or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google's strict policies for 'open' Android OS revealed in newly public documents
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google's strict policies for 'open' Android OS revealed in newly public documents - Page 3

post #81 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by kharvel View Post
 

 

Here is one example:

http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/01/us-court-finds-samsung-to-infringe-one.html

 

The Auto-correct feature is found in the GMS but not in the AOSP.  (http://www.fonearena.com/blog/88107/google-places-api-brings-out-autocomplete-for-better-predictions.html)

 

 

So, you have only found just one claim of one patent and the trial has not even started?

 

 

 

You must be joking.

 

Yap, Android will vanish if that claim is found infringed in the trial, all of the relevance of Android depends on that

 

And, by the way AOSP keyboard has autocorrection and Samsung doesn't use Google keyboard, uses its own

post #82 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Oooohhh. . . this is interesting.

According to the contract manufacturers are supposed to report the number of Google Android handsets they produce each month. At least that's what the old contracts stipulated and I can't imagine why they would have changed it. That puts Google in the unique position of having reliable shipping numbers for all licensees, tho it's actual end-user numbers they report to the media every so often.

Aren't user satisfaction numbers the only real measurement here? I can't add a link as they're all biased, or so it seems. Possibly to the user satisfaction rate as well, still, you get what I mean.
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #83 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by kharvel View Post
 

 

This incentive is being reduced substantially by the real legal risk that Apple has attached to handsets implementing the Google Android software.  If Samsung loses the second infringement trial,  that may be the tipping point where Samsung decides that forking Android is better than selling Google Android phones.  

 

 

If Apple is successful in its patent infringement lawsuits, it may be able to get the courts or the ITC to ban the import/sale of Samsung products running on Google Android software.  In that case, Samsung will have no choice but to sell Samsung hardware running on Tizen or an Android fork.  You see, Apple is about to force Samsung to go somewhere else and Google knows that, too.  

 

As for people migrating to other manufacturers, don't think for a second that these manufacturers will not face patent infringement lawsuits from Apple and they are going to consider this legal risk as they decide whether to accept Google's terms to use the Google Android software or fork Android.  

 

These lawsuits don't seem to be going anywhere. It looks like Samsung will have to pay Apple a pittance and will be allowed to continue operating pretty much without many changes. I think the biggest threat to Android was the Oracle lawsuit over Java against Google but that was dismissed. Do you have any reliable links to support that position because all the news on the lawsuits seems to suggest nothing much will come from any of them. 

post #84 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

So, you have only found just one claim of one patent and the trial has not even started?

 

You do not understand the significance of the pre-trial summary judgement of patent infringement in the SECOND trial of Apple v. Samsung.  Following a patent infringement verdict against Samsung in the first trial (covering multiple other patents), the judge ruled before the start of the second trial that the autocomplete patent infringement was so clear and so obvious that it was deemed infringed and there was no need to subject the patent infringement claim to a trial.  This suggests that the remaining Apple patents that will go to trial have a great chance of being found to be infringed.  

post #85 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by kharvel View Post
 

At least, you should read your own links before saying that others don't understand.

 

Trial has not started, patent will be subject to trial,  Samsung can try to use invalidity defense in the trial. 

 

 

post #86 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

 

These lawsuits don't seem to be going anywhere. It looks like Samsung will have to pay Apple a pittance and will be allowed to continue operating pretty much without many changes. I think the biggest threat to Android was the Oracle lawsuit over Java against Google but that was dismissed. Do you have any reliable links to support that position because all the news on the lawsuits seems to suggest nothing much will come from any of them. 

 

Try http://www.fosspatents.com

 

The news you read about the lawsuits are written by people who do not understand how the court system works.  

This is most informative:

http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/samsung-concerned-about-resellers-fear.html

 

Florian Muller quote:

I agree with the way Apple's lawyers read that one: a patent injunction will apply to a future product (or a modified version of a specifically-named product) if the infringement pattern is essentially the same -- but other differences between a newer product and one previously found to infringe (such as a new name, a different visual appearance, updates to the operating software that relate to other features than the patented one) don't matter. That's why Apple is seeking an injunction against "any other product not more than colorably different from an Infringing Product as to a feature found to infringe" (emphasis mine).

 

 

A patent infringement finding/ruling/verdict from a trial two years ago on products that are obsolete now are still applicable to products TODAY if they are still using the infringing feature.  That's the key that most journalists and reporters don't understand.  

post #87 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post
 

At least, you should read your own links before saying that others don't understand.

 

Trial has not started, patent will be subject to trial,  Samsung can try to use invalidity defense in the trial. 

