The damage was the destruction of the JavaME business for Oracle/Sun. Folks that claim Android isn't Java is simply trying to delude you. It's Java...sure dalvik is different from j2me but no java dev is going to claim they aren't coding in Java when they code for Android.
That's the primary draw of the platform...it's java without the suckage of j2me. Android killed off linux phones and largely is now ripping the hell out of the base of j2me phones (symbian and blackberry).
Arguably, it is a state of affairs Sun never should have let happen but it's also not "do no evil".
Actually yes, it is Java. But here's the kicker. You can compile Java without paying Oracle (legally), you can program for it, and even make a java decoder without breaking any patents. The difference is on the mobile front. The compiler was patented. Java code itself isn't the issue. What oracle's trying to do is say that Google is using the mobile compiler, which is ironic because Oracle was one of the biggest voices pushing for Sun to opensource the rest of Java (a good chunk of it already is), up until they bought it.
What killed linux phones is linux. I like linux, and even I don't want a linuxOS phone. And blackberry and symbian are falling behind because they haven't changed with the market. They're still largely corporate based OS systems in a world where smartphones are about CONSUMERS not the corporate world. iOS (and to a lesser extent android) are consumer OS platforms that can operate within a corporate world. Blackberry is dying because of that reason, not because of the coding language.
And apple gets sued every other month for stealing IP (heck, the names iphone, ipad, etc were taken from other companies before they gave their consent). They get sued ALL THE TIME from companies claiming patent infringement. And it's not just from whack jobs either. They have a huge case pending against them from nokia over hardware patents.
First, you make it sound as if Apple, alone, is transgressing patents....
Quote:
Do a search sometime (on whatever engine you use) for the number of patent lawsuits brought against apple that they've lost. It's been more than a few. The problem is with software that our patent system is so screwed up that it's IMPOSSIBLE to make something without being sued for it. This isn't protecting IP, it's people trying to get rich. I used to give apple the benefit of a doubt with the crap thrown at them because it gets thrown at anyone who makes it big, but then they started using their own bullshit patents to sue others instead of marketing against them directly.
then you fail to acknowledge that they are using their patents defensively.
A more honest representation would have said that Nokia sued Apple over 24 patent violations and Apple responded by countersuing Nokia over 13 patent violations.
Actually yes, it is Java. But here's the kicker. You can compile Java without paying Oracle (legally), you can program for it, and even make a java decoder without breaking any patents. The difference is on the mobile front. The compiler was patented. Java code itself isn't the issue. What oracle's trying to do is say that Google is using the mobile compiler, which is ironic because Oracle was one of the biggest voices pushing for Sun to opensource the rest of Java (a good chunk of it already is), up until they bought it.
Android implemented parts of the Java SE class library...using code taken from Harmony. It's pretty danged hard to write Java without that stuff. And I guess that's where the patents in question are. MS and Sun had their kerfulluffle and MS developed a Java like language but their own class library in .net for C#. Google took a short cut. A HUGE short cut.
What Sun patents you actually get by passing the TCK is an interesting question. What is certain you only get grants if you pass the certification which Google never tried and Harmony never did. The GPL'd patent grants are only available if you use the GPL'd code. Which Google doesn't.
On the topic of Dalvik itself...there's a raftload of VM patents that Sun and MS cross-licensed during the j++ debacle. No java patent grants and Google might need to cross license these from Oracle...and maybe MS.
Oddly, Google probably would have been better off going with C# over Java...except for the mass stoning from the FOSS brigades for using any MS tech ever. I'd certainly rather face Ballmer than Ellison but I guess they figured Sun for a wimp...which was true at the time.
What escapes me is why the hell didn't they just BUY Sun.
Quote:
What killed linux phones is linux. I like linux, and even I don't want a linuxOS phone. And blackberry and symbian are falling behind because they haven't changed with the market. They're still largely corporate based OS systems in a world where smartphones are about CONSUMERS not the corporate world. iOS (and to a lesser extent android) are consumer OS platforms that can operate within a corporate world. Blackberry is dying because of that reason, not because of the coding language.
Given that Android's kernel is linux you could call it Android/Linux if Google behaved like the FSF or actually wanted folks to care the kernel is linux. That would be no on both counts but the fact is Google killed the various linux based smartphones by providing both a UI and SDK that didn't suck. Oracle is claiming that the non-suckage of the SDK is because they stole Java IP by not paying for a Java-ME license and trying to do an end run by using the Harmony code.
Blackberry is on the ropes because they pulled a Palm and got too complacent. Dying is overstated but they sure do have their work cut out for them.
In reference to I believe one of the arguments Google was making was that some of the files were only used on internal test devices and were not distributed to external parties.
