It's not a patent issue, it's a copyright issue, and perhaps a trade secret issue. And it speaks directly to Google's credibility regarding their respect for intellectual property. Also, in this case, the issue isn't what they used it for, it's that they distributed copies of it. They really have no defense, and the damages will go well beyond what Oracle extracts from them financially. It completely destroys Google's credibility as an honest player.
Didn't realize I'd typed patent until after I submitted it and you were too fast for me.
I'm not seeing the disrespect for intellectual property. Google didn't put the code there a third party SONiVOX did. When it was pointed out that the code was owned by Oracle they removed it. While it was there Google hadn't used it for anything of consequence.
There's no way to know what the damages are until it goes to court, but the important thing to remember is that whether the infringement is big or small or intentional or unintentional, legally it's the same thing. The judge would be within her rights to impose the harshest sentence if she thought it appropriate and there isn't necessarily any connection between the scale of the crime and the scale of the punishment. It's more of a black/white situation.
Everything I'm reading online is saying that damages and profits from the infringement are taken into account when a penalty for the infringement is assigned.
Didn't realize I'd typed patent until after I submitted it and you were too fast for me.
I'm not seeing the disrespect for intellectual property. Google didn't put the code there a third party SONiVOX did. When it was pointed out that the code was owned by Oracle they removed it. While it was there Google hadn't used it for anything of consequence.
Google has repeatedly demonstrated its disregard for intellectual property, with its, "We're so big we can do whatever we want," attitude. Exhibit A: The illegal Google Books Program.
And, the third-party defense isn't going to fly, Google obviously accepted and approved the submission. If anything, this just makes it even more clear that Google has zero respect for intellectual property rights, and that no claims by Google that something doesn't infringe should be taken seriously.
Google has NEVER respected anyone's intellectual property. They should have been slammed hard when they started their lame idea of copying every printed work ever published and putting it onto the Internet without the authors' permission.
Maybe Oracle can slam them hard enough to pound some concept into their heads that the world doesn't belong to them. $100,000 statutory damages times 20 million Android devices is a lot of money - even for Google.
It's probably not worth posting to the thread at all since it seems chock-a-block full of the Android faithful wagging their jaws in disbelief, but this comment above is definitive IMO.
Google may get out of it without paying, or it may take Oracle so long to take them to court that Java itself fails in the interim, but it seems pretty much a slam dunk that Google is actually guilty of this thing. Maybe it's a technicality, maybe they didn't mean it, maybe the developers were just stupid, maybe it's just the fact that people don't seem to give a crap about the law in general nowadays, but they are still guilty at the end of the day.
definitive? he is not a lawyer, and really doesn't know what he is talking about code-wise.
Unit tests my arse. Clearly the "experts" here don't know shit from shinola. The code is not a unit test. The guy on zdnet us getting his arse handed to him in the comments. And I am in there (though not as asdasd).
Thus is a triple violation. Patents, copyright, and licensing.
Note1) No he is not having his ... handed to him. I am following the comments too. Although his article is not the best article on this topic, short and useless in my opinion. Try this one which has better detailed analysis:
Note2) I do not think this code made it to the build and it is more likely for test purposes. Because the code is part of the MMAPI wrapper and Android does not use MMAPI!
Please let me know if you have an example of MMAPI wrapper used in Android builds and I shall bow to you!
Note3) As ARS stated, the other files which are not being discussed in ZDNET or even Appleinsider are the more interesting ones!
A note to AI. On breaking articles like these that are obviously going to cause a flame war to break out - how about tagging updates to the end of the article?
Regardless of which side of the argument you are on it would be nice to see updates as new information comes out.
Does anyone else agree?
Definitely agree -- plus change the article headline to say: Wild-Ass-Claim - Update 1, Wild-Ass-Claim - Update 2, etc.
Google has repeatedly demonstrated its disregard for intellectual property, with its, "We're so big we can do whatever we want," attitude. Exhibit A: The illegal Google Books Program.
