solution for heterogenous hardware platform mess that Android already is. 

sorry i was paraphrasing a bit without rehashing the entire article. It is still a screwed up architecture that is for sure,  and they appear to be making it worse, just another layer of things to deal with. The question is when will or will they go to ART only which mean it will obsolete all apps which is not compiled to begin with, or they will have to compile on download with is asking for issue. When I wrote code some program work fine while running under an interpreter, and they had issue once compiled so they are not always 100% the same.

post #50 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

Is there anything preventing 32bit apps in the VM from nonetheless benefiting from the improvements in AArch64? If I understand correctly, It's important for programs running directly on the CPU to be recompiled for AArch64 because ARMv8 only exposes its new instructions and other architectural improvements to to programs compiled for AArch64; 32 bit apps run on ARMv8 essentially using an ARMv7 compatibility mode and perform as if they are running on an ARMv7 chip. This is different from the situation with Intel CPUs, where both x86 and x86-64 programs can use instructions like AES-NI and SSE. If you are virtualizing a processor, however, what prevents you from, for example, providing 32 bit virtual AES instructions to applications which the VM executes using the AArch64 AES hardware instructions? 

 

Nothing can prevent a VM based apps from running on any environment as long the VM is compiled to run on this environment.  But you've got to understand the difference between the host architecture and the virtualized one, both got their own specs that doesn't depend from each other.   It's like having an emulator, Google could have choose Dosbox has runtime VM, porting Dosbox on any platform won't change specs of the VM seeing by any apps running inside the VM, this is what assuring apps targeted for DalvikVM to run on anywhere the VM can be compiled on.

 

Commonly VM won't tap any feature specific some hardware to preserve they're portability nature, and the virtualized environment needs to keeps there instructions set and register width fixed for compatibility propose.  You can check at Microsoft .NET mess, .NET is based on a register VM and because of that every major revision of .NET is incompatible with the previous version, forcing every user to keeps multiple version of .NET lib up to date on their computer.

post #51 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post
 

 

Nothing can prevent a VM based apps from running on any environment as long the VM is compiled to run on this environment.  But you've got to understand the difference between the host architecture and the virtualized one, both got their own specs that doesn't depend from each other.   It's like having an emulator, Google could have choose Dosbox has runtime VM, porting Dosbox on any platform won't change specs of the VM seeing by any apps running inside the VM, this is what assuring apps targeted for DalvikVM to run on anywhere the VM can be compiled on.

 

Commonly VM won't tap any feature specific some hardware to preserve they're portability nature, and the virtualized environment needs to keeps there instructions set and register width fixed for compatibility propose.  You can check at Microsoft .NET mess, .NET is based on a register VM and because of that every major revision of .NET is incompatible with the previous version, forcing every user to keeps multiple version of .NET lib up to date on their computer.

My original post was in regards to your quote "Running the VM on a 64bit processor is one thing,  the virtualized environment where apps are running is still a 32 bit one." Maybe I didn't read this correctly, but it seems that your implication was that the particular fact that the virtualized registers are 32 bits wide is holding back the apps from benefiting from AArch64's performance improvements. My point was that the number "32" becomes somewhat of a red herring when apps don't directly see the underlying hardware because the VM might be able to abstract some of the architectural improvements of AArch64 from the register width. As seen in this example (http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-aes-ni-performance-testing-on-linuxjava-stack), the VM decides behind the scenes whether to use hardware-specific instructions like AES-NI while presenting the same virtual machine to programs.

 

The fact that many standard CPU benchmarks are java based suggests that a well-designed VM should be able to tailor its execution to the underlying hardware independently of the virtual interface it presents to bytecode, and that performance of programs on such VMs should directly reflect the capabilities of the hardware.  While you may have a point about hardware-specific features when they are sufficiently obscure, ARMv8 is hardly a niche architecture. Perhaps there's something specific to the implementation of Dalvik that prevents it from providing such automatic benefits, but I don't think those have been discussed here.