You mentioned that even if the only people who Google distributed the code to were bloggers who just analyzed it for copyright issues that Google was guilty. I agree, but in this scenario what financial damage did this do to Oracle and what did Google gain from the infringement? This just looks like a little nit picky error that lawyers are going to make a big deal about. Little mistakes like this happen all the time. To me this just makes Oracle look like a patent troll.
Do you really believe Google doesn't profit from Android and gives it away free because that is what the good companies do? Oracle potentially lost licensing fees from every Android manufacturer.
Do you really believe Google doesn't profit from Android and gives it away free because that is what the good companies do? Oracle potentially lost licensing fees from every Android manufacturer.
I never said google doesn't profit from android. I have said google didn't profit much if at all from the code described in the article. I really like your signature, Douglas Adams was great.
Just had to comment on the end of the article regarding the iPhone clone garbage. Take a good look at the Google phones and you'll see they don't *look* anything like the iPhone. The iPhone is just a application launcher on its primary screens; boring and bland. Google Android makes the iPhone look like the iPhone is to the Palm Treo; yesterday's technology. There's no comparison!
And to the article itself, a developer that already pulled all this apart finds virtually none of the accused code is actually found in the end shipping product. Sorry for the waste of bytes on this article...
IMO and many others the iPhone makes Android look like a rough draft of a mobile OS and please let us know the name of this savant developer. Hopefully we can get that developer to contact Oracle and show them how pointless their lawsuit is.
Well, those who can, do. Those who can't?!?! well they obviously fucking steal it then 'give it away'. Google are out to sell your shit and really shouldn't be trusted. Whether its scanning your emails, recording your browsing habits, capturing your access point details or just simple IP theft they really can't be trusted.
ABSOLUTELY！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
People Completely MisUnderStand that Google is Champion of Open Source Architecture！
The truth is Android is "Openly Stolen Intellectual Property".
- Stolen Multi-touch interface from Apple.
- Stolen App store from Apple.
- Stolen intellectual properties from WinMo.
- Stolen JAVA from SUN/Oracle.
- Stolen Location Service from Skyhook.
- Stolen Logo/Icon name from Atari.
And What The Most Significant " FAKE " is :
- Wide OPEN to Carriers and Manufacturers BUT Desperately CLOSED TO END-USERS, Unless Rooted！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
You TELL us ALL The READERS about THAT Android Phones' " INFAMOUS BLOATWARE " for Our Reference？？？？？？？？
What Real Open Source means:
"Open source is a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in."
Android is not Open Source because Google develop it behind closed doors and don't contribute back to the upstream Linux kernel. They "use" Open Source but they don't contribute to it which makes them leeches.
Android apps and games run inside their Java VM only and don't benefit the broader GNU/Linux ecosystem.
Google doesn't care about real Open Source licences. All they care about is harvesting as
much information from fAndroids so as to sell them more advertising. It's ultimately about how much money they can squeeze out of users.
WE ( At Least REAL TECHIES unlike YOU ) ALL KNOW Android's Open Source is just a " MARKETING LABEL "！！！！！！！！！！！！.
In A NutShell, Android Open System is Counterfeited！！！！！！！！！！！！！
And Google is NOW Trying to Do The Same Thing AGAIN With Their WebM！！！！！！
Google is NOW an out of control mess. What their business reason for acquiring Sketchup, Picasa, YouTube, etc. is has not been explained nor does it make sense. This whole business of having a Chrome OS then not having a Chrome OS and taking Android from phones and scaling it up to tablets shows that the organization suffers from lack of vision and confusion.
Why I can See The DEMISE of Google's ONE of The Biggest REASON is Google searches are getting more and more irrelevant. Sure, they currently have a stranglehold on mindshare, but the quality of search results has plummeted so much over the years that there is a big opportunity for a competitor to eat their lunch. Some deep-pocketed folks have learned to game the super-secret PageRank scheme, so our access to good information is getting choked off unless we plow through the barely relevant hits leading to major corporations to get to the good stuff.
Google is poised to be where Microsoft was around 2000.
What would make a difference in all civil cases is if there were "loser pays" rules; this would discourage frivolous lawsuits.
Frivolous lawsuits are usually dismissed early in the proceedings.
Your solution would certainly add additional discouragement to frivolous suits. However, it would also discourage novel suits by all but the wealthy. This is America, and we like justice better than that.
New and novel causes of action are good for all of us. For example, many product liability lawsuits used to get thrown out as frivolous, but the law has since expanded to give us additional protections against defective and dangerous products.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Instead, try to get the existing protections enforced more often, like sanctions which can be imposed on those who bring forth frivolous cases.
Lets start by killing it very easily, don't use Google search, try any others, ...
If we all do this, Google will go under very quickly, so if you hate Google or don't trust them, then do something about it.
I have been nuts in the past using them, I will do my best to not use them again.
