Google fighting to suppress evidence Android willfully infringed upon Oracle's Java

1246718

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 353
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hookoa View Post


    Whatever became of Googles motto: "Do no evil"?



    Is infringing a patent really evil? If so good luck finding a software developer who isn't evil, hell will need an extra circle just for us.
  • Reply 62 of 353
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TBell View Post


    I am no Google fan and agree Google ignores IP, but the copying of books was a case where Google was in the right. Google was copying the books not to allow people to use them free (unless they were in the public domain). Google was creating a data base where people could search for information contained in books. It was a clear case of fair-use. Google likely would have helped sell some more books because people could have found books with information they sought.



    The government was more concerned not by the copying of the books, but of Google being the only party with access to the information.



    Agreed. Also mostly the books were out of print, which further strengthens the fair use argument.
  • Reply 63 of 353
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,471member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Esoom View Post


    Google has been flirting with bad karma for a while, I think this time it's going to hurt.



    Even the Android fans are getting quieter as more and more comes to light about what Google has been doing.



    First they were MS lovin' Apple haters, then they had to jump ship to become Fandroid Apple haters because MS sucks so badly ... now this. What's a poor Apple hater going to do next? You have to have sympathy for these people ...
  • Reply 64 of 353
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by skochan View Post


    Let's not forget how Google ignored copyrights by publishing books for which they had no rights (a couple of them were mine for which I own the copyrights)...

    Copyright and patent infringement seem to be part of Google's standard business practices



    The thing they did with digitising the books though most people would agree was with the best intentions.



    Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I have read, most of the copyrights were expired or untraceable and as far as I heard no actual authors were screwed over, just a few people who happened to technically own the rights to books that they did not write or have anything to do with for the most part.



    That's not the same thing as taking someone's work that they are currently using and selling and just putting your name on the front. Which is what they did with Java.



    Copyright law has been purposely deformed from it's original intentions over the last 50 years or so. You should ask yourself why and for who's benefit. It sure ain't for the benefit of the authors.
  • Reply 65 of 353
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,238member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post


    Are those emails/draft emails the veritable smoking guns that all prosecutors and plaintiffs counsels dream of?



    Oh yes. E-mails are legal documents. It's also illegal to destroy them, and companies are supposed to keep All e-mails. Microsoft was taken down BT e-mails between Gates and others in the company as well.



    Essentially, if it's in an e-mail, apparently, even if it isn't sent, it's evidence.
  • Reply 66 of 353
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Esoom View Post


    Google has been flirting with bad karma for a while, I think this time it's going to hurt. ...



    Like any magical energy however, karma can be "washed off" by spinning around three times under a full moon and spitting over your left shoulder while hopping up and down. :/
  • Reply 67 of 353
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hookoa View Post


    Whatever became of Googles motto: "Do no evil"?



    Goggle meant the other guys...
  • Reply 68 of 353
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,238member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RichL View Post


    That last graphic is misleading and, knowing the author, intentionally so.



    Daniel is implying that there were no touchscreen-only smartphones on the market before 2007. About 50% of all Windows Mobile devices were touchscreen-only but Daniel has decided to put none in his graphic. Instead of showing popular models like the touchscreen-only HTC Magician, Daniel has instead chosen to show some of the more left field Windows Mobile devices - such as the HP iPAQ hw6965 Mobile Messenger. It's a very poor representation of the market before 2007.



    No Win Mobile phones had touch screens. They all had resistive screens that required a stylus. I used a couple, along with my Palm, and in order to use them you had to give a pretty hard poke if you used your nail. If you didn't have nails, then you needed to use the stylus.



    Capacitive screens are touch screens, because you just have to barely touch them with a finger. Indeed, a nail or resistive stylus (anything that doesn't have the soft capacitive tip) won't work at all.



    It's a fundamental difference in technology, and took some time for other manufacturers to catch up. Most other phones using touch aren't as accurate as Apples products even now.
  • Reply 69 of 353
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,238member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post


    Nice to read a moderate and well worded article by DED for a change.



    One thing I don't understand, why are they referring to draft documents as "e-mail"? Unless the message has been transmitted via the email protocol, it is no more an email than it is a fax or a fiction novel...



    It's still considered to be a legal document, because it was authored as such, in a system used for that intent. And considering who authored it, it has relevance. It shows that at that high level, this person in the company understood the issue, and that matters.
  • Reply 70 of 353
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,238member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    Because it was written in an email system, the intent was that it would be an email and the final version was sent as an email - it's relevant because Google's argument that the document is privileged rests on the idea that the final version of the document was an email to counsel - but that the autosaved drafts didn't include the 'To list' so weren't flagged as privileged by the automated scanning system that they used.