And, the third-party defense isn't going to fly, Google obviously accepted and approved the submission. If anything, this just makes it even more clear that Google has zero respect for intellectual property rights, and that no claims by Google that something doesn't infringe should be taken seriously.
I'm not defending Google from liability, nor am I making any statement to Google's respect for intellectual property rights in general. I just don't see this particular instance being particularly damaging to them. I think at this point I'll just agree to disagree about this instance in particular and see how this thing hashes out in the future.
No, it hasn't happened before. Really. Microsoft "created" their own JavaVM to avoid paying Sun licensing fees. Dalvik is not a JavaVM. Apps compiled for J2ME will not run on Android. Really. MS JavaVM and Dalvik have nothing at all in common.
What Ellison wants and what Ellison gets will likely be two different things.
QUOTE:
Under the settlement, Microsoft will pay Sun $20 million and is permanently prohibited from using "Java compatible" trademarks on its products, according to Sun. Sun also gets to terminate the licensing agreement it signed with Microsoft.
For its part, Microsoft is permitted to use a version of Java in Microsoft products that already contain it, or that already are in the testing phase, for the next seven years, according to the company.
And THIS TIME in Google Case, The AMOUNT of MONEY CAN NOT BE SUCH MINISCULE！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
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!
Oh, I just knew that OS which can't use GPU so its UI become jerky is considered as today's technology.
Quote:
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...
It's in repository, that's counted as distributing.
definitive? he is not a lawyer, and really doesn't know what he is talking about code-wise.
Mueller is Award Winning LONG TERM a STRONG OPEN SOURCE ADVOCATE, Besides Being An INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWYER with 25 years of software industry expertise spanning across different market segments (games, education, productivity and infrastructure software), diverse business models (proprietary software, free and open source software, advertising- and subscription-based online services) and a variety of technical and commercial areas of responsibility.
// Decompiled by Jad v1.5.8g. Copyright 2001 Pavel Kouznetsov.
This may be why Smidt what fired. Google has made a series of missteps lately.
Schmidt fired? What are you smoking? It was agreed he would step aside in the future when he took the role on. I am sure this was a collective decision between the 3 of them.
See I don't have an underlying personal reasons in this, except I want Google to be hurt mighty bad, and take down that monsterous spawn called android.
Well at least your honest, so I will be too:
I want to see:
crapple go OUT OF BUSINESS and take down the monsterous spawn called crApple Mobile Operating System AOS (IOS is CISCO! geez people! ) and all things idiot idiotphone, idiotmac, idiotpod, idiotpad,
You betcha skippy I am a fandroid. I am for the simple reason... its my portable computing device and I will put on it what I want and when I want, and how I want!
As for the issue at hand... I don't know the facts and the "facts" presented in the media are too distorted to determine the truth...
Mueller is Award Winning LONG TERM a STRONG OPEN SOURCE ADVOCATE, Besides Being An INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWYER with 25 years of software industry expertise spanning across different market segments (games, education, productivity and infrastructure software), diverse business models (proprietary software, free and open source software, advertising- and subscription-based online services) and a variety of technical and commercial areas of responsibility.
}
the man has a blog, a linkedin page, and a wiki entry.
funny but he doesn't claim to be a lawyer on any of them.
If I Steal The Money and Distribute IT to Numerous Persons As GiveAway, Am I INNOCENT？？？？？？？
Of Course NOT！
It Doesn't Matter Whether Google Make A Profit Out Of "IT " or NOT！！！！！！！！！！
What's The Point is "They Stole IT "！
And Some Core FanDroid Even Insists " PROUDLY " that,
" Android is already a money maker and a good one at that, and they are forecasting around $1B per year for android, not to shabby, google's $$$ is just fine "！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
So Google NEVER CAN GET AWAY from " THIS "！
Hey bud, how many people downloaded that code? One? Five? Who?
How many idiots download the latest crappy Lady Gaga stuff on a torrent? Now how many people download a test suite from Oracle, which is freely available under the GPL as those articles said? Heck even Google can know that via server logs, so unlike the RIAA, Oracle can't pull figures out of its ass about how many copies were infringed. The RIAA can also claim damages even when the person making available the music made no commercial profit. Google making available the code doesn't hurt Oracle in the least bit, and that will be taken into judgment.