I hope you realize that by posting what you did, you made profits for Google. AI is a Google-sponsored site. Google is a very good customer of AI, and AI sold your stuff when you posted, because you are the product that AI sells to Google.
Google then takes you and resells you to various other companies.
So if you don't want to be AI's product, bought and sold by Google, then stay the hell away from AI. Every moment you spend here makes Google stronger and richer.
Others of us realize that without Google, there would be no AI. Some of us make it a point to click on Google ads on AI so that AI can get more and more Google Money. My suggestion to you is to click on AI's Google Ads, so that AI can get more Google Money and stay in business.
Actually yes, it is Java. But here's the kicker. You can compile Java without paying Oracle (legally), you can program for it, and even make a java decoder without breaking any patents. The difference is on the mobile front. The compiler was patented. Java code itself isn't the issue. What oracle's trying to do is say that Google is using the mobile compiler, which is ironic because Oracle was one of the biggest voices pushing for Sun to opensource the rest of Java (a good chunk of it already is), up until they bought it.
I think you'll find that Java FULL STOP is patented to hell. But as long as you abide by the terms of the license then you are granted a free license to those patents.
However, Google have re-distributed Java "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" source code (irrelevant what parts it's from) and changed the license. This is against the terms of said license. And in these cases the patents become enforceable.
THAT'S where Google are going to get their asses kicked, BOTH patent AND copyright infringement.
Why I can See The DEMISE of Google's ONE of The Biggest REASON is Google searches are getting more and more irrelevant. Sure, they currently have a stranglehold on mindshare, but the quality of search results has plummeted so much over the years that there is a big opportunity for a competitor to eat their lunch. Some deep-pocketed folks have learned to game the super-secret PageRank scheme, so our access to good information is getting choked off unless we plow through the barely relevant hits leading to major corporations to get to the good stuff.
Google is poised to be where Microsoft was around 2000.
Not that I understand wtf has happened to it but I have to agree Google is becoming very frustrating when it comes to looking things up.
Examples: When I look up a Mac application I've heard of and want to know more the first page of results are where and how to steal it, stream a copy, get the passwords or share a copy … not the web site of the creator!
Technical scientific info: It's just as likely to read screeds of totally false crap. To be honest I now go directly to wikipedia to look up most things up. Although I fear for that next with the move to allow easier editing!
Dates: I am sick of data from years ago being at the top .. is an automatic built in date relevance so hard?
Huge volume of completely untrue rubbish also being listed high up. Snopes has also become one of my hot buttons these days.
I refuse to use Bing so personally I am hoping for a really well done Google alternative!
... Yes, the re-licensing issue will be dealt with, but if you just read this article (or fosspatents) it would make it seem like Google stole this code and used it to make android what it is. They didn't. This code is NOT in android, it's in a defunct (and unused) tree of the open source project. Most of it was deleted from said project well before the article was even initially published. ...
So, what you're saying is that if you wash away the blood before the crime is reported, you aren't guilty? No, the fact remains that Google is a criminal enterprise, with a long history of criminal behavior, especially where copyrights are concerned. Their behavior is so flagrantly in violation of the law, and so widespread throughout the organization, that I think the DOJ should open a RICO investigation.
So, what you're saying is that if you wash away the blood before the crime is reported, you aren't guilty? No, the fact remains that Google is a criminal enterprise, with a long history of criminal behavior, especially where copyrights are concerned. Their behavior is so flagrantly in violation of the law, and so widespread throughout the organization, that I think the DOJ should open a RICO investigation.
Sun's IP couldn't be in better hands than Larry's this all being the case. I don't see him turning a blind eye in fact I wonder if this was behind the purchase in the first place. Maybe he and SJ planned all this and the timing ...The old 'give them enough rope ploy' ...
BTW: When did this all start, I assume the original Google was straightforward enough.
Dates: I am sick of data from years ago being at the top .. is an automatic built in date relevance so hard?
...
I refuse to use Bing so personally I am hoping for a really well done Google alternative!
The one thing I miss in bing is their advanced search doesn't allow for date ranges. Or at least I haven't found it yet. So I'm using Bing for normal searches and moving to Google when I want to find something by date.
The one thing I miss in bing is their advanced search doesn't allow for date ranges. Or at least I haven't found it yet. So I'm using Bing for normal searches and moving to Google when I want to find something by date.
Maybe it's just me but date would seem a natural built in criteria so should be at the easy section not advanced. Just tried Blekko with .. /date ... at end of search (e.g. global warming/date) ... it works well as intended. It is beta so I assume that is why so many results have weird text issues. Hopefully it will get better. Their financial model seems to be the sharing of search tags as far as I can tell. There is a good into video.
