or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Oracle wins key reversal in Java copyright case against Google's Android
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Oracle wins key reversal in Java copyright case against Google's Android - Page 4

post #121 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post


Do your own thinking kiddo ! The rest of your comment shows that you are not interested in rational discussion. A software API is not "art".
in the sense that the copyright concept perceives. An API is a functional description designed to allow interoperability.

You do KNOW that copyright is not tested for originality, prior art or any of the (mostly very low-bar) requirements for a patent, and that the period of copyright protection extends for something around 70 years ? Protecting software by patents is bad, protecting it by creating a bizzarre copyright concept is simply insane. So if this one sticks, the software industry is dead in the water.

The good side is that when the american courts finally see the devastation this judgement will cause, then there will be some changes to the laws.

Actually, I've read many people who have criticized software patents saying that they should be eliminated and copyright law protections should apply instead. Get your stories straight.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #122 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

...
After losing its initial bid for a preliminary injunction against Franklin, Apple successfully argued to an appeals court that software was a protected "literary work," and also presented evidence that software compatibility could be achieved by Franklin without infringement of Apple's copyright. It further presented evidence that Franklin simply stole its ROM code, finding unchanged references to "Applesoft" within Franklin's infringing systems.

Excellent points made by Apple.
Software is all about copyright.
post #123 of 170

So a fair use trial is next up, and back in Alsup's courtroom. And it will be a jury trial which is what Google wants, as they have a better chance convincing a jury than a judge. But when you look at the 4-pronged Fair Use test, it's hard to see how Google can win even one of them.

post #124 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post


Do your own thinking kiddo ! The rest of your comment shows that you are not interested in rational discussion. A software API is not "art".
in the sense that the copyright concept perceives. An API is a functional description designed to allow interoperability.

You do KNOW that copyright is not tested for originality, prior art or any of the (mostly very low-bar) requirements for a patent, and that the period of copyright protection extends for something around 70 years ? Protecting software by patents is bad, protecting it by creating a bizzarre copyright concept is simply insane. So if this one sticks, the software industry is dead in the water.

The good side is that when the american courts finally see the devastation this judgement will cause, then there will be some changes to the laws.

Actually, I've read many people who have criticized software patents saying that they should be eliminated and copyright law protections should apply instead. Get your stories straight.


It doesn't interest me particularly what the "many people" you may have read or talk to say.

 

Sorry, don't feel offended but its a non-argument you're making. It may surprise you that a lot of people say/write a lot of really dumb things. Ever considered that ??

post #125 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post
 


Do your own thinking kiddo ! The rest of your comment shows that you are not interested in rational discussion. A software API is not "art".

in the sense that the copyright concept perceives. An API is a functional description designed to allow interoperability.

 

You do KNOW that copyright is not tested for originality, prior art or any of the (mostly very low-bar) requirements for a patent, and that the period of copyright protection extends for something around 70 years ? Protecting software by patents is bad, protecting it by creating a bizzarre copyright concept is simply insane. So if this one sticks, the software industry is dead in the water.

 

The good side is that when the american courts finally see the devastation this judgement will cause, then there will be some changes to the laws.

To each their own old timer.  I think you're being overly dramatic over the situation.  As for Dumb things, thanks for setting precedent. 

iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
post #126 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I read the same thing you did. You apparently don't completely understand what you read if you believe the Appeals Court found Google to be using protected code. If they had there would be no need for a fair use hearing, they could go straight for damages.

 

That's not how copyright law works. First you get a trial to determine if infringement occurred. In this case it did, The first jury found that Google infringed 7000+ lines of declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization of the 37 API packages. But for awhile it did not matter because the judge said those things Google infringed were not copyrightable. Now the Circuit Court has overruled him, and have re-instated the 1st Jury's finding of infringement.
 

Fair Use is an affirmative defense. It says "yes we infringed, but we claim to be an exception." And either a judge or a jury has to determine if that exception is one of the ones allowed under the fair use test. A new jury trial will have to take place now because the first jury couldn't come up with a unanimous decision on fair use. That is the part the Circuit Court has "remanded" back to the District Court.