Besides, ZDNet already reported they deleted it weeks ago.
If Oracle does sue over it, it will only serve to make them look like stingy bastards (which they already are).
So HIMOKO, stop making an emotionally driven mole hill out of nothing.
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!
If that were actually the case, why isn't the iPhone being compared to these 'trend setting, envelope pushing' Android phones, instead of being the other way around? Even among very Android-friendly CNET reviews, the best you can hear about Android models is wording along the lines of "this is likely the best attempt yet to take on the iPhone."
Android may offer you or other tech-savvy people the ability to do things not offered on the iPhone (and that's a short list!) but it's not broadly appealing to users (too complicated, missing major features, stuff simply doesn't work - try connecting to inflight WiFi), carriers are not as interested in Android as they once were, and hardware makers see Android as being a common denominator that will reduce their offerings into commodity products just like Windows took away most of the value of PCs.
Only the two biggest losers have focused on Android (Motorola and Sony Ericsson, the only two major smartphone makers unable to make money in recent years), while HTC & LG have hedged their bet with WiMo/WP7, Samsung has its own Bada backup plan, and Nokia, HP, RIM are all hanging on to their own platforms. Do you know something they all don't?
Quote:
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...
Actually that didn't happen. Instead, a guy made some excuses for the files in question for ZDNet, and Ars similarly suggested that the new files found "were not a smoking gun," while also admitting that is was still a big problem for Google.
A confident rebuttal isn't necessarily "the last word" on a subject just because it might be what you want to hear.
The real issue for Google isn't these newly reported files anyway - they're just additional evidence that Google isn't doing a great job in managing Android.
The REAL problem, the one Oracle is suing over, is a series of files that you get when you disassemble Java, which turns out to be exactly what you get when you look at Android. Early development simply churned out Java and called it Android, then fixed some mobile-related problems with Java, such as its VM design, and called it non-Java and therefore not needing to license Java IP.
The problem is, there's lots of evidence that Android simply is Java, and these additional files just indicate how sloppy Android development is. Taking GPL code and replacing the license text with a more permissive license that allows commercial, proprietary development isn't just illegal and an affront to IP laws, it's also a slap in the face to the very Free and Open Source ideals Android is supposedly promoting, and very obviously a sign that Android developers don't respect others' IP.
Oracle/Sun offered some portions of Java under GPL for specific reasons. Google essentially took Oracle/Sun's GPL code and used it opposite of what it was licensed to do. Google had no right to do that, and appears to have assumed not just damages (which are pretty obvious given the hammering that Android has done to JavaME as a mobile platform) but also surrounded the event with lots of evidence that backs up that this was not just an isolated incident or automated mistake, but simply how Google rolls.
Every major cash-cow Google product is stolen IP: it stole its key paid search placement IP from Overture, it stole Android from Sun's Java, and WebM is pretty clearly an infringing implementation of MPEG, just like virtually every other proprietary codec On2 created. At least Microsoft wrote some of its own apps.
Google is killing off competition in the marketplace by simply stealing other people's IP and "selling" it as its own ad platform. Ask Gizmodo how the whole "selling of stolen goods" worked out.
But really, the Oracle case against Google is more than even that: Oracle is asserting a series of patent claims against Google's modified Java VM that it calls Dvalik. When Google first announced that it was doing this in 2007, the tech world gasped, but Sun never took any action so everyone seemed to decide it was okay. Well now Oracle is saying, hell no, you got to pay.
The Oracle case against Google is a lot like the Apple/Pystar case, except that Google simply changed more of the code it took, like Pystar, to sell its own product with less work.
Google still overtly repurposed Java to "create" Android. It could have gotten away with this if it had worked harder to do it the right way, making a very clean effort not to contaminate Android with obvious code theft from Java. It simply didn't, as is obvious in a number of parallel cases of evidence, not just the new files in question.
