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 2

post #41 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post

What did Google sleal.

 

Sun's R&D resources in developing Java.  Did you read this part of the article?

 

In August, Oracle's chief executive Larry Ellison stated, "When you write a program for the Android phone, you use the Oracle Java tools for everything. And then at the very end, you press a button and say, 'Convert this to Android format.'" 

 

So basically they piggybacked the Android development environment on the work Sun/Oracle did.

 

To me, it's the technological equivalent of Ford setting up an assembly line for cars, then having someone come along and add an extra station at the end of the line which swaps the Ford logos for KIA logos and then delivering the cars to KIA dealerships.

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #42 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
 

 

At least 47 lines of code.

Actually it was more than 7000 lines of API declaring code that was copied verbatim. 

post #43 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post
 

Actually it was more than 7000 lines of API declaring code that was copied verbatim. 

 

Ooh! Ouch! That's going to leave a mark!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #44 of 170

The first two paragraphs of the Preface to Google's Code of Conduct says (bolded italic script is my emphasis):

--------

“Don’t be evil.” Googlers generally apply those words to how we serve our users. But “Don’t be evil” is much more than that. Yes, it’s about providing our users unbiased access to information, focusing on their needs and giving them the best products and services that we can. But it’s also about doing the right thing more generally – following the law, acting honorably and treating each other with respect.

 

The Google Code of Conduct is one of the ways we put “Don’t be evil” into practice. It’s built around the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct. We set the bar that high for practical as well as aspirational reasons: Our commitment to the highest standards helps us hire great people, build great products, and attract loyal users. Trust and mutual respect among employees and users are the foundation of our success, and they are something we need to earn every day.

-------

Since corporate culture is driven from the top, I guess someone didn't even get past the first few lines of their own mantra.

post #45 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

At least 47 lines of code.

If its fair use its not stealing.
post #46 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumergo View Post

The first two paragraphs of the Preface to Google's Code of Conduct says (bolded italic script is my emphasis):
“Don’t be evil.” Googlers generally apply those words to how we serve our users. But “Don’t be evil” is much more than that. Yes, it’s about providing our users unbiased access to information, focusing on their needs and giving them the best products and services that we can. But it’s also about doing the right thing more generally – following the law, acting honorably and treating each other with respect.

The Google Code of Conduct is one of the ways we put “Don’t be evil” into practice. It’s built around the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct. We set the bar that high for practical as well as aspirational reasons: Our commitment to the highest standards helps us hire great people, build great products, and attract loyal users. Trust and mutual respect among employees and users are the foundation of our success, and they are something we need to earn every day.
Since corporate culture is driven from the top, I guess someone didn't even get past the first few lines of their own mantra.

Certainly not Andy "making enemies along the way" Rubin. The Father of Android.

"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 #47 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post

Actually it was more than 7000 lines of API declaring code that was copied verbatim. 

I'll wait for the trial. If its fair use. It's not stealing.
post #48 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post


If its fair use its not stealing.

 

If it's not fair use, then Android is fucked.

post #49 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

Good thing the appeals court reversed the lower court's judgement that short phrases are not copyrightable.  That would have spelled the end of my budding career writing haiku.

So the legal skirmish will now be over fair use.  Google uses Oracle's copyrighted material to build a business with annual combined smart phone, mobile app and ad sales of X billions.  It wan't used for instruction, scholarship, criticism, comment, artistic expression, reporting or anything else  except profit. Let's see who can argue fair use out of that.

And beyond that, fair use is to promote interoperability.
Last time I checked no android phone interacts with oracle's java.
The only interoperable part is the programmer who takes his knowledge of Java
and uses it on android's "Java".
Nothing new to learn 'cause it's all "borrowed" from Java,
works like java,
but interoperates only with android.

If you want your own java, this is not how you should do it.
post #50 of 170
While this may turn out costing Google, it has got to send a chill down the backs of Samsung's management... Sales success, in both these companies, mean bigger fines and costs piling up down the road.
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #51 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post

Actually it was more than 7000 lines of API declaring code that was copied verbatim. 
Yet the Appeals Court did not find that code was protected. That's to be determined in a new trial over the issue of fair use.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #52 of 170
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post
If its fair use its not stealing.

 

LIKE CLOCKWORK. What’d I tell you, @hill60? (sorry for sending you an e-mail because of the @ sign) 

 

It’s not fair use. Period.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #53 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post
 

 

If it's not fair use, then Android is fucked.

LOL. There's a reason why the original ruling has been reversed, Peterbob.

 

He must be worried about losing his shill money….:lol:

You talkin' to me?
Reply
You talkin' to me?
Reply
post #54 of 170
So, they stole the back end from Larry Ellison and the front end from Steve Jobs. They did this because they needed to make sure they had guaranteed revenue stream from mobile advertising (and careful analysis and sale of customer data). Because they were skating where the puck had been in 2007, they needed to take some short cuts. I do not think it unreasonable that they should be made to pay for the short cuts they took.
However, getting a payoff from the courts is going to be a difficult proposition.
post #55 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by morrolan View Post

Gatorguy has better grammar.