 

A Fair Use defense only comes AFTER you've first been found liable for infringement. With the Circuit Court reversing Judge Alsup's ruling on copyrightability, Google is now liable for infringement again. Next we'll hear Google's arguments for why the court should make an exception for what they did, and we'll also hear Oracle's arguments for why the use wasn't fair.

post #127 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkndrublic View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post
 


Do your own thinking kiddo ! The rest of your comment shows that you are not interested in rational discussion. A software API is not "art".

in the sense that the copyright concept perceives. An API is a functional description designed to allow interoperability.

 

You do KNOW that copyright is not tested for originality, prior art or any of the (mostly very low-bar) requirements for a patent, and that the period of copyright protection extends for something around 70 years ? Protecting software by patents is bad, protecting it by creating a bizzarre copyright concept is simply insane. So if this one sticks, the software industry is dead in the water.

 

The good side is that when the american courts finally see the devastation this judgement will cause, then there will be some changes to the laws.

To each their own old timer.  I think you're being overly dramatic over the situation.  As for Dumb things, thanks for setting precedent. 

Hey Kiddie, get your hands of mom's pc, drink your milk and go back to bed. The internet's for grown ups :-)

post #128 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post
 

Hey Kiddie, get your hands of mom's pc, drink your milk and go back to bed. The internet's for grown ups :-)

You mean "off"?  Maybe you needed a better education grandpa?

iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
post #129 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

Told you.

 

“Who?”

You, I dunno.

Why Gatorguy, of course.

Post from mstone to Benjamin Frost - "Perhaps that explains your lack of mental capacity. If I was your brother, I probably would have repeatedly smashed the side of your head with a cricket bat."
Reply
Post from mstone to Benjamin Frost - "Perhaps that explains your lack of mental capacity. If I was your brother, I probably would have repeatedly smashed the side of your head with a cricket bat."
Reply
post #130 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Isn't it still a little early on for the Schadenfreude?

No.

Post from mstone to Benjamin Frost - "Perhaps that explains your lack of mental capacity. If I was your brother, I probably would have repeatedly smashed the side of your head with a cricket bat."
Reply
Post from mstone to Benjamin Frost - "Perhaps that explains your lack of mental capacity. If I was your brother, I probably would have repeatedly smashed the side of your head with a cricket bat."
Reply
post #131 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post


Actually Sun didn't have a problem with it. It was only after Sun was acquired by Oracle that Oracle decided to pursue this. It also only concerns about 3% of the total code and only API's so to say to Google just cloned everything is off the mark.

If it's "only" 3%, why'd they steal it in the first place.

Yeah-aren't we supposed to share 97 % of our DNA with chimps? 3% difference-what's the big deal, eh?

Post from mstone to Benjamin Frost - "Perhaps that explains your lack of mental capacity. If I was your brother, I probably would have repeatedly smashed the side of your head with a cricket bat."
Reply
Post from mstone to Benjamin Frost - "Perhaps that explains your lack of mental capacity. If I was your brother, I probably would have repeatedly smashed the side of your head with a cricket bat."
Reply
post #132 of 170

"given the record evidence that Google designed Android so that it would not be compatible with the Java platform, or the JVM specifically, we find Google's interoperability argument confusing."

 

To translate this from lawyer-speak, replace the last word with "bullshit".  Of course, judges can't literally say BS in their rulings, so they are more polite.  But this is how they convey the opinion that the argument is beyond reason.

post #133 of 170
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

Of course, judges can't literally say BS in their rulings, so they are more polite.

 

“And in the matter of the bovem de stercore regarding Google’s lack of interoperability and wholesale theft of code, I hereby ban the sale of all devices using the software known as Android, its code base, and all derivatives, from sale in the United States until such time as the software no longer infringes in this regard.”

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 #134 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post
 


You don't really believe the nonsense you write. The negative implications of this judgement are huge and will destroy much of the software industry. Let me give you a simple example: Take a copyrighted API to a library. This would prevent a functionally compatible library with, for example security or performance advantages from being made available for about 70 years.

 

The copyright already exists, you are dead wrong.

 

No new laws have been created, no old laws have been destroyed.

 

Replacing Java's GPL licence is probably the biggest single reason Google did this.

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 #135 of 170

I'll bite. So few lines shows that Google was policing the inclusion of stolen code quite aggressively. With the number of developers involved, and the ease of finding code on the internet, providing any of those developers a bit of time saving, finding just a few dozen lines of borrowed code out of several million is a pretty major triumph for the Google's policies and procedures. 