Comments
It's not a patent issue, it's a copyright issue, and perhaps a trade secret issue. And it speaks directly to Google's credibility regarding their respect for intellectual property. Also, in this case, the issue isn't what they used it for, it's that they distributed copies of it. They really have no defense, and the damages will go well beyond what Oracle extracts from them financially. It completely destroys Google's credibility as an honest player.
Didn't realize I'd typed patent until after I submitted it and you were too fast for me.
I'm not seeing the disrespect for intellectual property. Google didn't put the code there a third party SONiVOX did. When it was pointed out that the code was owned by Oracle they removed it. While it was there Google hadn't used it for anything of consequence.
There's no way to know what the damages are until it goes to court, but the important thing to remember is that whether the infringement is big or small or intentional or unintentional, legally it's the same thing. The judge would be within her rights to impose the harshest sentence if she thought it appropriate and there isn't necessarily any connection between the scale of the crime and the scale of the punishment. It's more of a black/white situation.
Everything I'm reading online is saying that damages and profits from the infringement are taken into account when a penalty for the infringement is assigned.
http://www2.lib.purdue.edu/uco/Copyr...penalties.html
Didn't realize I'd typed patent until after I submitted it and you were too fast for me.
I'm not seeing the disrespect for intellectual property. Google didn't put the code there a third party SONiVOX did. When it was pointed out that the code was owned by Oracle they removed it. While it was there Google hadn't used it for anything of consequence.
Google has repeatedly demonstrated its disregard for intellectual property, with its, "We're so big we can do whatever we want," attitude. Exhibit A: The illegal Google Books Program.
And, the third-party defense isn't going to fly, Google obviously accepted and approved the submission. If anything, this just makes it even more clear that Google has zero respect for intellectual property rights, and that no claims by Google that something doesn't infringe should be taken seriously.
Google has NEVER respected anyone's intellectual property. They should have been slammed hard when they started their lame idea of copying every printed work ever published and putting it onto the Internet without the authors' permission.
Maybe Oracle can slam them hard enough to pound some concept into their heads that the world doesn't belong to them. $100,000 statutory damages times 20 million Android devices is a lot of money - even for Google.
"Do no evil" my a$$.
It's probably not worth posting to the thread at all since it seems chock-a-block full of the Android faithful wagging their jaws in disbelief, but this comment above is definitive IMO.
Google may get out of it without paying, or it may take Oracle so long to take them to court that Java itself fails in the interim, but it seems pretty much a slam dunk that Google is actually guilty of this thing. Maybe it's a technicality, maybe they didn't mean it, maybe the developers were just stupid, maybe it's just the fact that people don't seem to give a crap about the law in general nowadays, but they are still guilty at the end of the day.
definitive? he is not a lawyer, and really doesn't know what he is talking about code-wise.
Unit tests my arse. Clearly the "experts" here don't know shit from shinola. The code is not a unit test. The guy on zdnet us getting his arse handed to him in the comments. And I am in there (though not as asdasd).
Thus is a triple violation. Patents, copyright, and licensing.
Note1) No he is not having his ... handed to him. I am following the comments too. Although his article is not the best article on this topic, short and useless in my opinion. Try this one which has better detailed analysis:
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/n...moking-gun.ars
Note2) I do not think this code made it to the build and it is more likely for test purposes. Because the code is part of the MMAPI wrapper and Android does not use MMAPI!
Please let me know if you have an example of MMAPI wrapper used in Android builds and I shall bow to you!
Note3) As ARS stated, the other files which are not being discussed in ZDNET or even Appleinsider are the more interesting ones!
More like, ``CTRL-X, CTRL-V'' as it was a series of literally cut and pasted code.
Or even:
CTRL-eXutive Chairman, CTRL-do some eVil'
A note to AI. On breaking articles like these that are obviously going to cause a flame war to break out - how about tagging updates to the end of the article?
Regardless of which side of the argument you are on it would be nice to see updates as new information comes out.
Does anyone else agree?