True, my bad.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #56 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post


I'll wait for the trial. If its fair use. It's not stealing.

 

If it's fair use, then it's a loophole in the system that Google knowingly exploited.  Because clearly Sun/Oracle didn't give them permission to do what they did.

 

Look, I came from the same technology background as many of the people at Google did: hacking Linux systems in my basement, trying to make it look like other OSes, cloning existing commercial applications, etc.  But not once did I think that it would be right to commercially release my work.  It was for fun and learning purposes only, and I eventually grew up/out of it.

 

The fact that some people at Google did just that: cloned Java and then licensed it commercially to others, shows that they never really grew out of that mentality.  In fact, it seems like they went to great lengths to find ways to do it using grey/fuzzy areas of the law.  Which is even worse than simply being naive.  Just because it isn't against the law doesn't make it right.

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #57 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post

Actually it was more than 7000 lines of API declaring code that was copied verbatim. 

Your honor, it's coincidence those 7000 lines look the same, honestly!
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #58 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

LOL. There's a reason why the original ruling has been reversed, Peterbob.

He must be worried about losing his shill money….lol.gif

This reverse rulling has everything to do with copyright of APIs not fair use.

There will be a new trial all about fair use.

Even if oracle does win, monetary value has to be determine. And how much of that java code remains in android must be seen as well.

Dalvik is being replaced by ART in the next version of android.

Android is not going anywhere.
post #59 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


Your honor, it's coincidence those 7000 lines look the same, honestly!

 

We had 50,000 monkeys typing on computers and this was the completely coincidental result!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #60 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Your honor, it's coincidence those 7000 lines look the same, honestly!

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.
post #61 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post

This reverse rulling has everything to do with copyright of APIs not fair use.

There will be a new trial all about fair use.

Even if oracle does win, monetary value has to be determine. And how much of that java code remains in android must be seen as well.

Dalvik is being replaced by ART in the next version of android.

Android is not going anywhere.

 

Oh I have no doubt that they'll exploit the fuzziness of the copyright laws covering SDKs as much as they can.

 

And now that they've had time to rework the internals of Android, they'll be sure to proclaim high & low that it's (now) not similar at all to Java.  All of that doesn't change the fact that, had they not cloned Java in the first place to get it to market quicker and with far less R&D costs, Android would not be where it is today.

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #62 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Yet the Appeals Court did not find that code was protected. That's to be determined in a new trial over the issue of fair use.

 

You are mistaken. The appeals court did reverse Alsup's ruling and find that the declaring code of what most people are calling "the APIs" (more specifically the structure, sequence, and organization of the 37 Java API packages), is copyrightable. There are and have been 4 questions for the courts. Each is kind of dependent on the answer that comes before it, except Alsup set the trial up so that #2 was answered before #1.

 

1. Is the API declaring code copyrightable?

Alsup said no, the Appeals Court now says Yes.

 

2. Did Google infringe the API declaring code? 

The original trial jury unanimously said yes, Google infringed. 

 

3. Was Google's infringement a Fair Use exception?

The original jury hung on this question (it must be unanimous), so this question is now going to a new jury (remanded back to Alsup).

 

4. What are the damages?

The original jury didn't get to this question. A new jury will only get to this question if they first decide the use wasn't a fair one.


Edited by ruddy - 5/9/14 at 3:28pm
post #63 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.


GOOGLE -'Your Honor, we are SHOCKED, SHOCKED that copying has been going on here!'

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #64 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post

You are mistaken. The appeals court did reverse Alsup's ruling and find that the declaring code of what most people are calling "the APIs" (more specifically the structure, sequence, and organization of the 37 Java API packages), is copyrightable.

AFAIK I'm not at all mistaken. That's exactly the reason the case was remanded, to determine if the claimed code was actually protected code. Being copyright-eligible is not the same thing at all and answers only a part of the question. Before it even gets to that tho expect a Google request for an En Banc hearing which also isn't out of the question.
Edited by Gatorguy - 5/9/14 at 3:32pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #65 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chandra69 View Post
 

Larry suing Larry.

 

Good one...

 

Page is toast.  Go Ellison.  LOL

post #66 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post
 

 

If it's not fair use, then Android is fucked.


How's that? Because of 3% of the total code, I don't think so. And it will in all likelihood be ruled fair use. And let's not forget it only concerns API packages, which BTW are pretty much necessary to assure compatibility.


Edited by Chipsy - 5/9/14 at 3:37pm
post #67 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post


Your honor must of those 7000 lines of code has been replaced, 

 

Not one of them has been replaced, and not one of them can be replaced without rewriting Android from scratch to replace those 37 Java API packages. 

 

Quote:
 it was fair use. Even if it's not, how much is it worth when million lines of code are used in android.

 

Google can afford to pay the couple billion for past damages that Oracle wants. However, Google can't can't afford the loss of face and credibility if Oracle gets the injunction they want, and all Android development at Google and among Android developers comes screeching to a halt. 

