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 3

post #81 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.


Maybe, but neither were there accusations and certainly no litigation from Sun until the Oracle acquisition.

post #82 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post

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

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

Android is not going anywhere.

 

ART eliminates the API with the Dalvik bytecode interpreter but doesn't change the Java language API. 

 

Yes, the reverse ruling is all about copyright. Fair use will next be determined with instructions from an appropriately informed jurist.

 

Android is going somewhere alright!

post #83 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 it's "only" 3%, why'd they steal it in the first place.
post #84 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

ART eliminates the API with the Dalvik bytecode interpreter but doesn't change the Java language API. 

Yes, the reverse ruling is all about copyright. Fair use will next be determined with instructions from an appropriately informed jurist.

Android is going somewhere alright!

All this hangs in if its fair use or not. Last jury was hung and couldn't come up with a decision. If this ends up being fair us it adds more complication to the apeal rulling. APIs are copyright protected, yet can be used freely under fair use. Something had got to give.

I see APIs as chapters of book. Or an adjective. Shouldn't be copyright. The whole U.S patent and copyright system needs to be rewritten. Although these trials are annoying they do offer an opportunity to discuss these issues.
post #85 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


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


Well the original reason probably would be compatibility, although that is something that is contested at this moment in time.

post #86 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

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

They believe the APIs shouldn't be protected under copyright and if they are it should be fair use. Next trial will decide. It's a wait and see.
post #87 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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

I believe it was not the cost
but the license terms.

Giggle wanted to take some of the code off of the table
you know open like.
post #88 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post


How do you know those APIs have not been restructured or removed. Any links?

 

Because if Google rewrote those APIs, even a tiny little bit, every Android developer in the world would be squawking about it because the Java code they wrote for their apps wouldn't work anymore. 

post #89 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank pope View Post


I believe it was not the cost
but the license terms.

Giggle wanted to take some of the code off of the table
you know open like.

Giggle. :lol: What a great typo….if it really was one! Not going to assume since the keys are next to each other.

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #90 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Not correct. Google didn't take the license that Sun offered. They can also appeal to the Supremes, doesn't mean the Supremes will take the case.

 

You're just playing with words. Sun refused to give Google the license that Google wanted. Sun refused anyone a license who wouldn't commit to Java compatibility. That was always their dealbreaker. Google wanted to destroy Sun's write-once, run-anywhere strategy.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post
 

Maybe, but neither were there accusations and certainly no litigation from Sun until the Oracle acquisition.

 

That's true, being heavily steeped in open-source culture, Sun didn't want to use its IP offensively or aggressively. However copyrights aren't like trademarks. You can choose not to defend a copyright, it'll still be 100% valid if you ever change your mind, or want to deal with someone else differently. 


Edited by ruddy - 5/9/14 at 4:53pm
post #91 of 170
Remember google, don't be evil.
post #92 of 170
Cat's out of the bag .. sadly.. This may impact some of what El'Goog does in the states.. but it's firmly used outside in the east in many countries by many 3rd parties that really don't care if Google continues..

They have the OS / java base code now.. Only positive out of this is future devices will be 64bit and thats not going to happen with current Android.. Which is one of the reasons Google is leaning more toward Chrome OS.. thats based on Linux, which can be 64bit on ARM easy.
post #93 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


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

And right there is the whole of Google's modus operandi. They just refuse to pay for a license to others' work - in most jurisdictions & most fields of endeavour, that is recognised & dealt with as stealing. The technology/software/computer-generated code industry should not treat this differently.

Your comment defines the nature of Google's contribution to the industry, & they will be remembered as such (by those few of us who care about this stuff). The sad thing is that they really could have much to contribute, but their corporate culture obviously is morally bankrupt.

post #94 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post

Because if Google rewrote those APIs, even a tiny little bit, every Android developer in the world would be squawking about it because the Java code they wrote for their apps wouldn't work anymore. 

To run on their "java" phones, right ; )

Those must be hard to get!
post #95 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post


All this hangs in if its fair use or not. Last jury was hung and couldn't come up with a decision. If this ends up being fair us it adds more complication to the apeal rulling. APIs are copyright protected, yet can be used freely under fair use. Something had got to give.

I see APIs as chapters of book. Or an adjective. Shouldn't be copyright. The whole U.S patent and copyright system needs to be rewritten. Although these trials are annoying they do offer an opportunity to discuss these issues.

 

Google's "fair use" argument hinged upon the idea that it was fair for Google to use Java's API in order to maintain compatibility. But Google didn't maintain compatibility. It did to Java what Microsoft did to Java in the 1990s: attempt to appropriate the value from Sun's platform while breaking compatibility in order to destroy the value of anything but its own proprietary Java variant.

 

Google didn't make an open OS. It took an existing open OS (Java Mobile), created an incompatible variant (Android) and then worked to tie Android to its own services, creating contracts with its Android partners that enforced their exclusive use of Google apps and services. That's not open, it's not openly collaborative, it's not openly competitive.