 

 

 

The patent's validity will be subject to trial but the infringement claim will NOT be subject to trial.  The hurdle for convincing a jury to find a patent to be invalid is far, far greater than the hurdle for convincing a jury that the patent is not infringed.  If the judge was already convinced of infringement even before seeing all the evidence in the trial, I doubt the jury is going to have any trouble coming to similar conclusions about the other patent claims.    

post #88 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by kharvel View Post
 

 

Try http://www.fosspatents.com

 

The news you read about the lawsuits are written by people who do not understand how the court system works.  

This is most informative:

http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/samsung-concerned-about-resellers-fear.html

 

Florian Muller quote:

 

A patent infringement finding/ruling/verdict from a trial two years ago on products that are obsolete now are still applicable to products TODAY if they are still using the infringing feature.  That's the key that most journalists and reporters don't understand.  

As a lawyer I am pretty sure I understand how the court system works. I am very familiar with that website and Florian Mueller. I am simply advising you not to get your hopes up because I do not foresee any substantial changes from any of these lawsuits. 

post #89 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

So, you have only found just one claim of one patent and the trial has not even started?

 

You do not understand the significance of the pre-trial summary judgement of patent infringement in the SECOND trial of Apple v. Samsung.  Following a patent infringement verdict against Samsung in the first trial (covering multiple other patents), the judge ruled before the start of the second trial that the autocomplete patent infringement was so clear and so obvious that it was deemed infringed and there was no need to subject the patent infringement claim to a trial.  This suggests that the remaining Apple patents that will go to trial have a great chance of being found to be infringed.  

Infringement of one patent has no relevance to other cases of infringement.   

post #90 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Why N/A? Google licenses their services in a contract that's intended to benefit both parties. If Acer is violating the terms of the contract Google suspends the services. Seems simple enough and doesn't require a courtroom.

sure, but the OHS agreement does not incorporate Google services per se.

post #91 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


No they don't have 'absolute' control. Amazon was able to do to fork it, and now there are manufacturers that will be installing Cyanogenmod (a custom ROM) on their devices as the stock OS. LG could very easily leave the OHA and fork Android to their liking.

 

I said they "will" have complete control. And Amazon forked a version of Android BEFORE Google's push to take the API's out of Android itself and put them into Google Play Services.

 

When Google made updates to the various versions of Android (GB to ICS to JB....) they also made the source code available to the AOSP. This meant that AOSP was being updated to the newest versions with all the latest features.

 

Now Google is placing new features and API's into Google Play Services itself. So AOSP is now essentially "frozen" as it gets no new "goodies" from Google. While a manufacturer could still fork Android, what's the point when the version you get access to is old? And it's getting older, and less useful with every new update Google does.

 

AOSP is becoming less relevant each day until it will eventually be useless. Android will have moved on to Google Play Services and any Android device from a "forked" version is going to look mighty stale compared to the latest devices with Google Play Services.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #92 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post
 

 

First of all let me say that I agree with your assessment that Android is not quite as "open" as they once pretended and I understand how they are deliberately using Google play services to lock down Android tighter. Acer however should have been aware of the contract they signed so I am not sure you can blame Google for Acer being ignorant of their contract.

 

Acer wouldn't spend millions of dollars tooling up and producing a phone if they didn't think they could sell it. I have a feeling that at the time this happened the language in their agreement was pretty vague about this type of situation and Acer felt they were abiding by the rules.

 

Google contacted them and "reinforced" what the rules really mean, and Acer had to comply. I don't think you can blame Acer - unless you actually believe that a company that large would be so stupid to actually understand what being a member of the OHA really meant, and decided to waste millions when they knew full well they were going to have to pull out the day before the release.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #93 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by kharvel View Post
 

 

Here is one example:

http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/01/us-court-finds-samsung-to-infringe-one.html

 

The Auto-correct feature is found in the GMS but not in the AOSP.  (http://www.fonearena.com/blog/88107/google-places-api-brings-out-autocomplete-for-better-predictions.html)

According to the second link, "To make autocomplete even more accurate and useful, Google updates automatically, biases predictions towards the user’s location based on the requester’s IP address. That means, results that are closer to the user will appear sooner in the API’s responses, saving users even more keystrokes and time. "

 

This seems like a feature unique to google's implementation which doesn't seem to be asserted anywhere in the patent claims. In fact, the patent leaves out some nontrivial algorithmic details required to actually make a working implementation. Is this the norm for software patents? Or is the patent in question considered a design patent instead of a utility patent?


