and all is not well in Appleland either. Jobs probably went home to die. no offense meant to him.
A little harsh and probably too soon. I'm sure Tim Cook will do a fine job of running Apple (when the time comes), but no one can match Steve Jobs as CEO.
Because I can? I didn't see a rule that says "All users must post comments that appease the user anonymouse".
Seems like you're the only one here that has any issue with me speaking my mind. If you didn't like my post, then why do you bother to read and respond to it?
Well, I, at least, am curious why you even come here. You don't like Apple, you don't like any of their technology, so what's the draw? I mean, if you're a shill, you should just be honest, come clean about that and admit it. If you aren't, then you should categorically deny it. And, in the latter case, please explain the draw and fascination of AppleInsider to you, why you keep coming back to post largely derogatory and aggressive comments. What exactly is the draw for you? Venting of hate? Displeasure with Apple's success? A feeling of inferiority that this site largely invalidates your personal choices that you are trying to overcome? Simply a desire to be belligerent?
Well, I, at least, am curious why you even come here. You don't like Apple, you don't like any of their technology, so what's the draw? I mean, if you're a shill, you should just be honest, come clean about that and admit it. If you aren't, then you should categorically deny it. And, in the latter case, please explain the draw and fascination of AppleInsider to you, why you keep coming back to post largely derogatory and aggressive comments. What exactly is the draw for you? Venting of hate? Displeasure with Apple's success? A feeling of inferiority that this site largely invalidates your personal choices that you are trying to overcome? Simply a desire to be belligerent?
1. I never started that I hated Apple's success or their technology. I give them all the credit they deserve. I'm happy for their success because all it does is drive the industry as a whole towards success. And that benefits me as a consumer. I personally don't own an iPhone or a Mac because, quite simply, it's just not what I want to use. Harp on me all you want, but it's a personal choice.
2. I come here because it's good to hear/read the thoughts of from all sides. I frequent blogs dedicated to all (iOS, Android, webOS, WP7, etc) so I can keep informed. News for one side will affect how the others progress. If you just go to one site and read only what's posted there, then you're not getting a fair view of things. Every once in a while, a post will pop up here that will give me a new way of looking at something.
3. If anything, your posts are more derogatory and aggressive than my posts will ever be. Just look at the post of you're I'm responding to as proof. Apparently one cannot respond to a post of yours (even in mild jest) without being attacked, words put in their mouth, and called a shrill. All for posting opinions that differ from yours.
1. I never started that I hated Apple's success or their technology. I give them all the credit they deserve. I'm happy for their success because all it does is drive the industry as a whole towards success. And that benefits me as a consumer. I personally don't own an iPhone or a Mac because, quite simply, it's just not what I want to use. Harp on me all you want, but it's a personal choice.
2. I come here because it's good to hear/read the thoughts of from all sides. I frequent blogs dedicated to all (iOS, Android, webOS, WP7, etc) so I can keep informed. News for one side will affect how the others progress. If you just go to one site and read only what's posted there, then you're not getting a fair view of things. Every once in a while, a post will pop up here that will give me a new way of looking at something.
3. If anything, your posts are more derogatory and aggressive than my posts will ever be. Just look at the post of you're I'm responding to as proof. Apparently one cannot respond to a post of yours (even in mild jest) without being attacked, words put in their mouth, and called a shrill. All for posting opinions that differ from yours.
I like how you danced around the issue of confirming or denying that you are a shill.
BTW, it's your pattern of posting that makes me think you're a shill, not whether you agree with me or not. There are plenty of people who post here that don't agree with me and whom I don't think are shills. But you, I do think so.
Oracle is suing Google over java patents and copyright infringement...
Why is it that you and others don't seen to be able grasp the simple concept that the patent side of the case is only enforceable BECAUSE OF Google's licensing of Oracle COPYRIGHTED content be distributed under a different license.
If th copying hadn't occured then they wouldn't be able enforce the patents at all, due to licensing agreements.
I've had just over a decade of IP law experience under my belt, and I don't grasp this simple concept.
You're saying that Oracle can enforce an issued patent ONLY because Google used Oracle's content in ways at variance with a license for the copyright?
I'd say that you have NO idea what you're talking about, but perhaps that's because your message is garbled - "BECAUSE OF Google's licensing of Oracle COPYRIGHTED content be distributed under a different license."
Do you mind explaining what exactly the simple concept is?
Unless by saying:
...you're making the stunningly obvious point that if Google had used the IP (patent or copyright) strictly according to Oracle's license terms for use of that IP, then Oracle wouldn't have had any grounds to sue. Because that WOULD be...well STUNNINGLY OBVIOUS!
I think he's confused over the implicit patent grant in GPL 2. In theory Google would be covered under the implicit grant for GPL'd code from java. However, this is one case where the implicit patent grant probably can't be assumed as the intent of the IP holder given that field of use restrictions for TCK patent grants.