 

As to whether use of copyrighted APIs is considered fair use, that's a separate issue. I would argue that in this case it probably is fair use, though I could be convinced otherwise by an argument that wasn't as full of invectives as most of what I see in this comments list. Sun probably wouldn't have bothered suing over it, since they were a very open source friendly company, and probably didn't excessively mind a from-scratch Java fork as long as they didn't use the name. Oracle? Not so much. Oracle's history with open source has proven quite hostile, which is forcing a lot of development companies to search for alternatives to a lot of the great stuff that Sun had built up over its history. 

post #136 of 170
post #137 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post

You're just playing with words.

Yeah, he does do that.

"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 #138 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by tronald View Post

I'll bite. So few lines shows that Google was policing the inclusion of stolen code quite aggressively. With the number of developers involved, and the ease of finding code on the internet, providing any of those developers a bit of time saving, finding just a few dozen lines of borrowed code out of several million is a pretty major triumph for the Google's policies and procedures. 

As to whether use of copyrighted APIs is considered fair use, that's a separate issue. I would argue that in this case it probably is fair use, though I could be convinced otherwise by an argument that wasn't as full of invectives as most of what I see in this comments list. Sun probably wouldn't have bothered suing over it, since they were a very open source friendly company, and probably didn't excessively mind a from-scratch Java fork as long as they didn't use the name. Oracle? Not so much. Oracle's history with open source has proven quite hostile, which is forcing a lot of development companies to search for alternatives to a lot of the great stuff that Sun had built up over its history. 

Sun released Java under the GNU GPL

Google broke interoperability and changed the Dalvik license to Apache, specifically so they could keep parts of Android closed.

Would it not be better to have Android fully and truly open?

Breaking interoperability also broke the window that "fair use" has been thrown out of.
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 #139 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

It's never too early for schadenfreude1tongue.gif
So true.
It's never/always too early. If one waited too long it wouldn't really be Schadenfreude. And for the object of the Schadenfreude, it's always too early.
Edited by DESuserIGN - 5/10/14 at 9:12pm
post #140 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


Sun released Java under the GNU GPL

Google broke interoperability and changed the Dalvik license to Apache, specifically so they could keep parts of Android closed.

Would it not be better to have Android fully and truly open?

Breaking interoperability also broke the window that "fair use" has been thrown out of.

 

Perhaps. Sun went hot and cold on its aggressiveness about Java, and its implementation for cell phones was actually bad enough that for the language to have value in some android-like environment, Google would have needed to make it incompatible. Given that Sun didn't care enough to really stop Google, it was a not unreasonable opening that would have gone just fine had Larry not bought it. 

 

As I said, Oracle has been making plenty of people rethink their use or abuse of many of Sun's technologies. Android is in a uniquely poor position to adjust if Oracle wins in its attempts at being nasty about all this. Users of mysql who have been pressured by Oracle to pay a lot more for commercial licenses can at least spend some effort and switch to postgres. Most users of Java can spend time switching away from it as they do new development. Google's environment depends on its unsanctioned (but essentially Sun accepted) quirks for compatibility with the larger ecosystem they created. That will be very difficult to unwind.

 

Also, I really don't know why the rest of us personalize any of this as much as some do. This is the big boys fighting each other with big guns, as they will do. I have no idea why it really matters to anyone who isn't a major investor in any one of them. And, if you don't want to use Android because it is too complicated and geeky (I don't use it for that reason) then, don't use it. Apple will be fine either way. 

post #141 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by tronald View Post

Perhaps. Sun went hot and cold on its aggressiveness about Java, and its implementation for cell phones was actually bad enough that for the language to have value in some android-like environment, Google would have needed to make it incompatible. Given that Sun didn't care enough to really stop Google, it was a not unreasonable opening that would have gone just fine had Larry not bought it. 

As I said, Oracle has been making plenty of people rethink their use or abuse of many of Sun's technologies. Android is in a uniquely poor position to adjust if Oracle wins in its attempts at being nasty about all this. Users of mysql who have been pressured by Oracle to pay a lot more for commercial licenses can at least spend some effort and switch to postgres. Most users of Java can spend time switching away from it as they do new development. Google's environment depends on its unsanctioned (but essentially Sun accepted) quirks for compatibility with the larger ecosystem they created. That will be very difficult to unwind.