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 12/4/13 at 4:37pm
post #52 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Ein? Dalvik can, and in fact run, on 64 bit processors already

Yup. And 16-bit DOS programs can, and in fact run, on 64-bit intel processors already.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #53 of 112

Google stole Android? The company that does no evil? Maybe that's weevil.

post #54 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by willizen View Post

so unless I'm not understanding this correctly, the new Android Run Time is Google's response to the situation with Dalvik. As I understand it, ART allows the CPU to directly execute the native code of android apps, rather than having to first be interpreted, a la Dalvik (this is how java works as well). The advantages are obvious in terms of performance.

And the best part? you can enable ART right now, and most apps are working fine without any tweaks. Many apps have benefited with a noticeable increase in performance, as well. I'm running ART on my nexus 5/7, and all my apps are working with the exception of whatsapp. here is a good explanation of ART vs. Dalvik

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/170677-android-art-google-finally-moves-to-replace-dalvik-to-boost-performance-and-battery-life

So in summary, I think the premise of this article is flawed. chrome is not the solution, ART is, and it's already baked into Android 4.4

 

Well that may be the official story of what Android will be doing, but given that the majority of quite new Android phones can’t run Android 4.4, and won’t ever get updates, there is not an installed base of A4.4 to write software. 

 

Given that nobody is starting their business on Android, and that even successful developers only make placeholder efforts to support Android users, why would anyone target the new ART platform running on a sliver of the installed base of iOS 7 devices? They might as well write apps for BB10, WP8 or PalmOS. 

 

 

post #55 of 112

Bye bye, Android. Hardly knew ya.

post #56 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian.Waring View Post

Simple story is that Mueller has form, and that takes away his credibility. Just Google his name, blog name and Groklaw in the same sentence, and his track record as a paid shill is laid bare. Honest bloggers declare any financial interest; it doesn't normally need Techcrunch or Judge Alsup to out them first.

Who he selectively picks words from is of no consequence. He makes his own bed as far as credibility is concerned.

 

If you read Mueller’s work he supports his opinions with legally sound ideas that, over time, have an extremely high accuracy rate. Compare that to the Android fans who love Google so much they are now on the fifth generation of expectation of the Coming of the Android Prophet Phone.

 

Google has failed worldwide in courts on both sides: found to be willingly infringing IP of others while professing a disdain for patents, and at the same time hypocritically suing other companies over Standards Essential Patents. That’s something that both the US and EU have been investigating as antitrust behavior. Abusively trying to hurt customers (like Apple’s push mail service in Germany, feature blocked by a temporary injunction that Google got before it failed to prove involved any infringement). 

 

As for your personal attacks about how Mueller is a consultant in an industry where he works for some of the companies he reports on: baseless, character assassination makes you look very lacking in credibility.  

post #57 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

Fair use? Google claims that their use of Java Code is fair use? Building a whole line of business based on someone else's proprietary material is fair use? Ha, ha, ha.

Not only that, they copied the Java codes without even changing the name and "comments", just plain copy and paste...wtf.

I Want My iOS UI Like in Apple Watch"
Reply
I Want My iOS UI Like in Apple Watch"
Reply
post #58 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by willizen View Post

so unless I'm not understanding this correctly, the new Android Run Time is Google's response to the situation with Dalvik. As I understand it, ART allows the CPU to directly execute the native code of android apps, rather than having to first be interpreted, a la Dalvik (this is how java works as well). The advantages are obvious in terms of performance.