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 2/13/14 at 12:04pm
post #94 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post
 

 

Acer wouldn't spend millions of dollars tooling up and producing a phone if they didn't think they could sell it. I have a feeling that at the time this happened the language in their agreement was pretty vague about this type of situation and Acer felt they were abiding by the rules.

 

Google contacted them and "reinforced" what the rules really mean, and Acer had to comply. I don't think you can blame Acer - unless you actually believe that a company that large would be so stupid to actually understand what being a member of the OHA really meant, and decided to waste millions when they knew full well they were going to have to pull out the day before the release.

 

I suggest reading this link.

http://www.zdnet.com/is-aliyun-os-really-linux-android-a-rip-off-of-both-7000004318/

 

"

Android Police found that, "Aliyun's app store appeared to be distributing Android apps scraped from the Play Store and other websites, not only downloadable to Aliyun devices as .apk files, but also provided by third parties not involved with the apps' or games' development. What's more, we've received independent confirmation from the original developers of some of these apps that they did not in fact give consent for their products to be distributed in Aliyun's app store."

Not the least of the evidence is that the Aliyun includes Google's own Android applications such as Google Translate, Google Sky Map, Google Drive, and Google Play Books. The odds of Google giving Aliyun permission to use its own applications are somewhere between zero and none.

What we seem to have in Aliyun is an illegal Android and Linux fork, which supports a pirated software ecosystem. I only wonder that Google didn't come down even harder on Acer and I really wonder how much due diligence, if any, Acer did before signing a deal with Alibaba. "

post #95 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

sure, but the OHS agreement does not incorporate Google services per se.

It looks like it does to me if you're referring to the contract reported here in the AI article.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #96 of 206

This totally makes sense. Even it's an open source OS, you can't just do whatever you want with it without giving credits to the owner (Google). Google makes smart move on this to make android device manufacturers to get back in line with the stock android. So, HTC Sense 5.x, Samsung TouchWiz should show something about android in their devices. Especially Samsung, they tried to hide android from their TouchWiz so they can make transition from android to Tizen without user notice. Google would not allow this to happen, so they act on it quickly. Nice job, Google. 

post #97 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by fallenjt View Post

This totally makes sense. Even it's an open source OS, you can't just do whatever you want with it without giving credits to the owner (Google). Google makes smart move on this to make android device manufacturers to get back in line with the stock android. So, HTC Sense 5.x, Samsung TouchWiz should show something about android in their devices. Especially Samsung, they tried to hide android from their TouchWiz so they can make transition from android to Tizen without user notice. Google would not allow this to happen, so they act on it quickly. Nice job, Google. 

They're also trying to minimize fragmentation by doing this.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #98 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post


The WSJ article is behind a paywall and in the excerpt there is no claim of what you said, do you have the full text?

You want him to cut and paste a copyrighted article from the WSJ with no regard for IP? Really?

This sounds like the kind of thing that Google might do.
post #99 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post
 

 

I said they "will" have complete control. And Amazon forked a version of Android BEFORE Google's push to take the API's out of Android itself and put them into Google Play Services.

This is FUD, but it's not your fault. Sites report this as if it was true, but what Google is doing is adding APIs for their services to GMS. For example the location database that looks up against their wifi database. Their callerID database etc. AOSP remains fully functional.

 

 

Quote:
Now Google is placing new features and API's into Google Play Services itself. So AOSP is now essentially "frozen" as it gets no new "goodies" from Google. While a manufacturer could still fork Android, what's the point when the version you get access to is old? And it's getting older, and less useful with every new update Google does.

 

None of this is accurate. Last change to Android? 15 hours ago: https://github.com/android/platform_system_core

 

 

Quote:
AOSP is becoming less relevant each day until it will eventually be useless. Android will have moved on to Google Play Services and any Android device from a "forked" version is going to look mighty stale compared to the latest devices with Google Play Services.

All the AOSP apps have new maintainers, so this won't happen either. Take Cyanogenmod for an example of a group pushing hard to improve AOSP.

post #100 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Are you a paid Google shill? You want him to cut and paste a copyrighted article from the WSJ with no regard for IP? Really?

I ask only because this sounds like the kind of thing that Google might do.

FWIW I've never seen any reliable source ever offer evidence that Google pays folks for favorable posts. Now had you been speaking of Samsung or Microsoft I have seen at least circumstantial evidence that they have. There was even a very recent one involving the latest Xbox and Youtube reviews.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #101 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


FWIW I've never seen any reliable source ever offer evidence that Google pays folks for favorable posts. Now had you been speaking of Samsung or Microsoft I have seen at least circumstantial evidence that they have. There was even a very recent one involving the latest Xbox and Youtube reviews.