 

I believe Google's case for fair use is quite weak.

post #68 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
 

Origins of Android in Sun's Java Mobile

Google acquired Andy Rubin's Android startup in 2005, at a time when the small company was working on a Java Mobile device as a sequel to Danger, a similar Java Mobile product that also licensed its use of Java software from Sun.
 
Andy Rubin


 

 

What a convoluted graphic! Appropriate, I suppose...

 

I still have a General Magic based Sony Magic Link PDA with all the accessories. I think it came out in 1994, but by 1996 it was already a failed product--Good Guys was giving them away with the purchase of Sony VAIO desktop computers. I bought the computer without even knowing about the give away, and as I was checking out, the sales guy says, "here, you get all of this with your purchase for free." It actually did a fair amount of stuff for its time. I kept it all these years as sort of a curiosity. It's fun to bring it out every once in a while as a conversation piece.

 

Anyway, so this is where Andy Rubin came from? Interesting.

"Inspirational phrase here." - Person you never heard of here.

Reply

"Inspirational phrase here." - Person you never heard of here.

Reply
post #69 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundaboutNow View Post

What a convoluted graphic! Appropriate, I suppose...

I still have a General Magic based Sony Magic Link PDA with all the accessories. I think it came out in 1994, but by 1996 it was already a failed product--Good Guys was giving them away with the purchase of Sony VAIO desktop computers. I bought the computer without even knowing about the give away, and as I was checking out, the sales guy says, "here, you get all of this with your purchase for free." It actually did a fair amount of stuff for its time. I kept it all these years as sort of a curiosity. It's fun to bring it out every once in a while as a conversation piece.

Anyway, so this is where Andy Rubin came from? Interesting.

The graphic leaves out that he was a robotics engineer with Carl Zeiss before going to Apple.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #70 of 170

Go Oracle!

post #71 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post
 

 

If it's fair use, then it's a loophole in the system that Google knowingly exploited.  Because clearly Sun/Oracle didn't give them permission to do what they did.

 

Look, I came from the same technology background as many of the people at Google did: hacking Linux systems in my basement, trying to make it look like other OSes, cloning existing commercial applications, etc.  But not once did I think that it would be right to commercially release my work.  It was for fun and learning purposes only, and I eventually grew up/out of it.

 

The fact that some people at Google did just that: cloned Java and then licensed it commercially to others, shows that they never really grew out of that mentality.  In fact, it seems like they went to great lengths to find ways to do it using grey/fuzzy areas of the law.  Which is even worse than simply being naive.  Just because it isn't against the law doesn't make it right.


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.

post #72 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


AFAIK I'm not at all mistaken. That's exactly the reason the case was remanded, to determine if the claimed code was actually protected code. Being copyright-eligible is not the same thing at all and answers only a part of the question. Before it even gets to that tho expect a Google request for an En Banc hearing which also isn't out of the question.

 

Suit yourself. Having followed this case from the beginning I'm not at all surprised at the levels of denial people indulge in. Google can request an en banc hearing, doesn't mean they'll get one, and certainly doesn't mean it would go their way. Especially when three of the judges in that banc have already ruled unanimously on the question. Google can also appeal to the Supremes, doesn't mean the Supremes will take the case either.

post #73 of 170
Go Oracle too. I am going to love it and thumbs up
post #74 of 170
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.
I wouldn't go so far as to say Sun was happy as a clam. I recall reading the they weren't particularly pleased with Google deciding against a partnership. Still they did send congrats on Androids release and wished them the best.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #75 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post

Suit yourself. Having followed this case from the beginning ...

You're hardly the only one who has followed it "from the beginning". 1hmm.gif Its importance extends well beyond Google and Oracle and so has attracted a lot of followers.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #76 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post
 


How's that? Because of 3% of the total code, I don't think so. And it will in all likelihood be ruled fair use. And let's not forget it only concerns API packages, which BTW are pretty much necessary to assure compatibility.

 

Arguments for fair use are more persuasive than mere assertions and one's feelings. Compatibility with what? As the Appeals Court noted, Android is not interoperable with Java, and Google deliberately made them incompatible

post #77 of 170
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 that were true, why didn't Sun ever grant Google a license? They negotiated and negotiated, and Sun refused to give Google a license.

post #78 of 170
Goooooood! Now lets see that blatantly copied android get screwed by this !
post #79 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post

Not one of them has been replaced, and not one of them can be replaced without rewriting Android from scratch to replace those 37 Java API packages. 


Google can afford to pay the couple billion for past damages that Oracle wants. However, Google can't can't afford the loss of face and credibility if Oracle gets the injunction they want, and all Android development at Google and among Android developers comes screeching to a halt. 

I believe Google's case for fair use is quite weak.

How do you know those APIs have not been restructured or removed. Any links?
post #80 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post

If that were true, why didn't Sun ever grant Google a license? They negotiated and negotiated, and Sun refused to give Google a license.

Not correct. Google didn't take the license that Sun offered. In hindsight probably pound foolish since it would have been only $100M.
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