And the best part? you can enable ART right now, and most apps are working fine without any tweaks. Many apps have benefited with a noticeable increase in performance, as well. I'm running ART on my nexus 5/7, and all my apps are working with the exception of whatsapp. here is a good explanation of ART vs. Dalvik

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/170677-android-art-google-finally-moves-to-replace-dalvik-to-boost-performance-and-battery-life

So in summary, I think the premise of this article is flawed. chrome is not the solution, ART is, and it's already baked into Android 4.4

It is a sensationalist article. The idea that Google is shifting to Chrome as a solution is complete nonsense. Google is moving towards ART like you mentioned which compiles downloaded apps to native code rather than interpreted via Dalvik. Plus, it yields far better performance.

post #59 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post
 

 

Well that may be the official story of what Android will be doing, but given that the majority of quite new Android phones can’t run Android 4.4, and won’t ever get updates, there is not an installed base of A4.4 to write software. 

 

Given that nobody is starting their business on Android, and that even successful developers only make placeholder efforts to support Android users, why would anyone target the new ART platform running on a sliver of the installed base of iOS 7 devices? They might as well write apps for BB10, WP8 or PalmOS. 

 

 

Developers do not need to target ART. Enabling ART on Android 4.4+ just compiles apps into native code upon download for that phone's architecture.

post #60 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

My original post was in regards to your quote "Running the VM on a 64bit processor is one thing,  the virtualized environment where apps are running is still a 32 bit one." Maybe I didn't read this correctly, but it seems that your implication was that the particular fact that the virtualized registers are 32 bits wide is holding back the apps from benefiting from AArch64's performance improvements. My point was that the number "32" becomes somewhat of a red herring when apps don't directly see the underlying hardware because the VM might be able to abstract some of the architectural improvements of AArch64 from the register width. As seen in this example (http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-aes-ni-performance-testing-on-linuxjava-stack), the VM decides behind the scenes whether to use hardware-specific instructions like AES-NI while presenting the virtual machine to programs.

 

The fact that many standard CPU benchmarks are java based suggests that a well-designed VM should be able to tailor its execution to the underlying hardware independently of the virtual interface it presents to bytecode, and that performance of programs on such VMs should directly reflect the capabilities of the hardware.  While you may have a point about hardware-specific features when they are sufficiently obscure, ARMv8 is hardly a niche architecture. Perhaps there's something specific to the implementation of Dalvik that prevents it from providing such automatic benefits, but I don't think those have been discussed here.

 

I agree, I put it badly. Here is some precisions. 

 

I implied any VM like Dalvik acted just like a DosBox or an emulator, the recompiled VM itself will gain benefit of new AArch64 improvements like any other compiled apps for that platform, but those benefit will be out of control from apps running inside of the VM, for those apps nothing change: Instruction set, number of register and register width.  I do realize,  just like real CPU, those thing can be "augmented" or improve overtime, but if you remember the early PC days the passage from the XT to the AT those things tend to break legacy stuff, this is why we are now using OS with kernels to hide the hardware as much as they can from the software, now having a kernels in a VM is a stupid things to add an other level of HAL over Dalvik and Android OS already.  So they kept Dalvik VM as simple as it should for running apps quickly with the lowest memory footprint as possible and never being designed for future improvements in mind. 

 

Also, Java SE and DalvikVM are designed differently, where one use a stack without fixed register count or width, the other is replicating the real hardware approach of a fixe count and width of register and a set of ASM instructions. For the java performance test, Intel needed a new compiler, an OS running natively on the platform, some special lib, a recompiled version of JavaVM with those special lib and a java test apps that can only run on this JavaVM setup.  I don't say It can't be done, I just say Google got a very long road ahead to fully update their environment before developers could harvest every benefits of a 64bit platforms. They already can't tap every ARMv7 current feature from inside the DalvikVM. Google approach just look like Microsoft one as they just keep multiplying new runtimes environment: Win32, Win64, and every iteration of .NET since.


Edited by BigMac2 - 12/4/13 at 5:17pm
post #61 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus View Post
 

This article makes it sound like Google's only hope is the use of web apps through Chrome if they lose the lawsuit to Oracle.  Google has already developed an alternative to Dalvik which is present on any device running Android 4.4 KitKat--it's called ART.  Not only does it supposedly avoid all of these issues with Oracle, but it is also supposed to speed everything up on the OS.  A double win!