 

At this point, trying to argue that it took Sun's API in order to foster compatibility and openness is quite obviously a lie. Even the court pointed this out in clear detail: Google wasn't interested in fair use, it just wanted to steal what Sun had created and take all the value for itself, leaving Sun screwed.

 

You'd have to be earning all your money from Google to have the opinion that there is anything fair about Google's use of Java Mobile.  

post #96 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post

You're just playing spin doctor. Sun refused to give Google the license that Google wanted. Sun refused anyone a license who wouldn't commit to Java compatibility. That was always the dealbreaker. Google wanted to destroy Sun's write-once, run-anywhere strategy.

Sun wanted to protect their business - Google wanted to protect their's. So Google doesn't have the moral high ground, they're both trying to do the same thing. The difference is, Google hadn't done any work to deserve a say - but they wanted Java and they wanted it their way. They also wanted to use Apple's design language. Neither one if them said ok, but they did it anyway. I don't personally see how Google is in the right.

I wish Google didn't have to pay for the use of many other people's work, I wish they could just make lots of money for intriguing new ideas and medical devices and autonomous cars.. But it's not right. Just like Google likes to make money from people for the wrk they're doing, Sun and Apple want to make money for the work they've done - R&D, ingenuity, a reward for taking a risk. In the end, this is protection for you and me - because you can create an awesome app or website and not have to worry about some huge corporation like Google seeing it and recreating it, promoting it in their search engine, and eclipsing your idea into oblivion.

I personally think write once, run anywhere seems like a positive - why is Sun in the wrong for that? Not sure why it is that Google says they're open, while angling for a proprietary approach, all the while gaining open source loyalists. Lots of people dislike Apple for charging more than others, but at least the money you spend goes to the creatives, not the opportunists.
Edited by daveinpublic - 5/9/14 at 5:11pm
post #97 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveinpublic View Post

Sun wanted to protect their business - Google wanted to protect their's. So Google doesn't have the moral high ground, they're both trying to do the same thing. The difference is, Google hadn't done any work to deserve a say - but they wanted Java and they wanted it their way. They also wanted to use Apple's design language. Neither one if them said ok, but they did it anyway. I don't personally see how Google is in the right.

I wish Google didn't have to pay for the use of many other people's work, I wish they could just make lots of money for intriguing new ideas and medical devices and autonomous cars.. But it's not right. Just like Google likes to make money from people for the wrk they're doing, Sun and Apple want to make money for the work they've done - R&D, ingenuity, a reward for taking a risk. In the end, this is protection for you and me - because you can create an awesome app or website and not have to worry about some huge corporation like Google seeing it and recreating it, promoting it in their search engine, and eclipsing your idea into oblivion, which is what they've been doing.

Apples design language?
post #98 of 170
We will see where this will go, the specific appeal court us known to be very conservative and always decide in favor of protection. We have a few more years before this is settled. Its a wait and see.

Meanwhile the two great mobile platforms will continue to improve and battle it out. A few years from now we might have Google Android. Amazon android. Microsoft android. And x Chinese company android. The beast of android has been release. Can't place it back in a box.

To think oracle has more leverage with this rulling over android than apple has had with its failed patent suits. Shocking.
post #99 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.

 

You are completely mistaken and completely in denial. Here's what the appellate judges ruled:

 

Quoted from today's ruling:
 Because we conclude that the declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization of the API packages are entitled to copyright protection, we reverse the district court’s copyrightability determination with instructions to reinstate the jury’s infringement finding as to the 37 Java packages. Because the jury deadlocked on fair use, we remand for further consideration of Google’s fair use defense in light of this decision. 
post #100 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post

You are completely mistaken and completely in denial. Here's what the appellate judges ruled:
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..

What the Appeals Court actually did was rule that Oracle can pursue copyright damage claims for protectable expression. In essence the Court today didn't actually rule that the Java APIs Oracle is claiming are in fact protected from Google's use but instead said that they could be copyrighted, making Judge Alsup incorrect on his view they were not copyrightable expression. A new jury and new trial has to determine if they were factually protected from being used by Google. That is unless one of several other possibilities happens between here and there.
Edited by Gatorguy - 5/9/14 at 7:00pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #101 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post

If its fair use its not stealing.
Do you even understand what "fair use" is? If so, please explain how it applied.
post #102 of 170
You guys google fanboys need to shut up your mouth. So you guys google fanboys do not belong in the appleinsider to complaints about oracle
post #103 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.. What the Appeals Court actually did was rule that Oracle can pursue copyright damage claims for protectable expression and not that the way Google used it in Android was protected by Oracle.