A very elemental *Google* search would resolve your confusion about "willful" infringement. But since you clearly can't be bothered, let me share some verifiable information:
1. Copyright at its core doesn't require willful infringement - it operates on strict liability. Either you did a proscribed act (in this case, at least two proscribed acts - reproducing and distributing code) or you didn't. If you did, you're liable for statutory damages at the very least, unless a "fair use" exception excuses your violation (needless to say, no court would find that fair use applied in this case).
2. In addition to the strict liability, you get hit with even higher penalties if the plaintiff can demonstrate that you "willfully" infringed on her copyright (e.g. MP3.com putting all those songs on their server "because their users had already purchased the songs" or Google scanning all those books and putting them on the web because...well they're Google and I suppose information wants to be free...to sell ads).
3. To get statutory damages, a plaintiff does not need to show that you made a dime from violating her copyright. Just that you violated at least one of her exclusive rights. If she can prove that you did in fact make profit (and if the free of charge distributed Android violates the code, again no court would find that Google did not profit from it), then she can get significantly more damages.
You may spin the facts (which remain somewhat unclear) as you see fit but you, like Velben, also seem keen on recasting intellectual property LAW to mesh with your view of the world. Doesn't work that way.
Needless to say, there is no "my bad" exception to copyright law, where by you "remove" the "pointless" copyrighted work after having violated the owner's rights and magically escape liability.
I think Google is 100% liable for having these particular files within their repository. I just don't think that these particular files were used by Google in a way which significantly damaged Oracle based on the information we have about them. These do not appear to be central to Google's development process at all, they simply existed out in a branch of their repository. From my understanding the commercial gain or loss of the infringement is central to damages. I don't think these files in particular would cost Google a significant amount in damages should Oracle include them in their lawsuit. Since the code in these files wasn't used significantly during the development process and thus wasn't included in the code that shipped I don't think it's likely they'd receive per handset damages like some have suggested. Even if they were found guilty and charged the maximum of $150,000 per infringement, 37 * 150,000 is about 5.5 million. As I've had time to think about this story, I also wonder why if these files have existed since Oracle began it's lawsuit why Oracle didn't include them. Was it because this Mueller individual was more thorough or was it because Oracle didn't think them worth mentioning? My opinions don't have anything to do with anything more than the files mentioned in the Apple Insider article and shouldn't be assumed to apply to all of the code involved in the Oracle vs Google suit.
I don't have any particularly strong feelings for or against Google. Perhaps because I'm a system admin and have been friends with people who administer software repositories I relate more with the difficulties of their job. I can imagine them out at lunch complaining to me about how some 3rd party developer's script globally replaced the licensing headers in code that was eventually uploaded into the repository. How the the developer uploaded the files in compressed format into an obscure branch of the repository and because the code wasn't used it didn't go through internal code review. How it was probably excluded from any scripts analyzing the code because it was compressed. I can imagine executives sending emails asking them to document in detail procedural minutia to relate why this wasn't caught. I can image my words to them, "That sucks." Sounds like a bad Monday at work to me.
I think Google is 100% liable for having these particular files within their repository. I just don't think that these particular files were used by Google in a way which significantly damaged Oracle based on the information we have about them. These do not appear to be central to Google's development process at all, they simply existed out in a branch of their repository. From my understanding the commercial gain or loss of the infringement is central to damages. I don't think these files in particular would cost Google a significant amount in damages should Oracle include them in their lawsuit. Since the code in these files wasn't used significantly during the development process and thus wasn't included in the code that shipped I don't think it's likely they'd receive per handset damages like some have suggested. Even if they were found guilty and charged the maximum of $150,000 per infringement, 37 * 150,000 is about 5.5 million. As I've had time to think about this story, I also wonder why if these files have existed since Oracle began it's lawsuit why Oracle didn't include them. Was it because this Mueller individual was more thorough or was it because Oracle didn't think them worth mentioning? My opinions don't have anything to do with anything more than the files mentioned in the Apple Insider article and shouldn't be assumed to apply to all of the code involved in the Oracle vs Google suit.
I don't have any particularly strong feelings for or against Google. Perhaps because I'm a system admin and have been friends with people who administer software repositories I relate more with the difficulties of their job. I can imagine them out at lunch complaining to me about how some 3rd party developer's script globally replaced the licensing headers in code that was eventually uploaded into the repository. How the the developer uploaded the files in compressed format into an obscure branch of the repository and because the code wasn't used it didn't go through internal code review. How it was probably excluded from any scripts analyzing the code because it was compressed. I can imagine executives sending emails asking them to document in detail procedural minutia to relate why this wasn't caught. I can image my words to them, "That sucks." Sounds like a bad Monday at work to me.
So how's Oracle's income stream from J2ME coming along?
Comments
The damage was the destruction of the JavaME business for Oracle/Sun. Folks that claim Android isn't Java is simply trying to delude you. It's Java...sure dalvik is different from j2me but no java dev is going to claim they aren't coding in Java when they code for Android.