 

Don't worry, he just tried to insult.

post #102 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Don't worry, he just tried to insult.

I wasn't worried. It was just a silly comment that sometimes sparks more of the same.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #103 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


Aren't user satisfaction numbers the only real measurement here? I can't add a link as they're all biased, or so it seems. Possibly to the user satisfaction rate as well, still, you get what I mean.

Why is user satisfaction the only real metric?

post #104 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


Are you a paid Google shill? You want him to cut and paste a copyrighted article from the WSJ with no regard for IP? Really?

I ask only because this sounds like the kind of thing that Google might do.

 

 

One can quote without copyright infringement. But you're probably pretending otherwise because you want to get snarky with him. How cute.

post #105 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Aren't user satisfaction numbers the only real measurement here? I can't add a link as they're all biased, or so it seems. Possibly to the user satisfaction rate as well, still, you get what I mean.
Why is user satisfaction the only real metric?

If they'd only report how many handsets their manufacturers produce it'd be a silly number, pretty useless.
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #106 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post

Basically, yes. I am. Google doesn't see Android. They derive no direct income from the sale of Google. There is no income from which to pay damages if Google were to lose a lawsuit for patent infringement.

Then you would be incorrect in your assessment. You don't seem to understand how damages are computed. Damages for patent infringement aren't based solely on the income derived by doing so by the infringing party. There's lost income by the patent holder among other things. You should read up some so as to understand a little about it.
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/patent/advanced-patent/patent-infringement-damages/

Thinking that Apple would be wasting their time suing Google directly because they couldn't collect damages is incorrect. They're not suing Google for some reason other than inability to get monetary damages. It could be that Google isn't infringing at all in Apple's view. It could be that Apple doesn't feel they can prove Google is infringing. Perhaps they're cognizant of a counter-suit based on Apple's own infringement of Google IP. Maybe Google knows where Steve Jobs buried the bodies. Who knows. But it's not all about problems getting money out of Google if they're guilty of infringement.

It matters not if Google even loses money every time an Android device is sold, Apple still has damages to collect if they can prove them. Worse, you're implying that if Apple can't get a good chunk'a change from suing then they would decide to allow the infringement to go on. Protecting the IP itself isn't important to Apple by your reasoning. That hardly makes any sense does it?
Edited by Gatorguy - 2/14/14 at 12:19pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #107 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Then you would be incorrect in your assessment. You don't seem to understand how damages are computed. Damages for patent infringement aren't based solely on the income derived by doing so by the infringing party. There's lost income by the patent holder among other things. You should read up some so as to understand a little about it.
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/patent/advanced-patent/patent-infringement-damages/

Thinking that Apple would be wasting their time suing Google directly because they couldn't collect damages is incorrect. They're not suing Google for some reason other than inability to get monetary damages. It could be that Google isn't infringing at all in Apple's view. It could be that Apple doesn't feel they can prove Google is infringing. Perhaps they're cognizant of a counter-suit based on Apple's own infringement of Google IP. Maybe Google knows where Steve Jobs buried the bodies. Who knows. But it's not all about problems getting money out of Google if they're guilty of infringement.

It matters not if Google even loses money every time an Android device is sold, Apple still has damages to collect if they can prove them. Worse, you're implying that if Apple can't get a good chunk'a change from suing then they would decide to allow the infringement to go on. Protecting the IP itself isn't important to Apple by your reasoning. That hardly makes any sense does it?

Think what you want about why they don't. I am simply stating arguments I have read.
post #108 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post

Think what you want about why they don't. I am simply stating arguments I have read.

Then those writers were wrong too, so the misunderstanding may not be entirely your fault. 1wink.gif
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #109 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Then those writers were wrong too, so the misunderstanding may not be entirely your fault. 1wink.gif
You are consistent. Everyone else is wrong if they disagree with you.
post #110 of 206

For Apple, money is not important and they can ask for an injunction against the infringed IP. If they earn it they can stop ALL Android OEM from using that IP.


Edited by Gwydion - 2/14/14 at 1:25pm
post #111 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post

You are consistent. Everyone else is wrong if they disagree with you.

You don't need to believe me. All you need to do is a little reading about infringement damages to figure out for yourself if you were right or not. I even offered you a link a couple posts back. Some people really do believe that ignorance is bliss and that's fine, tho it's better not to spread it around.. That's one reason I avoid doctors 1cool.gif (besides the fact they're surrounded by sick people.)