Also, I really don't know why the rest of us personalize any of this as much as some do. This is the big boys fighting each other with big guns, as they will do. I have no idea why it really matters to anyone who isn't a major investor in any one of them. And, if you don't want to use Android because it is too complicated and geeky (I don't use it for that reason) then, don't use it. Apple will be fine either way. 

It's about Google being a bunch of lying, cheating thieves while representing themselves as something else.

Above all else it's this hypocrisy which is the worst.
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 #142 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disturbia View Post

Never been a fan of Oracle or Ellison .... but at this point, I am all on their side!

On the same note, Google has messed around with a wrong guy and company. Nobody and I mean NOBODY does that! 1wink.gif

Ellison wants his $$ back and NOW!

Oracle has totally screwed the state of Oregon by charging millions of dollars for software systems and then totally botching them, so they don't even work. The worst was Oregon's health care website (called Cover Oregon), which never worked and is now worthless. The state will now have to join the federal exchange, and shut down Cover Oregon. Of course, the state itself screwed up, since it didn't have a system in place to monitor Oracle and find problems early.

 

Ellison can go to hell. I'm glad the court decision went against Google (it's the right decision), but Ellison can go jump off a bridge. Two criminal companies.

post #143 of 170

Will Google now pay for use of this code in future products or will they abandon it and reconfigure Android? If they must pay a fee for every Android device in the future and they already aren't earning money from that hardware, would it even be economical to continue the Android project at all? Perhaps Samsung and others that manufacture the phones and tablets would be the ones to kick in the license fees for future usage. 

 

Could Google fork the Chrome OS to make it work on phones and tablets as well as other computers? The head designer for the Chrome OS project has stated several times that they don't have any intention of integrating Android and Chrome OS. Maybe that is now about to change.  

post #144 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

It's about Google being a bunch of lying, cheating thieves while representing themselves as something else.

Above all else it's this hypocrisy which is the worst.

A bit OT
but what about the first BIG lie,
the source of Sun's downfall
"Oh this peecee
is just like a Sun Unix/Solaris workstation
only cheaper"
; )
post #145 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

Will Google now pay for use of this code in future products or will they abandon it and reconfigure Android? If they must pay a fee for every Android device in the future and they already aren't earning money from that hardware, would it even be economical to continue the Android project at all? Perhaps Samsung and others that manufacture the phones and tablets would be the ones to kick in the license fees for future usage. 

Could Google fork the Chrome OS to make it work on phones and tablets as well as other computers? The head designer for the Chrome OS project has stated several times that they don't have any intention of integrating Android and Chrome OS. Maybe that is now about to change.  

It's nowhere near that point yet. There's some misreading of the Appeals Court decision as Google now having to remove any offending Java code, arrange a license with Oracle or abandon Android altogether. Some, all or none of that may happen eventually. It hasn't even been determined yet that Oracle's API's were protected from being used by Google without Oracle's express OK. If that ends up in Oracle's favor then it comes down to the "cure". This is neither pro nor anti-Google. It's just the way things currently stand.

Just as I said on page one of the comments, if Google is found to have damaged Oracle by their use of Java API's then Google will be responsible for making them whole. Just as it should be under the law. But there's still a fair distance in both rulings and time between then and now. Everything will eventually be settled either by choice or court-order.
Edited by Gatorguy - 5/11/14 at 6:38am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #146 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post

Your honor must of those 7000 lines of code has been replaced, it was fair use. Even if it's not, how much is it worth when million lines of code are used in android.

Jury:fair use
Jury:not fair use, but not worth much.

Outcome: Google gets away. Google gives oracle a few pennies.

Oracle says Google has to come up with a unique API. Ever Android program has to be redesigned using an unfamiliar design language. Android market share plummets.
post #147 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post


You don't really believe the nonsense you write. The negative implications of this judgement are huge and will destroy much of the software industry. Let me give you a simple example: Take a copyrighted API to a library. This would prevent a functionally compatible library with, for example security or performance advantages from being made available for about 70 years.

This simply overturns the travesty of the District Courts ruling that attempted to overturn 20-30 of established law that APIs are can hold copyright and be infringed. It is funny to read the hacking code monkeys that only copy the designs of others.

In short, this ruling keeps the established law unchanged.
post #148 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post


Oracle says Google has to come up with a unique API. Ever Android program has to be redesigned using an unfamiliar design language. Android market share plummets.