Definitely agree -- plus change the article headline to say: Wild-Ass-Claim - Update 1, Wild-Ass-Claim - Update 2, etc.
Google has repeatedly demonstrated its disregard for intellectual property, with its, "We're so big we can do whatever we want," attitude. Exhibit A: The illegal Google Books Program.
And, the third-party defense isn't going to fly, Google obviously accepted and approved the submission. If anything, this just makes it even more clear that Google has zero respect for intellectual property rights, and that no claims by Google that something doesn't infringe should be taken seriously.
I'm not defending Google from liability, nor am I making any statement to Google's respect for intellectual property rights in general. I just don't see this particular instance being particularly damaging to them. I think at this point I'll just agree to disagree about this instance in particular and see how this thing hashes out in the future.
No, it hasn't happened before. Really. Microsoft "created" their own JavaVM to avoid paying Sun licensing fees. Dalvik is not a JavaVM. Apps compiled for J2ME will not run on Android. Really. MS JavaVM and Dalvik have nothing at all in common.
What Ellison wants and what Ellison gets will likely be two different things.
QUOTE:
Under the settlement, Microsoft will pay Sun $20 million and is permanently prohibited from using "Java compatible" trademarks on its products, according to Sun. Sun also gets to terminate the licensing agreement it signed with Microsoft.
For its part, Microsoft is permitted to use a version of Java in Microsoft products that already contain it, or that already are in the testing phase, for the next seven years, according to the company.
And THIS TIME in Google Case, The AMOUNT of MONEY CAN NOT BE SUCH MINISCULE！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
READ MORE:
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-251401.html
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-25140...#ixzz1Bn4V2Cpq
?If you have something that you don?t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn?t be doing it in the first place.?
--Eric Schmidt
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!
Oh, I just knew that OS which can't use GPU so its UI become jerky is considered as today's technology.
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...
It's in repository, that's counted as distributing.
definitive? he is not a lawyer, and really doesn't know what he is talking about code-wise.
Mueller is Award Winning LONG TERM a STRONG OPEN SOURCE ADVOCATE, Besides Being An INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWYER with 25 years of software industry expertise spanning across different market segments (games, education, productivity and infrastructure software), diverse business models (proprietary software, free and open source software, advertising- and subscription-based online services) and a variety of technical and commercial areas of responsibility.
// Decompiled by Jad v1.5.8g. Copyright 2001 Pavel Kouznetsov.
// Jad home page: http://www.kpdus.com/jad.html
// Decompiler options: packimports(3) fieldsfirst nonlb
// Source File Name: PolicyNodeImpl.java
package sun.security.provider.certpath;
import java.security.cert.PolicyNode;
import java.util.*;
final class PolicyNodeImpl
implements PolicyNode {
private static final String ANY_POLICY = "2.5.29.32.0";
private PolicyNodeImpl mParent;
private HashSet mChildren;
private String mValidPolicy;
private HashSet mQualifierSet;
private boolean mCriticalityIndicator;
private HashSet mExpectedPolicySet;
private boolean mOriginalExpectedPolicySet;
private int mDepth;
private boolean isImmutable;
PolicyNodeImpl(PolicyNodeImpl policynodeimpl, String s, Set set, boolean flag, Set set1, boolean flag1) {
isImmutable = false;
mParent = policynodeimpl;
mChildren = new HashSet();
if(s != null)
mValidPolicy = s;
else
mValidPolicy = "";