That's the primary draw of the platform...it's java without the suckage of j2me. Android killed off linux phones and largely is now ripping the hell out of the base of j2me phones (symbian and blackberry).
Arguably, it is a state of affairs Sun never should have let happen but it's also not "do no evil".
Actually yes, it is Java. But here's the kicker. You can compile Java without paying Oracle (legally), you can program for it, and even make a java decoder without breaking any patents. The difference is on the mobile front. The compiler was patented. Java code itself isn't the issue. What oracle's trying to do is say that Google is using the mobile compiler, which is ironic because Oracle was one of the biggest voices pushing for Sun to opensource the rest of Java (a good chunk of it already is), up until they bought it.
What killed linux phones is linux. I like linux, and even I don't want a linuxOS phone. And blackberry and symbian are falling behind because they haven't changed with the market. They're still largely corporate based OS systems in a world where smartphones are about CONSUMERS not the corporate world. iOS (and to a lesser extent android) are consumer OS platforms that can operate within a corporate world. Blackberry is dying because of that reason, not because of the coding language.
And apple gets sued every other month for stealing IP (heck, the names iphone, ipad, etc were taken from other companies before they gave their consent). They get sued ALL THE TIME from companies claiming patent infringement. And it's not just from whack jobs either. They have a huge case pending against them from nokia over hardware patents.
First, you make it sound as if Apple, alone, is transgressing patents....
Do a search sometime (on whatever engine you use) for the number of patent lawsuits brought against apple that they've lost. It's been more than a few. The problem is with software that our patent system is so screwed up that it's IMPOSSIBLE to make something without being sued for it. This isn't protecting IP, it's people trying to get rich. I used to give apple the benefit of a doubt with the crap thrown at them because it gets thrown at anyone who makes it big, but then they started using their own bullshit patents to sue others instead of marketing against them directly.
then you fail to acknowledge that they are using their patents defensively.
A more honest representation would have said that Nokia sued Apple over 24 patent violations and Apple responded by countersuing Nokia over 13 patent violations.
Actually yes, it is Java. But here's the kicker. You can compile Java without paying Oracle (legally), you can program for it, and even make a java decoder without breaking any patents. The difference is on the mobile front. The compiler was patented. Java code itself isn't the issue. What oracle's trying to do is say that Google is using the mobile compiler, which is ironic because Oracle was one of the biggest voices pushing for Sun to opensource the rest of Java (a good chunk of it already is), up until they bought it.
Android implemented parts of the Java SE class library...using code taken from Harmony. It's pretty danged hard to write Java without that stuff. And I guess that's where the patents in question are. MS and Sun had their kerfulluffle and MS developed a Java like language but their own class library in .net for C#. Google took a short cut. A HUGE short cut.
What Sun patents you actually get by passing the TCK is an interesting question. What is certain you only get grants if you pass the certification which Google never tried and Harmony never did. The GPL'd patent grants are only available if you use the GPL'd code. Which Google doesn't.
On the topic of Dalvik itself...there's a raftload of VM patents that Sun and MS cross-licensed during the j++ debacle. No java patent grants and Google might need to cross license these from Oracle...and maybe MS.
Oddly, Google probably would have been better off going with C# over Java...except for the mass stoning from the FOSS brigades for using any MS tech ever. I'd certainly rather face Ballmer than Ellison but I guess they figured Sun for a wimp...which was true at the time.
What escapes me is why the hell didn't they just BUY Sun.
What killed linux phones is linux. I like linux, and even I don't want a linuxOS phone. And blackberry and symbian are falling behind because they haven't changed with the market. They're still largely corporate based OS systems in a world where smartphones are about CONSUMERS not the corporate world. iOS (and to a lesser extent android) are consumer OS platforms that can operate within a corporate world. Blackberry is dying because of that reason, not because of the coding language.
Given that Android's kernel is linux you could call it Android/Linux if Google behaved like the FSF or actually wanted folks to care the kernel is linux. That would be no on both counts but the fact is Google killed the various linux based smartphones by providing both a UI and SDK that didn't suck. Oracle is claiming that the non-suckage of the SDK is because they stole Java IP by not paying for a Java-ME license and trying to do an end run by using the Harmony code.
Blackberry is on the ropes because they pulled a Palm and got too complacent. Dying is overstated but they sure do have their work cut out for them.
No worries on missing the distribute part.
In reference to
You mentioned that even if the only people who Google distributed the code to were bloggers who just analyzed it for copyright issues that Google was guilty. I agree, but in this scenario what financial damage did this do to Oracle and what did Google gain from the infringement? This just looks like a little nit picky error that lawyers are going to make a big deal about. Little mistakes like this happen all the time. To me this just makes Oracle look like a patent troll.
Do you really believe Google doesn't profit from Android and gives it away free because that is what the good companies do?