 

If it gets to damages there'll be 2 parts—past damages will be in dollars, and there'll be some remedy to deal with going forward. I'm doubtful Oracle will ever grant a Java license to Google that doesn't require write once, run anywhere compatibility, no matter how much Google was willing to pay. Injunctions are a very common, if not the most common remedy for stopping ongoing copyright infringement. I'm not aware of any case law denying an injunction for ongoing copyright infringement. So an injunction seems the likeliest outcome should Google lose on Fair Use now that they're liable for infringement. If they lose on Fair Use which seems likely, Google might be able to get a stay until all appeals are exhausted. But I've not yet heard a single argument why the Supremes would bother hearing this case, it's totally in keeping with all their copyright precedents, and they do only hear 1 for every 10,000 cases they get petitions for.

 

Conceivably, Oracle could come up with some kind of license to give Google enough time to become Java Compliant (3 years). I doubt they'd hold off an injunction while Google switched to some other API framework which woul likely take longer. But who knows, certainly Google has to have been considering its options since the suit began and must have some kind of contingency plans figured out by now.

 

Quote:
 In short, this ruling keeps the established law unchanged.

 

Exactly so.  Declaring code is still code that's given the same protection as my novel would get. There's never been any case law that says API declaring code is uncopyrightable. But interestingly, the 3 judges here seem to be saying that the 3 core Java API's (out of the 37 accused)—the 3 you need just to write in Java—might not be copyrightable, and that they are the ones required for interoperability. By the same token, they also point out that interoperability is only relevant to when the author first created the work, and not when an infringer copies it, as Google claimed and got away with in the District Court.

post #149 of 170

And generally not a bad antagonist.  He is honest in his views and consistent with his criticism.  This is a better board with his additions.

post #150 of 170

This is a response to the quote describing Gatorguy as a better user of grammar then another newer commenter.

post #151 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post
 

I'd love to see Android be made illegal (after Google has been found guilty of stealing the OS), and nobody would be allowed to sell any more Android phones that contains infringing code, which basically means that every Android phone ever made should be forbidden.

 

They would have to rewrite their entire OS from scratch and start from the beginning again. 

 

Either that, or they should get hit with such big fines, that it would make their whole business unprofitable. The judgements in these cases are far too low. Crime really does pay it seems.

And everyone guilty of using an Android device should be executed?

post #152 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezhik View Post

And everyone guilty of using an Android device should be executed?

No, just given treatment for the trauma they have suffered that turned them into rabid Internet trolls.
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 #153 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


No, just given treatment for the trauma they have suffered that turned them into rabid Internet trolls.

Are you trying to imply that I'm an Android user?

post #154 of 170

Interesting timing - coincides with news that sounds like Samsung may finally be serious about selling Tizen phones:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303851804579555492042313988?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303851804579555492042313988.html

 

If the punishment decision on the Oracle case goes particularly bad for Google, what are the chances Samsung will tire enough of the Android legal hassles to go all-in with Tizen now that they've cracked the door open? If they do, will Android be able to maintain enough of a market share for Google to be willing to let it continue burning up money?

 

For that matter, has Tizen been constructed carefully enough to avoid all the legal hassles from Orcale, Apple, & Microsoft? (Presumably given their litigation lighting rod status on Android, Samsung would have been highly motivated to make avoiding legal trouble a prime focus of any alternate OS development?)

post #155 of 170
What did I say two years ago 1biggrin.gif. The result of the first trial made absolutely no sense (the law is the law). It was pretty clear that Oracle had a good case on this up the ladder.

Now well have to wait a while for them to make peace and Google to pay up. This will mean all android applications will need to be rebuilt and tested after Google is forced to be put back in line with their java bastard.
post #156 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by habi View Post

What did I say two years ago 1biggrin.gif. The result of the first trial made absolutely no sense (the law is the law). It was pretty clear that Oracle had a good case on this up the ladder.

Now well have to wait a while for them to make peace and Google to pay up. This will mean all android applications will need to be rebuilt and tested after Google is forced to be put back in line with their java bastard.

If the decision is in Google's favor you will decide it was unjust and if it isn't you will decide it is the best thing evarrr.

I am an Android user but if Android becomes unusable due to Google's changes (to me, no snarky comments please) or banned or whatever wet dream many people are having I'll switch to an iPhone instantly. No real sweat off my back.