if(set != null)
mQualifierSet = new HashSet(set);
else
mQualifierSet = new HashSet();
mCriticalityIndicator = flag;
if(set1 != null)
mExpectedPolicySet = new HashSet(set1);
else
mExpectedPolicySet = new HashSet();
mOriginalExpectedPolicySet = !flag1;
if(mParent != null) {
mDepth = mParent.getDepth() + 1;
mParent.addChild(this);
} else {
mDepth = 0;
}
}
PolicyNodeImpl(PolicyNodeImpl policynodeimpl, PolicyNodeImpl policynodeimpl1) {
this(policynodeimpl, policynodeimpl1.mValidPolicy, ((Set) (policynodeimpl1.mQualifierSet)), policynodeimpl1.mCriticalityIndicator, ((Set) (policynodeimpl1.mExpectedPolicySet)), false);
}
public PolicyNode getParent() {
return mParent;
}
public Iterator getChildren() {
return Collections.unmodifiableSet(mChildren).iterator();
}
public int getDepth() {
return mDepth;
}
public String getValidPolicy() {
return mValidPolicy;
}
public Set getPolicyQualifiers() {
return Collections.unmodifiableSet(mQualifierSet);
}
public Set getExpectedPolicies() {
return Collections.unmodifiableSet(mExpectedPolicySet);
}
public boolean isCritical() {
return mCriticalityIndicator;
}
public String toString() {
StringBuffer stringbuffer = new StringBuffer(asString());
for(Iterator iterator = getChildren(); iterator.hasNext(); stringbuffer.append((PolicyNodeImpl)iterator.next( )));
return stringbuffer.toString();
}
boolean isImmutable() {
return isImmutable;
}
void setImmutable() {
if(isImmutable)
return;
PolicyNodeImpl policynodeimpl;
for(Iterator iterator = mChildren.iterator(); iterator.hasNext(); policynodeimpl.setImmutable())
policynodeimpl = (PolicyNodeImpl)iterator.next();
isImmutable = true;
}
private void addChild(PolicyNodeImpl policynodeimpl) {
if(isImmutable) {
throw new IllegalStateException("PolicyNode is immutable");
} else {
mChildren.add(policynodeimpl);
return;
}
}
void addExpectedPolicy(String s) {
if(isImmutable)
throw new IllegalStateException("PolicyNode is immutable");
if(mOriginalExpectedPolicySet) {
mExpectedPolicySet.clear();
mOriginalExpectedPolicySet = false;
}
mExpectedPolicySet.add(s);
}
void prune(int i) {
if(isImmutable)
throw new IllegalStateException("PolicyNode is immutable");
if(mChildren.size() == 0)
return;
Iterator iterator = mChildren.iterator();
do {
if(!iterator.hasNext())
break;
PolicyNodeImpl policynodeimpl = (PolicyNodeImpl)iterator.next();
policynodeimpl.prune(i);
if(policynodeimpl.mChildren.size() == 0 && i > mDepth + 1)
iterator.remove();
} while(true);
}
void deleteChild(PolicyNode policynode) {
if(isImmutable) {
throw new IllegalStateException("PolicyNode is immutable");
} else {
mChildren.remove(policynode);
return;
}
}
PolicyNodeImpl copyTree() {
return copyTree(null);
}
private PolicyNodeImpl copyTree(PolicyNodeImpl policynodeimpl) {
PolicyNodeImpl policynodeimpl1 = new PolicyNodeImpl(policynodeimpl, this);
PolicyNodeImpl policynodeimpl2;
for(Iterator iterator = mChildren.iterator(); iterator.hasNext(); policynodeimpl2.copyTree(policynodeimpl1))
policynodeimpl2 = (PolicyNodeImpl)iterator.next();
return policynodeimpl1;
}
Set getPolicyNodes(int i) {
HashSet hashset = new HashSet();
getPolicyNodes(i, ((Set) (hashset)));
return hashset;
}
private void getPolicyNodes(int i, Set set) {
if(mDepth == i) {
set.add(this);
} else {
PolicyNodeImpl policynodeimpl;
for(Iterator iterator = mChildren.iterator(); iterator.hasNext(); policynodeimpl.getPolicyNodes(i, set))
policynodeimpl = (PolicyNodeImpl)iterator.next();
}
}
Set getPolicyNodesExpected(int i, String s, boolean flag) {
if(s.equals("2.5.29.32.0"))
return getPolicyNodes(i);
else
return getPolicyNodesExpectedHelper(i, s, flag);
}
private Set getPolicyNodesExpectedHelper(int i, String s, boolean flag) {
HashSet hashset = new HashSet();
if(mDepth < i) {
PolicyNodeImpl policynodeimpl;
for(Iterator iterator = mChildren.iterator(); iterator.hasNext(); hashset.addAll(policynodeimpl.getPolicyNodesExpect edHelper(i, s, flag)))
policynodeimpl = (PolicyNodeImpl)iterator.next();
} else