 

A double win? So Google can steal IP and use it until they come up with something better and not have to pay any consequences for past infringement all those years?

 

 

Still funny hearing whiners complaining about Mueller. Sure he's been under the employment of Oracle and Microsoft, but that doesn't change whether or not Google is guilty of anything. And he still provides links to original documents so anyone can read the source for themselves.

 

It's too bad Groklaw isn't around to see this. PJ chickened out and used that e-mail NSA thing as a pathetic excuse to stop reporting on these issues. I think she just couldn't stand the fact she was about to be proven wrong on so many fronts.

post #62 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Negafox View Post
 

Google is moving towards ART like you mentioned which compiles downloaded apps to native code rather than interpreted via Dalvik. Plus, it yields far better performance.

 

That make me laugh, ART is still a VM but instead of a JIT like Dalvik, ART is an OAT (Ahead-of-time), this mean apps still got a performance taxes from running inside a virtual machine abstraction layer.  

 

If ART yields so much better performance, but still can't match native compiled C code, does it confirm how bad current Dalvik performances are?

post #63 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus View Post
 

This article makes it sound like Google's only hope is the use of web apps through Chrome if they lose the lawsuit to Oracle.  Google has already developed an alternative to Dalvik which is present on any device running Android 4.4 KitKat--it's called ART.  Not only does it supposedly avoid all of these issues with Oracle, but it is also supposed to speed everything up on the OS.  A double win!

Does ART use a different API? Because the court case involves copyright infringement of the Java API. ART appears to be a compiler for Java... ahem, Dalvik code, and the Java API is still utilized.

post #64 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post
 

Does ART use a different API? Because the court case involves copyright infringement of the Java API. ART appears to be a compiler for Java... ahem, Dalvik code, and the Java API is still utilized.

 

You've got a good point here, ART can run Dalvik apps, so it should use the same Java-ish API from Dalvik. 

post #65 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

A double win? So Google can steal IP and use it until they come up with something better and not have to pay any consequences for past infringement all those years?

Examples of Google's IP theft are a little sparse eh? I think if you actually checked you might discover Apple has been found guilty of IP infringement in a court of law more often than Google. I'm quite certain when Apple is found to be infringing you don't consider it theft do you?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #66 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Examples of Google's IP theft are a little sparse eh? I think if you actually checked you might discover Apple has been found guilty of IP infringement in a court of law more often than Google. I'm quite certain when Apple is found to be infringing you don't consider it theft do you?

Google copied millions of books in their entirety without authorization by the copyright holders. Yes, Google was just let off the hook after a major court battle that just about only Google would dare to encourage and just about only Google could afford to defend, but Google did settle earlier with publishers in exchange for money. Did you furget that?

 

When has Apple infringed another's IP in a major way? Kinda sparse and largely inconsequential in the scheme of things is it?

post #67 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post
 

That make me laugh, ART is still a VM but instead of a JIT like Dalvik, ART is an OAT (Ahead-of-time), this mean apps still got a performance taxes from running inside a virtual machine abstraction layer.  

 

If ART yields so much better performance, but still can't match native compiled C code, does it confirm how bad current Dalvik performances are?

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Quote:
 An ahead-of-time (AOT) compiler is a compiler that implements ahead-of-time compilation. This refers to the act of compiling an intermediate language, such as Java bytecode, .NET Common Intermediate Language (CIL), or IBM System/38 or IBM System i "Technology Independent Machine Interface" code, into a system-dependent binary.
 
...
 
AOT in most cases produces machine optimized code, just like a 'standard' native compiler. The difference is that AOT transforms the bytecode of an existing virtual machine into machine code. AOT compilers can perform complex and advanced code optimizations which in most cases of JITing will be considered much too costly. On the other hand AOT can't usually perform some optimizations possible in JIT, like runtime profile-guided optimizations, pseudo-constant propagation or indirect/virtual function inlining.
post #68 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post
 

Very good read, and for those who  thing ART is the fix, think again. It just another band-aid in an already poor architecture Andy choose to go forward with. I never realize that Android was an interrupter and the apps were not actually compiles. This allows for bad programming habits and explain why Android apps just do not work as well as they iOS equivalent. 