Do you really believe Google doesn't profit from Android and gives it away free because that is what the good companies do?
I never said google doesn't profit from android. I have said google didn't profit much if at all from the code described in the article. I really like your signature, Douglas Adams was great.
Just had to comment on the end of the article regarding the iPhone clone garbage. Take a good look at the Google phones and you'll see they don't *look* anything like the iPhone. The iPhone is just a application launcher on its primary screens; boring and bland. Google Android makes the iPhone look like the iPhone is to the Palm Treo; yesterday's technology. There's no comparison!
And to the article itself, a developer that already pulled all this apart finds virtually none of the accused code is actually found in the end shipping product. Sorry for the waste of bytes on this article...
IMO and many others the iPhone makes Android look like a rough draft of a mobile OS and please let us know the name of this savant developer. Hopefully we can get that developer to contact Oracle and show them how pointless their lawsuit is.
Well, those who can, do. Those who can't?!?! well they obviously fucking steal it then 'give it away'. Google are out to sell your shit and really shouldn't be trusted. Whether its scanning your emails, recording your browsing habits, capturing your access point details or just simple IP theft they really can't be trusted.
ABSOLUTELY！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
People Completely MisUnderStand that Google is Champion of Open Source Architecture！
The truth is Android is "Openly Stolen Intellectual Property".
- Stolen Multi-touch interface from Apple.
- Stolen App store from Apple.
- Stolen intellectual properties from WinMo.
- Stolen JAVA from SUN/Oracle.
- Stolen Location Service from Skyhook.
- Stolen Logo/Icon name from Atari.
And What The Most Significant " FAKE " is :
- Wide OPEN to Carriers and Manufacturers BUT Desperately CLOSED TO END-USERS, Unless Rooted！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
You TELL us ALL The READERS about THAT Android Phones' " INFAMOUS BLOATWARE " for Our Reference？？？？？？？？
What Real Open Source means:
"Open source is a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in."
Android is not Open Source because Google develop it behind closed doors and don't contribute back to the upstream Linux kernel. They "use" Open Source but they don't contribute to it which makes them leeches.
Android apps and games run inside their Java VM only and don't benefit the broader GNU/Linux ecosystem.
Google doesn't care about real Open Source licences. All they care about is harvesting as
much information from fAndroids so as to sell them more advertising. It's ultimately about how much money they can squeeze out of users.
WE ( At Least REAL TECHIES unlike YOU ) ALL KNOW Android's Open Source is just a " MARKETING LABEL "！！！！！！！！！！！！.
In A NutShell, Android Open System is Counterfeited！！！！！！！！！！！！！
And Google is NOW Trying to Do The Same Thing AGAIN With Their WebM！！！！！！
Google is NOW an out of control mess. What their business reason for acquiring Sketchup, Picasa, YouTube, etc. is has not been explained nor does it make sense. This whole business of having a Chrome OS then not having a Chrome OS and taking Android from phones and scaling it up to tablets shows that the organization suffers from lack of vision and confusion.
Why I can See The DEMISE of Google's ONE of The Biggest REASON is Google searches are getting more and more irrelevant. Sure, they currently have a stranglehold on mindshare, but the quality of search results has plummeted so much over the years that there is a big opportunity for a competitor to eat their lunch. Some deep-pocketed folks have learned to game the super-secret PageRank scheme, so our access to good information is getting choked off unless we plow through the barely relevant hits leading to major corporations to get to the good stuff.
Google is poised to be where Microsoft was around 2000.
I'm ALREADY AT HOME, Idiot！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
WhatEver MUCH Ya Defend Google, In Vain！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
You Can NOT Avoid Google's " Demise " which HAS ALREADY BEGUN！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
This forum is becoming a circus, from publishing debunked propaganda about the competition to comments full of aggressive nutjobs... Pathetic.
how long before they all pull back from android
That is scheduled to happen. Right after they all pull back from windows...
T
What would make a difference in all civil cases is if there were "loser pays" rules; this would discourage frivolous lawsuits.
Frivolous lawsuits are usually dismissed early in the proceedings.
Your solution would certainly add additional discouragement to frivolous suits. However, it would also discourage novel suits by all but the wealthy. This is America, and we like justice better than that.
New and novel causes of action are good for all of us. For example, many product liability lawsuits used to get thrown out as frivolous, but the law has since expanded to give us additional protections against defective and dangerous products.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Instead, try to get the existing protections enforced more often, like sanctions which can be imposed on those who bring forth frivolous cases.
Lets start by killing it very easily, don't use Google search, try any others, ...
If we all do this, Google will go under very quickly, so if you hate Google or don't trust them, then do something about it.
I have been nuts in the past using them, I will do my best to not use them again.