Is there anyone here who isn't salivating to the point of dehydration over the possible outcome of this trial who isn't emotionally invested towards or against a company who can actually explain this clearly and concisely for a layman. Aside from this forum all others (The Verge, ars, and a few lesser sites) seem to deem this a bad decision by the appeals court. Can someone explain without vitriol or circle jerkery exactly how this is in fact not a bad decision?

Thank you in advance.

Either way, I don't really care. I like iOS 7 enough and after falling in love with my macbook I may just go all in Apple after all....and eat crow amongst my friends. Lol
post #157 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnAmazingThing View Post


If the decision is in Google's favor you will decide it was unjust and if it isn't you will decide it is the best thing evarrr.

I am an Android user but if Android becomes unusable due to Google's changes (to me, no snarky comments please) or banned or whatever wet dream many people are having I'll switch to an iPhone instantly. No real sweat off my back.


Is there anyone here who isn't salivating to the point of dehydration over the possible outcome of this trial who isn't emotionally invested towards or against a company who can actually explain this clearly and concisely for a layman. Aside from this forum all others (The Verge, ars, and a few lesser sites) seem to deem this a bad decision by the appeals court. Can someone explain without vitriol or circle jerkery exactly how this is in fact not a bad decision?

Thank you in advance.

Either way, I don't really care. I like iOS 7 enough and after falling in love with my macbook I may just go all in Apple after all....and eat crow amongst my friends. Lol


Well if the outcome had been the same as the first trial about copyrightability of software code then there absolutely would be no copyrightability at all for any source code and mean software piracy is OK. Anyone trying to say that API:s arent copyrightable because you should be able to use them for free does not know what they are talking about. Using API:s (calling API functions) is not the same thing as copying them into your own software.

 

I will bet a 1000 bucks that this will either end up in Google being forced to settle and pay for a license and past infringement (and stop using the bastardized java they use) or if they don't they will ultimately loose this trial and pay damages and take a license (and stop using the bastardized java they use). But it might take a couple of years for this to happen with appeals and all.

post #158 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnAmazingThing View Post

If the decision is in Google's favor you will decide it was unjust and if it isn't you will decide it is the best thing evarrr.

I am an Android user but if Android becomes unusable due to Google's changes (to me, no snarky comments please) or banned or whatever wet dream many people are having I'll switch to an iPhone instantly. No real sweat off my back.


Is there anyone here who isn't salivating to the point of dehydration over the possible outcome of this trial who isn't emotionally invested towards or against a company who can actually explain this clearly and concisely for a layman. Aside from this forum all others (The Verge, ars, and a few lesser sites) seem to deem this a bad decision by the appeals court. Can someone explain without vitriol or circle jerkery exactly how this is in fact not a bad decision?

Thank you in advance.

Either way, I don't really care. I like iOS 7 enough and after falling in love with my macbook I may just go all in Apple after all....and eat crow amongst my friends. Lol
Wrong. People who predicted this two years ago didn't just go "it's a bad decision" - they gave specific reasons why. And those reasons two years ago were echoed by the judges in this appeal. Anybody can make a 50:50 guess and be right some of the time. People who give detailed reasons and and are then proven right are the ones who truly understand the issues.

You want a short explanation? Stealing is bad and trying to justify stealing by claiming fair use is adding insult to jury.There's no other way to condense all the issues down into a single sentence.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #159 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnAmazingThing View Post
 
Is there anyone here who isn't salivating to the point of dehydration over the possible outcome of this trial who isn't emotionally invested towards or against a company who can actually explain this clearly and concisely for a layman. Aside from this forum all others (The Verge, ars, and a few lesser sites) seem to deem this a bad decision by the appeals court. Can someone explain without vitriol or circle jerkery exactly how this is in fact not a bad decision?

 

Many will try to convince you that this is some radical departure from copyright, when the Appeals Court really just reinstated the status quo that all original expression in an authored work is protectable, including software. Judge Alsup's decision was the radical departure, because it said that when noncopyrightable function coexists with otherwise protectable expression, the function trumps the expression and makes it noncopyrightable. The problem is that all computer code, any program, is about functionality (getting the computer to do something), and so Alsup's decision essentially says no software can be protected by copyright, upsetting decades of precedent. Which is why you'll hear people referring to Alsup's decision as "absurd" and expressing a lot of relief that now things are back to normal. The only thing different is that the Appeals Court has made it clear that except for certain narrow situations, all software is copyrightable, that there is no special exemption for APIs.