 

The google store will still be load with Apps design to run in a Java environment and you have to guess how long it will take developers to convert all their apps to be compiled code. You know as long as old non-ART version are still out there developers will hold off. Every time you load an apple it have to make sure the ART feature is enable so that it compiles the program so it will run faster otherwise it will be like running on non-ART systems. What a kludge they have put together here.

 

As I said before it will be another level of fragmentation they will introduce to developers and consumer to deal with.  

I'm not a developer, so I can't speak to what's involved about writing apps for android. I do know that many, if not most android apps already run fine using ART. So I'm not sure what changes actually need to be made, though I'm sure there are optimizations to be made. There is no doubt that Apple went the right way from the start, while it took Google several years to realize its mistake. That being said, the apps I use on android work quite well, and compare favorably to what I use on iOS. There are some exceptions of course. The moves that Google has made recently to improve development, such as moving many native apps to the play store and allowing API's to be updated through the google play store services, are pretty significant. I understand the level of fanboyism here can be a little stifling, but don't let that fool you into thinking android is an inferior mobile OS to iOS. 

post #69 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by iang1234 View Post
 

From Wikipedia:

 An ahead-of-time (AOT) compiler is a compiler that implements ahead-of-time compilation. This refers to the act of compiling an intermediate language, such as Java bytecode, .NET Common Intermediate Language (CIL), or IBM System/38 or IBM System i "Technology Independent Machine Interface" code, into a system-dependent binary.

 

What is your points?

 

Yes they are other bytecode environment, iOS and OSX compiler itself is the prime example of a low level virtual machine bytecode runtime environment as LLVM stands for.  

 

Beside you can't compare a byte coded binary apps coming from compiler like .NET or LLVM, running on a really thin abstraction layer more like a virtual hypervisor than fully Virtualized machine like Java SE, DalvikVM or ART.  The performance taxes much less to do with how fast the code is running and more on how fast your can access the machines input and output ressources, this is why every java apps including Dalvik will always suffer in responsiveness and perceptible performance. 


Edited by BigMac2 - 12/4/13 at 5:52pm
post #70 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by kharvel View Post
 

I'm just wondering - aren't any court wins for Oracle against Google at this point just pyrrhic victories?  

 

The big win for Oracle would be bringing Dalvik "into the Java fold" by enforcing gpl licensing which would make all the closed parts of android truly open not hidden away by Google's bastardised apache license.

 

Samsung even used an Apple legal team mistake of "releasing some of Android's protected source code" in their current sanctions case over leaking "attorney's eyes only" licensing information to Samsung's executives.

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 #71 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Khul View Post

LOL @ this article and the people on here.

I read this up until I saw the words "MORANIAN MULLEUR~"

Moranian has already admitted in court to being a paid schill for Oracle and Microsoft. For any one to quote him as an authority is just ridiculous. He should have lost all credibility last year when he guaranteed that Oracle had 6 BILLION in the bag on the initial complaint.


Author must be 12 years old or not able to research.

 

So why don't you tell us what went on in the courtroom, Mueller reported tweets made by others who were there.

 

Which parts were changed?

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 #72 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Examples of Google's IP theft are a little sparse eh? I think if you actually checked you might discover Apple has been found guilty of IP infringement in a court of law more often than Google. I'm quite certain when Apple is found to be infringing you don't consider it theft do you?

 

Only by your twisted (and so often incorrect view).

 

Tell that to the dozens of Android OEMs that are paying Microsoft royalties for IP in Android that Google used (without even bothering to get a license for). Or how about VP8 that Google claimed was "free from patent encumbrances" and then later had to settle with MPEG-LA. Even now others (like Nokia) are going after VP8 as there's still more IP involved.