You sure do hold a lot of conviction to your obtuse opinions.  Its always interesting seeing what you'll say next, as you interpret the links you cite or the what you quote.   Anyways, carry on full speed ahead as always, just keep running into that brick wall. One day you'll figure it out. 

iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
post #104 of 170
post #105 of 170
I think it would be great if part of the settlement was that Google had to can Android altogether and come out with a totally re-written version of Android which would push them back at least 3 to 4 years.
post #106 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. 

 

They say so right here: 

Quote:

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization of the 37 Java API packages at issue are entitled to copyright protection.  

 

But stay in denial about it all you like. 

Quote:
 What the Appeals Court actually did was rule that Oracle can pursue copyright damage claims for protectable expression.

 

Cite where they say that then, don't just prechew your baloney and expect everyone to swallow it.

post #107 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post


You mean vast majority if experts and programmers who agree with Google that APIs shouldn't be copyright protected are getting paid by Google. A quick search or twitter search will show you the vast majority believe this rulling is horrible for the software community. Your a rabid apple shill so anything that harms apple competitors seems right to you.

Another point ded. Android is open. ASOP is alive and thriving. Reach harder.

 

You're an outright liar. The vast majority? You mean the vast majority of the most vocal  people who don't represent the entire community of developers. I code. I think this is a great ruling. And all my fellow developers who I asked about this also think it's a great ruling. So, sorry, not going to believe anymore of your BS.

 

AOSP is dead. Google Play Services is now Android and AOSP is frozen in an older version that's becoming more and more useless by the day. Nobody will use AOSP in the future since it's going to represent an outdated (and not updated) version of Android when it USED to be open.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #108 of 170

With all the toilet flushing going on, I hate to see AI's water bill.

 

Same old turds that were claiming some time ago that Oracle would NEVER win on appeal. Now they need to regroup and find a way to spin this decision.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #109 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post

If its fair use its not stealing.

It's for commercial purposes, it's not fair use.

Why do you think Google fought so hard to avoid it?
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 #110 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

The email will bounce, it's linked to my deleted Google account.
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 #111 of 170
Oh, God.

Gatorguy is here seeking his daily dose of attention and a justification for his existence AGAIN.

If you had a wife and family, would YOU spend this much time arguing a company's point of view on a competitor's fan website?

What a complete and utter waste of time.

His son's fishing must have got cancelled. Again.
post #112 of 170
post #113 of 170
Quote:
Remeber google, don't be evil.

Ah... That explains it.
post #114 of 170

Perhaps Larry Ellison can complete the task that his friend Steven Jobs didn't have time to finish...

Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #115 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruddy View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post


If its fair use its not stealing.

 

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


Be careful what you wish for .. this will **** more than android, much much more and if you think where this road leads to I'm not sure you really want to go there.

post #116 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post
 


Be careful what you wish for .. this will **** more than android, much much more and if you think where this road leads to I'm not sure you really want to go there.

Give an example, please of what this will ****.  You mean the cheap ass people that want everything that others have created for free, yeah I hope it does.  Being an artist, when others steal you stuff, its a sign of them being uncreative, not original and insincere.  

iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
post #117 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post

You mean vast majority if experts and programmers who agree with Google that APIs shouldn't be copyright protected are getting paid by Google. A quick search or twitter search will show you the vast majority believe this rulling is horrible for the software community. Your a rabid apple shill so anything that harms apple competitors seems right to you.

Another point ded. Android is open. ASOP is alive and thriving. Reach harder.

Java - GNU GPL licence

Dalvik - Apache licence

Google will have to release Dalvik as GNU along with all their proprietary code, Samsung's Touchwiz all the other proprietary skins, all will become truly open, free for anyone to use.

Won't that be a fantastic opportunity for developers?

Finally Android will become totally free, all thanks to Oracle.

You should be grateful.
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 #118 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post

You mean vast majority if experts and programmers who agree with Google that APIs shouldn't be copyright protected are getting paid by Google. A quick search or twitter search will show you the vast majority believe this rulling is horrible for the software community. Your a rabid apple shill so anything that harms apple competitors seems right to you.

Another point ded. Android is open. ASOP is alive and thriving. Reach harder.

Java - GNU GPL licence

Dalvik - Apache licence

Google will have to release Dalvik as GNU along with all their proprietary code, Samsung's Touchwiz all the other proprietary skins, all will become truly open, free for anyone to use.

Won't that be a fantastic opportunity for developers?

Finally Android will become totally free, all thanks to Oracle.

You should be grateful.


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.

post #119 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkndrublic View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post
 


Be careful what you wish for .. this will **** more than android, much much more and if you think where this road leads to I'm not sure you really want to go there.

Give an example, please of what this will ****.  You mean the cheap ass people that want everything that others have created for free, yeah I hope it does.  Being an artist, when others steal you stuff, its a sign of them being uncreative, not original and insincere.  


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.

post #120 of 170

Well, I might "accept" that, but then you would have to except my acceptation.

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