 

The key precedent for all this is the Supreme Court's decision in Feist, which says that the threshold for copyrightability is a very low one, that it only takes the merest spark of original expression for an authored work to be considered copyrightable (on the other hand, proving infringement has a much higher bar). Because of Feist, it is extremely unlikely that the Supreme Court would ever hear an appeal from Google on the copyrightability aspect of this case. The Appeals Court also reiterates that when function and expression coexist in the same code, it is possible to separate them, to protect the expression without granting copyright protection to the functionality. In other words, one can still give copyright protection to the original expression in APIs without giving copyright protection to their functionality. Anyone is free to recreate functionality (except where a function or method is patented), anyone can write software to accomplish a certain function, you just can't copy the way someone else has already done it. That's the expressive part. IOW, Google was free to write their own APIs to achieve the same functionality as the Java APIs, so long as they didn't copy Sun's way.


Edited by ruddy - 5/12/14 at 7:21am
post #160 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post

Many will try to convince you that this is some radical departure from copyright, when the Appeals Court really just reinstated the status quo that all original expression in an authored work is protectable, including software. Judge Alsup's decision was the radical departure, because it said that when noncopyrightable function coexists with otherwise protectable expression, the function trumps the expression and makes it noncopyrightable. [/COLOR]

Something obviously being missed by you and others (including me initially) is an incorrect understanding by the Appeals Court. You've mentioned this one yourself: Google admits to copying 7000 lines of declaring code verbatim. The problem? I guess no one thought to go back to the court record to see Google never said they did any such thing. Here's the statement they really submitted in the original case:

"Google denies infringing any such copyrighted material ... The copyrighted Java platform has more than 37 API packages and so does the accused Android platform. As for the 37 API packages that overlap, Google agrees that it uses the same names and declarations but contends that its line-by-line implementations are different … Google agrees that the structure, sequence and organization of the 37 accused API packages in Android is substantially the same as the structure, sequence and organization of the corresponding 37 API packages in Java... "

And here's the most important part: "With respect to the API documentation, Oracle contends Google copied the English-language comments in the registered copyrighted work and moved them over to the documentation for the 37 API packages in Android. Google agrees that there are similarities in the wording but, pointing to differences as well, denies that its documentation is a copy. Google further asserts that the similarities are largely the result of the fact that each API carries out the same functions in both systems."

Page 10 of this doc:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2010cv03561/231846/1018/0.pdf

If true then couldn't this be a issue of function only rather than expression? That would move the argument closer if not in line with the three Java API's that the Appeals Court seems to be saying are not copyright-eligible. The more I read this opinion the more I think it speaks to the specific facts from this case and not all API's. Not really certain but I'm still reading a couple more times.

In any event it appears the Appeals Court relied on an erroneous "fact" stated on page 12 of their ruling, Google admitting to literal copying. That's evident with the court stating " nothing prevented Google from writing its own declaring code, along with its own implementing code, to achieve the same result." Going by the above quotes from the first trial it would seem that's just what Google says they did...
AND IF they did (i'm not saying they factually did) I noted you have already offered your opinion on that: Google was free to write their own APIs to achieve the same functionality as the Java APIs, so long as they didn't copy Sun's way.

It's somewhat unfortunate that in some of these recent cases (Samsung/Apple, Google/Oracle, Apple/Justice Dept) those making the findings have little to no knowledge of or experience with the subject they're tasked with. Taking this to SCOTUS would hardly be giving it to more technology-oriented body either. I think they still rely on passing notes rather than using email or other electronic methods.

By the way for a contrary legal opinion on why the Appeals Court may have it wrong there's this if you're interested:
http://madisonian.net/2014/05/09/oracle-v-google-reversed-framing-matters/

and from a developer's point-of-view.
http://www.wired.com/2014/05/oracle-copyright/
and an on-going developer discussion
http://developers.slashdot.org/story/14/05/09/1646238/court-oracle-entitled-to-copyright-protection-over-some-parts-of-java
Edited by Gatorguy - 5/12/14 at 10:47am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Oracle wins key reversal in Java copyright case against Google's Android
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Oracle wins key reversal in Java copyright case against Google's Android