Posted again for your convenience should you have any interest in understanding infringement damages and why it doesn't really matter if Google makes money from Android.
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/patent/advanced-patent/patent-infringement-damages/
Edited by Gatorguy - 2/14/14 at 2:05pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #112 of 206
Not going to doctors... Hmmmm

Not everything written is to be believed. There are also valid conflicting opinions on many issues.

I'll leave it at that.
post #113 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post
 

 I think the biggest threat to Android was the Oracle lawsuit over Java against Google but that was dismissed. 

 

 

You are going to be in for a surprise on the Java copyright case. 

post #114 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post
 

 

 

You are going to be in for a surprise on the Java copyright case. 

 

It seems pretty unlikely they will prevail. Copyrighting APIs is unthinkable to anyone who develops software regularly. getTime() eh? Now you owe me millions? I don't think so.

post #115 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

 

It seems pretty unlikely they will prevail. 

Obviously you didn't listen to the hearing in front of the Appeals Court. The judge's questions and comments give pretty solid indication they will reverse Judge Alsup's ruling, as does a basic understanding of copyright principles. The ruling is expected sometime in the next month or so. Get a grip because for many guys like yourself the internet is about to asplode with the copyrightability of APIs. You might recall that the trial jury _already_ found that Google had _infringed_ Oracle's APIs, but that judge Alsup later ruled that the APIs weren't copyrightable, which let Google off the infringement hook. Soon Google will be back on the Java infringement hook, and then we'll get to the question of whether Google's use was a fair one. There could be a new trial for that since the original jury deadlocked on the fair use issue, but the Appellate Court judges could decide on fair use themselves when they announce their ruling, since it's a judgment of law and arguments for both sides were already made during the trial.

 

Listen to the hearing for yourself, there isn't the slightest chance any one of those 3 judges is going to uphold that the 37 Java API packages aren't original expression protected by copyright. The statutes and the Supreme Court precedents are far too clear. This has been evident to many all along and just a matter of time and process to get through. Alsup did his very best to find a rationale to exclude them, but it was ultimately a lame theory. The more interesting issue now is the question of fair use, I doubt it will fly but at least there's a chance there. And if it's not fair use then the most interesting question is what happens to Android once Oracle gets their injunction. Lost copyright infringement cases invariably result in an injunction as the remedy going forward, as well as there having to be another trial to determine the remedy for past damages. Oracle will allow Google a Java license, but they'll have to make Android truly Java compatible. What other choice will Google have?

 

Buckle your seatbelt!

 

Quote:
 Copyrighting APIs is unthinkable to anyone who develops software regularly. getTime() eh? Now you owe me millions? I don't think so

Non sequitur. One wonders if you're being deliberately obtuse or facetious. Since when is a developer calling "getTime()" anything like what Google did in cherry picking 37 Java API packages and copying thousands of lines of code verbatim to create Dalvik? 


Edited by ruddy - 2/16/14 at 10:52am
post #116 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post
 

Obviously you didn't listen to the hearing in front of the appeals court, or have much understanding of basic copyright principles.

 

I know that no serious developer I have ever met has held that APIs are copyrightable, even less so the SSO of APIs. It's nonsense and I speak as a professional developer.

 

Quote:
Non sequitur. One wonders if you're being deliberately obtuse or facetious. Since when is a developer calling "getTime()" anything like Google copying the Java APIs to create Dalvik? 

Oracle claims that their API structure itself is copyrightable. By duplicating my getTime function with identical arguments and return values, you have infringed on the structure of my API despite not copying any code (if APIs were copyrightable)

post #117 of 206
Are APIs not made up of code?

"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 #118 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Are APIs not made up of code?

 

Implementation is made of code, not structure

post #119 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Are APIs not made up of code?

 

Not exactly. In this case what's being argued is that just the names and arrangement of them (and the parameters they pass/return) are sufficient for copyright protection.

 

This excludes the actual code that implements those methods because in total Oracle agreed on $0 of damages for a single function that Google copied (it was actually written by the same person who wrote the Oracle code, how's that for a weird arrangement).

 

The implementation code certainly is copyrightable, but in this case Oracle is no longer claiming Google copied any of that as far as I am aware.

post #120 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

Not exactly. In this case what's being argued is that just the names and arrangement of them (and the parameters they pass/return) are sufficient for copyright protection.

This excludes the actual code that implements those methods because in total Oracle agreed on $0 of damages for a single function that Google copied (it was actually written by the same person who wrote the Oracle code, how's that for a weird arrangement).

The implementation code certainly is copyrightable, but in this case Oracle is no longer claiming Google copied any of that as far as I am aware.

Aren't algorithms copyrightable?

"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 › Google's strict policies for 'open' Android OS revealed in newly public documents