 

There's also a big difference between a company being found guilty of using some obscure IP a patent troll owns (like so many Apple cases) and intentionally using IP (the two examples I gave above) like Google does. Or are you so stupid you actually think Google was never aware Android infringed MS IP (or VP8 didn't use MPEG-LA or Nokia IP)?

 

Before you start mouthing off about Apple being found guilty of using Samsung SEP's (as an example) remember that Samsung has been abusing their SEP's and trying to make extortionist demands from Apple. Apple has always said they will pay a fair rate for use, but want a court to decide that amount. Please show me anywhere that Google made such a statement in regards to Microsoft (that they were willing to deal, but MS made ridiculous demands).

post #73 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

What I find strange is that Google wants to make itself look petty and cheap. They could easily admit their errors and simply broadly license Java from Oracle and be done with it. Instead they seem to be hell bent on turning the Androud ecosystem upside down. Even if Oracle charged a billion dollars Google could easily handle the costs.


The not going to license it. For 2 reasons.

1 They had the blessing from SUN Micro to use Java... obviously that depends on who you ask.

2 They are not using Mobile Java which Oracle want to force them to use. They have forked the Java stack to suit their requirements which has got Larry's skipper pants in a knot.

 

Good for them to consolidate Chrome and Android it makes sense and it has always been on the cards.

post #74 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post
 

 

If you read Mueller’s work he supports his opinions with legally sound ideas that, over time, have an extremely high accuracy rate. Compare that to the Android fans who love Google so much they are now on the fifth generation of expectation of the Coming of the Android Prophet Phone.

 

Google has failed worldwide in courts on both sides: found to be willingly infringing IP of others while professing a disdain for patents, and at the same time hypocritically suing other companies over Standards Essential Patents. That’s something that both the US and EU have been investigating as antitrust behavior. Abusively trying to hurt customers (like Apple’s push mail service in Germany, feature blocked by a temporary injunction that Google got before it failed to prove involved any infringement). 

 

As for your personal attacks about how Mueller is a consultant in an industry where he works for some of the companies he reports on: baseless, character assassination makes you look very lacking in credibility.  

 

Legally sound with an extremely high accuracy rate? Oh dear. He predicted a $6Bn Payola for Oracle last time around and you may like to have a look to see what the payout ended up as, and who had to pay costs. Or if you want to go have a read of the sort of things he was rolling out during the last trial on the way to that particular gross miss, such as http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120724125504129 or http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20130706091033171. And when the judge ordered both parties to name bloggers they had retained/paid at the time of trial, whose name came up? See yourself: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120817151150419

 

You make your own bed, and if you're caught stretching theories to one extreme side of the argument - and being paid by that party - it's probably not a good time to keep digging.

 

The whole patent world is a complete mess; objective reporting and well argued journalism is of great value. If his name appears in an article, then his track record (as cited above) suggests we'll get neither. If he gets to cite his commercial interests where he's quoted, all fair game. The fact that this is not his norm - it's an ad written as an editorial - detracts from his own "brand values".

post #75 of 112

Why not this guy just paid owner for technology they use? Don't be evil.

post #76 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian.Waring View Post
 

 

Legally sound with an extremely high accuracy rate? Oh dear. He predicted a $6Bn Payola for Oracle last time around and you may like to have a look to see what the payout ended up as, and who had to pay costs. Or if you want to go have a read of the sort of things he was rolling out during the last trial on the way to that particular gross miss, such as http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120724125504129 or http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20130706091033171. And when the judge ordered both parties to name bloggers they had retained/paid at the time of trial, whose name came up? See yourself: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120817151150419

 

You make your own bed, and if you're caught stretching theories to one extreme side of the argument - and being paid by that party - it's probably not a good time to keep digging.