I hope you realize that by posting what you did, you made profits for Google. AI is a Google-sponsored site. Google is a very good customer of AI, and AI sold your stuff when you posted, because you are the product that AI sells to Google.
Google then takes you and resells you to various other companies.
So if you don't want to be AI's product, bought and sold by Google, then stay the hell away from AI. Every moment you spend here makes Google stronger and richer.
Others of us realize that without Google, there would be no AI. Some of us make it a point to click on Google ads on AI so that AI can get more and more Google Money. My suggestion to you is to click on AI's Google Ads, so that AI can get more Google Money and stay in business.
Actually yes, it is Java. But here's the kicker. You can compile Java without paying Oracle (legally), you can program for it, and even make a java decoder without breaking any patents. The difference is on the mobile front. The compiler was patented. Java code itself isn't the issue. What oracle's trying to do is say that Google is using the mobile compiler, which is ironic because Oracle was one of the biggest voices pushing for Sun to opensource the rest of Java (a good chunk of it already is), up until they bought it.
I think you'll find that Java FULL STOP is patented to hell. But as long as you abide by the terms of the license then you are granted a free license to those patents.
However, Google have re-distributed Java "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" source code (irrelevant what parts it's from) and changed the license. This is against the terms of said license. And in these cases the patents become enforceable.
THAT'S where Google are going to get their asses kicked, BOTH patent AND copyright infringement.
The classic response from a troll.
Blame others for doing the same, just to try and hide Google's blatant steal.
I love you guys lol ! You are so funny.
You don't understand what a "troll" is.
I can tell you a "troll" isn't just someone that you disagree with!
Why I can See The DEMISE of Google's ONE of The Biggest REASON is Google searches are getting more and more irrelevant. Sure, they currently have a stranglehold on mindshare, but the quality of search results has plummeted so much over the years that there is a big opportunity for a competitor to eat their lunch. Some deep-pocketed folks have learned to game the super-secret PageRank scheme, so our access to good information is getting choked off unless we plow through the barely relevant hits leading to major corporations to get to the good stuff.
Google is poised to be where Microsoft was around 2000.
Not that I understand wtf has happened to it but I have to agree Google is becoming very frustrating when it comes to looking things up.
Examples: When I look up a Mac application I've heard of and want to know more the first page of results are where and how to steal it, stream a copy, get the passwords or share a copy … not the web site of the creator!
Technical scientific info: It's just as likely to read screeds of totally false crap. To be honest I now go directly to wikipedia to look up most things up. Although I fear for that next with the move to allow easier editing!
Dates: I am sick of data from years ago being at the top .. is an automatic built in date relevance so hard?
Huge volume of completely untrue rubbish also being listed high up. Snopes has also become one of my hot buttons these days.
I refuse to use Bing so personally I am hoping for a really well done Google alternative!
... Yes, the re-licensing issue will be dealt with, but if you just read this article (or fosspatents) it would make it seem like Google stole this code and used it to make android what it is. They didn't. This code is NOT in android, it's in a defunct (and unused) tree of the open source project. Most of it was deleted from said project well before the article was even initially published. ...
So, what you're saying is that if you wash away the blood before the crime is reported, you aren't guilty? No, the fact remains that Google is a criminal enterprise, with a long history of criminal behavior, especially where copyrights are concerned. Their behavior is so flagrantly in violation of the law, and so widespread throughout the organization, that I think the DOJ should open a RICO investigation.
So, what you're saying is that if you wash away the blood before the crime is reported, you aren't guilty? No, the fact remains that Google is a criminal enterprise, with a long history of criminal behavior, especially where copyrights are concerned. Their behavior is so flagrantly in violation of the law, and so widespread throughout the organization, that I think the DOJ should open a RICO investigation.
Sun's IP couldn't be in better hands than Larry's this all being the case. I don't see him turning a blind eye in fact I wonder if this was behind the purchase in the first place. Maybe he and SJ planned all this and the timing ...The old 'give them enough rope ploy' ...
BTW: When did this all start, I assume the original Google was straightforward enough.
Dates: I am sick of data from years ago being at the top .. is an automatic built in date relevance so hard?
...
I refuse to use Bing so personally I am hoping for a really well done Google alternative!
The one thing I miss in bing is their advanced search doesn't allow for date ranges. Or at least I haven't found it yet. So I'm using Bing for normal searches and moving to Google when I want to find something by date.
The one thing I miss in bing is their advanced search doesn't allow for date ranges. Or at least I haven't found it yet. So I'm using Bing for normal searches and moving to Google when I want to find something by date.
Maybe it's just me but date would seem a natural built in criteria so should be at the easy section not advanced. Just tried Blekko with .. /date ... at end of search (e.g. global warming/date) ... it works well as intended. It is beta so I assume that is why so many results have weird text issues. Hopefully it will get better. Their financial model seems to be the sharing of search tags as far as I can tell. There is a good into video.