if(flag) {
if(mExpectedPolicySet.contains("2.5.29.32.0"))
hashset.add(this);
} else
if(mExpectedPolicySet.contains(s))
hashset.add(this);
return hashset;
}
Set getPolicyNodesValid(int i, String s) {
HashSet hashset = new HashSet();
if(mDepth < i) {
PolicyNodeImpl policynodeimpl;
for(Iterator iterator = mChildren.iterator(); iterator.hasNext(); hashset.addAll(policynodeimpl.getPolicyNodesValid( i, s)))
policynodeimpl = (PolicyNodeImpl)iterator.next();
} else
if(mValidPolicy.equals(s))
hashset.add(this);
return hashset;
}
private static String policyToString(String s) {
if(s.equals("2.5.29.32.0"))
return "anyPolicy";
else
return s;
}
String asString() {
if(mParent == null)
return "anyPolicy ROOT\
";
StringBuffer stringbuffer = new StringBuffer();
int i = 0;
for(int j = getDepth(); i < j; i++)
stringbuffer.append(" ");
stringbuffer.append(policyToString(getValidPolicy( )));
stringbuffer.append(" CRIT: ");
stringbuffer.append(isCritical());
stringbuffer.append(" EP: ");
for(Iterator iterator = getExpectedPolicies().iterator(); iterator.hasNext(); stringbuffer.append(" ")) {
String s = (String)iterator.next();
stringbuffer.append(policyToString(s));
}
stringbuffer.append(" (");
stringbuffer.append(getDepth());
stringbuffer.append(")\
");
return stringbuffer.toString();
}
}
This may be why Smidt what fired. Google has made a series of missteps lately.
Schmidt fired? What are you smoking? It was agreed he would step aside in the future when he took the role on. I am sure this was a collective decision between the 3 of them.
See I don't have an underlying personal reasons in this, except I want Google to be hurt mighty bad, and take down that monsterous spawn called android.
Well at least your honest, so I will be too:
I want to see:
crapple go OUT OF BUSINESS and take down the monsterous spawn called crApple Mobile Operating System AOS (IOS is CISCO! geez people!
You betcha skippy I am a fandroid. I am for the simple reason... its my portable computing device and I will put on it what I want and when I want, and how I want!
As for the issue at hand... I don't know the facts and the "facts" presented in the media are too distorted to determine the truth...
Mueller is Award Winning LONG TERM a STRONG OPEN SOURCE ADVOCATE, Besides Being An INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWYER with 25 years of software industry expertise spanning across different market segments (games, education, productivity and infrastructure software), diverse business models (proprietary software, free and open source software, advertising- and subscription-based online services) and a variety of technical and commercial areas of responsibility.
}
the man has a blog, a linkedin page, and a wiki entry.
funny but he doesn't claim to be a lawyer on any of them.
If I Steal The Money and Distribute IT to Numerous Persons As GiveAway, Am I INNOCENT？？？？？？？
Of Course NOT！
It Doesn't Matter Whether Google Make A Profit Out Of "IT " or NOT！！！！！！！！！！
What's The Point is "They Stole IT "！
And Some Core FanDroid Even Insists " PROUDLY " that,
" Android is already a money maker and a good one at that, and they are forecasting around $1B per year for android, not to shabby, google's $$$ is just fine "！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
So Google NEVER CAN GET AWAY from " THIS "！
Hey bud, how many people downloaded that code? One? Five? Who?
How many idiots download the latest crappy Lady Gaga stuff on a torrent? Now how many people download a test suite from Oracle, which is freely available under the GPL as those articles said? Heck even Google can know that via server logs, so unlike the RIAA, Oracle can't pull figures out of its ass about how many copies were infringed. The RIAA can also claim damages even when the person making available the music made no commercial profit. Google making available the code doesn't hurt Oracle in the least bit, and that will be taken into judgment.