 

The whole patent world is a complete mess; objective reporting and well argued journalism is of great value. If his name appears in an article, then his track record (as cited above) suggests we'll get neither. If he gets to cite his commercial interests where he's quoted, all fair game. The fact that this is not his norm - it's an ad written as an editorial - detracts from his own "brand values".

 

First off, FOSS Patents posts scores of in depth reports on global cases every month. If you think citing one example of a possible outcome that didn’t immediately occur lets you confidently state that nothing Mueller writes is reliable, you need to get serious.

 

Also, if you say things like "stretching theories to one extreme side of the argument" you can’t then cite Graklaw, a one sided propaganda site that only argues a single extremist line of Google’s talking points, contradicting itself as much as Google’s own hypocrisy does.

 

Google bots like yourself attack Mueller because he cuts through the "open" rhetoric bandied about by Eric Schmidt and the company’s blatant disregard for every other company’s IP while attempting to abuse any patents it can obtain itself. 

 

Just look at Graklaw’s cheering over Samsung’s efforts to sue Apple over using IP already licensed in broadband chips. Obvious case of egregious patent abuse supported by Graklaw. http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/05/samsungs-vetoed-push-for-an-itc-ban-against-apple-inc-in-pictures  

post #77 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

Google copied millions of books in their entirety without authorization by the copyright holders. Yes, Google was just let off the hook after a major court battle that just about only Google would dare to encourage and just about only Google could afford to defend, but Google did settle earlier with publishers in exchange for money. Did you furget that?

When has Apple infringed another's IP in a major way? Kinda sparse and largely inconsequential in the scheme of things is it?

So no proof of Google's "theft" then? By the way, I don't recall Google settling with publishers in return for money. While it sounds like it could be a reasonable outcome I'd love to read about how much they paid and if it's an ongoing thing. Any link?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #78 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post


Also, if you say things like "stretching theories to one extreme side of the argument" you can’t then cite Graklaw, a one sided propaganda site that only argues a single extremist line of Google’s talking points, contradicting itself as much as Google’s own hypocrisy does.

Google bots like yourself attack Mueller because he cuts through the "open" rhetoric bandied about by Eric Schmidt and the company’s blatant disregard for every other company’s IP while attempting to abuse any patents it can obtain itself. 

Just look at Graklaw’s cheering over Samsung’s efforts to sue Apple over using IP already licensed in broadband chips. Obvious case of egregious patent abuse supported by Graklaw. http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/05/samsungs-vetoed-push-for-an-itc-ban-against-apple-inc-in-pictures  

One of the many things I've learned from Mr Mueller is that in tech there really is only one good guy, one company above all reproach. Only one company he's never had a bad thing to say about in his blog. Only one company that truly believes in "Don't be evil", that operates completely above board at all times. That company is Microsoft. All others, Apple included, are flawed in his view.

EDIT: Maybe two angelic companies as I can't find any complaint whatsoever about Oracle either. What a coincidence.
Edited by Gatorguy - 12/5/13 at 4:41am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #79 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian.Waring View Post
 

The whole patent world is a complete mess; 

 

Patents?

 

What patents?

 

This case revolves around copyright, and the apparent misinterpretation of fair use as a measure of validity by Albright.

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 #80 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Patents?

What patents?

This case revolves around copyright, and the apparent misinterpretation of fair use as a measure of validity by Albright.

Albright?

Not misinterpretation of fair use but instead copyrightability. According to reports the Appeals Court isn't questioning "fair use" at this point but instead whether API's can be copyrighted in the first place. If it rules they can be then the next step would apparently be another trial by the original court to determine if Google properly made "fair use" of the copyrighted material.

By the way this appeal is still vaguely attached to Oracle's patent infringement claims. If not for the original patent complaints Oracle could not have appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Edited by Gatorguy - 12/5/13 at 5:30am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Google moves toward Chrome as Oracle threatens to establish Android's Java infringement
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google moves toward Chrome as Oracle threatens to establish Android's Java infringement