Typically, the theory has been that if you release something under the GPL license you also mean to allow downstream folks to use any associated patents you own. Of course, that was told me by a Google IP lawyer. Implicit grants to forks of a project (like Android/Dalvik) are legally untested waters AFAIK. IANAL, etc.
But Google isn't using code from a GPL2 implementation (they used Harmony) and so doesn't have an implicit patent grant like they would if they had based off OpenJDK. They also aren't using code that passed the TCK and has a patent grant that way since Harmony never passed. In any case Android would never meet the JCP patent grant terms either because they did subset/superset Java.
Why is it that you and others don't seen to be able grasp the simple concept that the patent side of the case is only enforceable BECAUSE OF Google's licensing of Oracle COPYRIGHTED content be distributed under a different license.
If th copying hadn't occured then they wouldn't be able enforce the patents at all, due to licensing agreements.
This is patently false. Ha ha. Pun intended. Patent enforcement has absolutely nothing to do with copyrights. At all. Ever. There are relationships between the two in time and space, but they are always considered individually.
The main time-space interaction of patent and copyright is that under a public release of open source code (that doesn't state otherwise like GPL3 does) it is understood that implicit granting of patents occurs for use of that released code in unmodified form. That's it.
That is also the position of the FSF in GPL2 (copyright) licensed code. The copyright license doesn't do anything for the patents, those are just assumed by the courts to be implicitly granted because it would be screwy to give someone the code to use under a specific copyright license and then sue them for patent infringement when they are using the licensed code in the appropriate manner.
Googles Android problem is that changing the license from GPL2 to Apache even removed that set of very limited legal protections for them. Leading to Googles main argument that the courts should allow it anyway, rather than attacking the patents validity.
No copying of anything even necessary here, just plain patent infringement for the patent areas. Even clean-room reverse engineering doesn't avoid patent problems, but it does avoid copyright issues.
[now I read far enough and nht says the same thing more succinctly]
FOSS has an update on the latest legal wranglings between Google and Oracle, and it looks as though Oracle is finding a tougher time with them than they may have anticipated. It becoming increasingly evident that the Judge in the case will issue a stay as requested by Google as the patents Oracle is claiming infringed are all undergoing reexamination for validity. At least 5 of the 7 patent claims may eventually be invalidated in full or part according to a separate report available at FOSS. In a nutshell, Oracle may decide it's not in it's best interests to continue concentrating on Google, and instead go after the smaller fry using the Android OS.
Comments
and all is not well in Appleland either. Jobs probably went home to die. no offense meant to him.
A little harsh and probably too soon. I'm sure Tim Cook will do a fine job of running Apple (when the time comes), but no one can match Steve Jobs as CEO.
Because I can? I didn't see a rule that says "All users must post comments that appease the user anonymouse".
Seems like you're the only one here that has any issue with me speaking my mind. If you didn't like my post, then why do you bother to read and respond to it?
Well, I, at least, am curious why you even come here. You don't like Apple, you don't like any of their technology, so what's the draw? I mean, if you're a shill, you should just be honest, come clean about that and admit it. If you aren't, then you should categorically deny it. And, in the latter case, please explain the draw and fascination of AppleInsider to you, why you keep coming back to post largely derogatory and aggressive comments. What exactly is the draw for you? Venting of hate? Displeasure with Apple's success? A feeling of inferiority that this site largely invalidates your personal choices that you are trying to overcome? Simply a desire to be belligerent?
Well, I, at least, am curious why you even come here. You don't like Apple, you don't like any of their technology, so what's the draw? I mean, if you're a shill, you should just be honest, come clean about that and admit it. If you aren't, then you should categorically deny it. And, in the latter case, please explain the draw and fascination of AppleInsider to you, why you keep coming back to post largely derogatory and aggressive comments. What exactly is the draw for you? Venting of hate? Displeasure with Apple's success? A feeling of inferiority that this site largely invalidates your personal choices that you are trying to overcome? Simply a desire to be belligerent?
1. I never started that I hated Apple's success or their technology. I give them all the credit they deserve. I'm happy for their success because all it does is drive the industry as a whole towards success. And that benefits me as a consumer. I personally don't own an iPhone or a Mac because, quite simply, it's just not what I want to use. Harp on me all you want, but it's a personal choice.
2. I come here because it's good to hear/read the thoughts of from all sides. I frequent blogs dedicated to all (iOS, Android, webOS, WP7, etc) so I can keep informed. News for one side will affect how the others progress. If you just go to one site and read only what's posted there, then you're not getting a fair view of things. Every once in a while, a post will pop up here that will give me a new way of looking at something.
3. If anything, your posts are more derogatory and aggressive than my posts will ever be. Just look at the post of you're I'm responding to as proof. Apparently one cannot respond to a post of yours (even in mild jest) without being attacked, words put in their mouth, and called a shrill. All for posting opinions that differ from yours.