A very elemental *Google* search would resolve your confusion about "willful" infringement. But since you clearly can't be bothered, let me share some verifiable information:
1. Copyright at its core doesn't require willful infringement - it operates on strict liability. Either you did a proscribed act (in this case, at least two proscribed acts - reproducing and distributing code) or you didn't. If you did, you're liable for statutory damages at the very least, unless a "fair use" exception excuses your violation (needless to say, no court would find that fair use applied in this case).
2. In addition to the strict liability, you get hit with even higher penalties if the plaintiff can demonstrate that you "willfully" infringed on her copyright (e.g. MP3.com putting all those songs on their server "because their users had already purchased the songs" or Google scanning all those books and putting them on the web because...well they're Google and I suppose information wants to be free...to sell ads).
3. To get statutory damages, a plaintiff does not need to show that you made a dime from violating her copyright. Just that you violated at least one of her exclusive rights. If she can prove that you did in fact make profit (and if the free of charge distributed Android violates the code, again no court would find that Google did not profit from it), then she can get significantly more damages.
You may spin the facts (which remain somewhat unclear) as you see fit but you, like Velben, also seem keen on recasting intellectual property LAW to mesh with your view of the world. Doesn't work that way.
Needless to say, there is no "my bad" exception to copyright law, where by you "remove" the "pointless" copyrighted work after having violated the owner's rights and magically escape liability.
I think Google is 100% liable for having these particular files within their repository. I just don't think that these particular files were used by Google in a way which significantly damaged Oracle based on the information we have about them. These do not appear to be central to Google's development process at all, they simply existed out in a branch of their repository. From my understanding the commercial gain or loss of the infringement is central to damages. I don't think these files in particular would cost Google a significant amount in damages should Oracle include them in their lawsuit. Since the code in these files wasn't used significantly during the development process and thus wasn't included in the code that shipped I don't think it's likely they'd receive per handset damages like some have suggested. Even if they were found guilty and charged the maximum of $150,000 per infringement, 37 * 150,000 is about 5.5 million. As I've had time to think about this story, I also wonder why if these files have existed since Oracle began it's lawsuit why Oracle didn't include them. Was it because this Mueller individual was more thorough or was it because Oracle didn't think them worth mentioning? My opinions don't have anything to do with anything more than the files mentioned in the Apple Insider article and shouldn't be assumed to apply to all of the code involved in the Oracle vs Google suit.
I don't have any particularly strong feelings for or against Google. Perhaps because I'm a system admin and have been friends with people who administer software repositories I relate more with the difficulties of their job. I can imagine them out at lunch complaining to me about how some 3rd party developer's script globally replaced the licensing headers in code that was eventually uploaded into the repository. How the the developer uploaded the files in compressed format into an obscure branch of the repository and because the code wasn't used it didn't go through internal code review. How it was probably excluded from any scripts analyzing the code because it was compressed. I can imagine executives sending emails asking them to document in detail procedural minutia to relate why this wasn't caught. I can image my words to them, "That sucks." Sounds like a bad Monday at work to me.
I think Google is 100% liable for having these particular files within their repository. I just don't think that these particular files were used by Google in a way which significantly damaged Oracle based on the information we have about them. These do not appear to be central to Google's development process at all, they simply existed out in a branch of their repository. From my understanding the commercial gain or loss of the infringement is central to damages. I don't think these files in particular would cost Google a significant amount in damages should Oracle include them in their lawsuit. Since the code in these files wasn't used significantly during the development process and thus wasn't included in the code that shipped I don't think it's likely they'd receive per handset damages like some have suggested. Even if they were found guilty and charged the maximum of $150,000 per infringement, 37 * 150,000 is about 5.5 million. As I've had time to think about this story, I also wonder why if these files have existed since Oracle began it's lawsuit why Oracle didn't include them. Was it because this Mueller individual was more thorough or was it because Oracle didn't think them worth mentioning? My opinions don't have anything to do with anything more than the files mentioned in the Apple Insider article and shouldn't be assumed to apply to all of the code involved in the Oracle vs Google suit.
I don't have any particularly strong feelings for or against Google. Perhaps because I'm a system admin and have been friends with people who administer software repositories I relate more with the difficulties of their job. I can imagine them out at lunch complaining to me about how some 3rd party developer's script globally replaced the licensing headers in code that was eventually uploaded into the repository. How the the developer uploaded the files in compressed format into an obscure branch of the repository and because the code wasn't used it didn't go through internal code review. How it was probably excluded from any scripts analyzing the code because it was compressed. I can imagine executives sending emails asking them to document in detail procedural minutia to relate why this wasn't caught. I can image my words to them, "That sucks." Sounds like a bad Monday at work to me.
So how's Oracle's income stream from J2ME coming along?
Pre-Android compared to post-Android?