Besides, ZDNet already reported they deleted it weeks ago.
If Oracle does sue over it, it will only serve to make them look like stingy bastards (which they already are).
So HIMOKO, stop making an emotionally driven mole hill out of nothing.
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!
If that were actually the case, why isn't the iPhone being compared to these 'trend setting, envelope pushing' Android phones, instead of being the other way around? Even among very Android-friendly CNET reviews, the best you can hear about Android models is wording along the lines of "this is likely the best attempt yet to take on the iPhone."
Android may offer you or other tech-savvy people the ability to do things not offered on the iPhone (and that's a short list!) but it's not broadly appealing to users (too complicated, missing major features, stuff simply doesn't work - try connecting to inflight WiFi), carriers are not as interested in Android as they once were, and hardware makers see Android as being a common denominator that will reduce their offerings into commodity products just like Windows took away most of the value of PCs.
Only the two biggest losers have focused on Android (Motorola and Sony Ericsson, the only two major smartphone makers unable to make money in recent years), while HTC & LG have hedged their bet with WiMo/WP7, Samsung has its own Bada backup plan, and Nokia, HP, RIM are all hanging on to their own platforms. Do you know something they all don't?
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...
Actually that didn't happen. Instead, a guy made some excuses for the files in question for ZDNet, and Ars similarly suggested that the new files found "were not a smoking gun," while also admitting that is was still a big problem for Google.
A confident rebuttal isn't necessarily "the last word" on a subject just because it might be what you want to hear.
The real issue for Google isn't these newly reported files anyway - they're just additional evidence that Google isn't doing a great job in managing Android.
The REAL problem, the one Oracle is suing over, is a series of files that you get when you disassemble Java, which turns out to be exactly what you get when you look at Android. Early development simply churned out Java and called it Android, then fixed some mobile-related problems with Java, such as its VM design, and called it non-Java and therefore not needing to license Java IP.
The problem is, there's lots of evidence that Android simply is Java, and these additional files just indicate how sloppy Android development is. Taking GPL code and replacing the license text with a more permissive license that allows commercial, proprietary development isn't just illegal and an affront to IP laws, it's also a slap in the face to the very Free and Open Source ideals Android is supposedly promoting, and very obviously a sign that Android developers don't respect others' IP.
Oracle/Sun offered some portions of Java under GPL for specific reasons. Google essentially took Oracle/Sun's GPL code and used it opposite of what it was licensed to do. Google had no right to do that, and appears to have assumed not just damages (which are pretty obvious given the hammering that Android has done to JavaME as a mobile platform) but also surrounded the event with lots of evidence that backs up that this was not just an isolated incident or automated mistake, but simply how Google rolls.
Every major cash-cow Google product is stolen IP: it stole its key paid search placement IP from Overture, it stole Android from Sun's Java, and WebM is pretty clearly an infringing implementation of MPEG, just like virtually every other proprietary codec On2 created. At least Microsoft wrote some of its own apps.
Google is killing off competition in the marketplace by simply stealing other people's IP and "selling" it as its own ad platform. Ask Gizmodo how the whole "selling of stolen goods" worked out.
But really, the Oracle case against Google is more than even that: Oracle is asserting a series of patent claims against Google's modified Java VM that it calls Dvalik. When Google first announced that it was doing this in 2007, the tech world gasped, but Sun never took any action so everyone seemed to decide it was okay. Well now Oracle is saying, hell no, you got to pay.
The Oracle case against Google is a lot like the Apple/Pystar case, except that Google simply changed more of the code it took, like Pystar, to sell its own product with less work.
Google still overtly repurposed Java to "create" Android. It could have gotten away with this if it had worked harder to do it the right way, making a very clean effort not to contaminate Android with obvious code theft from Java. It simply didn't, as is obvious in a number of parallel cases of evidence, not just the new files in question.