1. I never started that I hated Apple's success or their technology. I give them all the credit they deserve. I'm happy for their success because all it does is drive the industry as a whole towards success. And that benefits me as a consumer. I personally don't own an iPhone or a Mac because, quite simply, it's just not what I want to use. Harp on me all you want, but it's a personal choice.
2. I come here because it's good to hear/read the thoughts of from all sides. I frequent blogs dedicated to all (iOS, Android, webOS, WP7, etc) so I can keep informed. News for one side will affect how the others progress. If you just go to one site and read only what's posted there, then you're not getting a fair view of things. Every once in a while, a post will pop up here that will give me a new way of looking at something.
3. If anything, your posts are more derogatory and aggressive than my posts will ever be. Just look at the post of you're I'm responding to as proof. Apparently one cannot respond to a post of yours (even in mild jest) without being attacked, words put in their mouth, and called a shrill. All for posting opinions that differ from yours.
I like how you danced around the issue of confirming or denying that you are a shill.
BTW, it's your pattern of posting that makes me think you're a shill, not whether you agree with me or not. There are plenty of people who post here that don't agree with me and whom I don't think are shills. But you, I do think so.
Sure it does. Damages are based on whether or not it was intentional. You familiar with the Microsoft case with MP3 patents?
Again, we're talking copyright infringement, so a patent case bears almost no relevance at all.
Again, we're talking copyright infringement, so a patent case bears almost no relevance at all.
Oracle is suing Google over java patents and copyright infringement...
Again, we're talking copyright infringement, so a patent case bears almost no relevance at all.
Oracle is suing Google over java patents and copyright infringement...
And the validity of the patents in that part of the case is pretty airtight and not in dispute, even from Google.
Oracle is suing Google over java patents and copyright infringement...
Why is it that you and others don't seen to be able grasp the simple concept that the patent side of the case is only enforceable BECAUSE OF Google's licensing of Oracle COPYRIGHTED content be distributed under a different license.
If th copying hadn't occured then they wouldn't be able enforce the patents at all, due to licensing agreements.
I've had just over a decade of IP law experience under my belt, and I don't grasp this simple concept.
You're saying that Oracle can enforce an issued patent ONLY because Google used Oracle's content in ways at variance with a license for the copyright?
I'd say that you have NO idea what you're talking about, but perhaps that's because your message is garbled - "BECAUSE OF Google's licensing of Oracle COPYRIGHTED content be distributed under a different license."
Do you mind explaining what exactly the simple concept is?
Unless by saying:
...you're making the stunningly obvious point that if Google had used the IP (patent or copyright) strictly according to Oracle's license terms for use of that IP, then Oracle wouldn't have had any grounds to sue. Because that WOULD be...well STUNNINGLY OBVIOUS!
I think he's confused over the implicit patent grant in GPL 2. In theory Google would be covered under the implicit grant for GPL'd code from java. However, this is one case where the implicit patent grant probably can't be assumed as the intent of the IP holder given that field of use restrictions for TCK patent grants.
Typically, the theory has been that if you release something under the GPL license you also mean to allow downstream folks to use any associated patents you own. Of course, that was told me by a Google IP lawyer.
But Google isn't using code from a GPL2 implementation (they used Harmony) and so doesn't have an implicit patent grant like they would if they had based off OpenJDK. They also aren't using code that passed the TCK and has a patent grant that way since Harmony never passed. In any case Android would never meet the JCP patent grant terms either because they did subset/superset Java.
Should be interesting how it pans out.
Why is it that you and others don't seen to be able grasp the simple concept that the patent side of the case is only enforceable BECAUSE OF Google's licensing of Oracle COPYRIGHTED content be distributed under a different license.
If th copying hadn't occured then they wouldn't be able enforce the patents at all, due to licensing agreements.
This is patently false. Ha ha. Pun intended. Patent enforcement has absolutely nothing to do with copyrights. At all. Ever. There are relationships between the two in time and space, but they are always considered individually.
The main time-space interaction of patent and copyright is that under a public release of open source code (that doesn't state otherwise like GPL3 does) it is understood that implicit granting of patents occurs for use of that released code in unmodified form. That's it.
That is also the position of the FSF in GPL2 (copyright) licensed code. The copyright license doesn't do anything for the patents, those are just assumed by the courts to be implicitly granted because it would be screwy to give someone the code to use under a specific copyright license and then sue them for patent infringement when they are using the licensed code in the appropriate manner.
Googles Android problem is that changing the license from GPL2 to Apache even removed that set of very limited legal protections for them. Leading to Googles main argument that the courts should allow it anyway, rather than attacking the patents validity.
No copying of anything even necessary here, just plain patent infringement for the patent areas. Even clean-room reverse engineering doesn't avoid patent problems, but it does avoid copyright issues.
[now I read far enough and nht says the same thing more succinctly]
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...emplating.html
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...acle-java.html