    Right. Also, this is a very complex question. There is no absolute line where something is privileged and something isn't. For example if something is sent to the lawyer, and also sent to someone else on the same list, then it automatically loses privilege. If a lawyer is asked something, depending on what is asked, how it is asked, and when it is asked all relate to privilege.



    But the justice department requires, in certain instances, that corporations give up that privilege when under investigation. So it isn't as cut and dry as some people think.
  • Reply 71 of 353
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,238member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    The thing they did with digitising the books though most people would agree was with the best intentions.



    Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I have read, most of the copyrights were expired or untraceable and as far as I heard no actual authors were screwed over, just a few people who happened to technically own the rights to books that they did not write or have anything to do with for the most part.



    That's not the same thing as taking someone's work that they are currently using and selling and just putting your name on the front. Which is what they did with Java.



    Copyright law has been purposely deformed from it's original intentions over the last 50 years or so. You should ask yourself why and for who's benefit. It sure ain't for the benefit of the authors.



    There's an author who posted on the last page that he was screwed over. Just go back to that page. A LOT of authors were screwed. Estimates are in the thousands.



    In addition, Google was stating that they had exclusive rights to whatever they scanned, and that they were going to charge for the use of the material. Those two things were also a major problem, and Google has been changing the terms, but no one seems to be happy with them.



    Let's understand one thing. Google never does anything that doesn't benefit Google in some way.
  • Reply 72 of 353
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,238member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    Is infringing a patent really evil? If so good luck finding a software developer who isn't evil, hell will need an extra circle just for us.



    If it's done knowingly, then yes.
  • Reply 73 of 353
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    The thing they did with digitising (sic) the books though most people would agree was with the best intentions.



    Intent and the law don't necessarily go hand in hand.



    Besides... I would never agree that Google does anything with the best intentions in mind.
  • Reply 74 of 353
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    If it's done knowingly, then yes.



    Add to that:



    Trying to cover it up.
  • Reply 75 of 353
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    If it's done knowingly, then yes.



    Evil? Really? You americans have abused that word to within an inch of meaninglessness. Even knowingly infringing isn't evil - did you stop using web browsers when you found out about the gif patent? Did you stop using JPEGs when it became clear that the standard was encumbered? If not you're evil too.



    The only reason why most software developers aren't knowingly infringing something is because we choose not to look at the horrors that have been patented. We are wilfully ignorant because it would be simply too depressing to find out exactly what it was we cannot do.



    Infringing isn't evil - it's a civil offense, it's about as evil as jay walking or using a region free DVD player.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


    Add to that:



    Trying to cover it up.



    Covering it up by illegally deleting emails might be evil. Making an email inadmissible by arguing that it is a privileged communication clearly isn't - unless you believe that the law is itself evil.
  • Reply 76 of 353
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    There's an author who posted on the last page that he was screwed over. Just go back to that page. A LOT of authors were screwed. Estimates are in the thousands.



    In addition, Google was stating that they had exclusive rights to whatever they scanned, and that they were going to charge for the use of the material. Those two things were also a major problem, and Google has been changing the terms, but no one seems to be happy with them.



    Let's understand one thing. Google never does anything that doesn't benefit Google in some way.



    I believe you'll find that google's claims of rights applied to the digitized images, not to the underlying content. This is akin to a performer recording a piece of music, the performer has the rights to the recording but it doesn't interfere with the composer's prior rights to the music.



    The disagreement between Google and the publishers essentially created new law - as such it's unreasonable to claim that they should have behaved differently, there simply was no precedent to determine what 'fair use' meant, or what Google could reasonably claim over the images.
  • Reply 77 of 353
    Skochan Google plowed through the copyright laws in the book case and ended up with some rights to books which I think they got extremely cheap. If they had had to negotiate with each copyright holder they never would have gotten the deal they did and would never had been able to get it done in a timely manner.



    In effect google did what they wanted the hell with others rights and settled after the fact for a better deal. Looks like the same thing they are trying to do now with the whole android thing.
  • Reply 78 of 353
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post


    Android's free ride will certainly come to an end next year. but an extra $50 license cost per phone is not going to make that big a difference in the market. and they'll find workarounds for Apple's stuff.



    so where does this lead?



    I hope that $50 is a typo and you meant $5 because a $50 license per handset would kill android full stop. That is waaay more than a WP7 license and the profit margins for android handset makers is pretty thin. Samsung and HTC are the only handset makers in that space earning profits, the rest are bleeding money every quarter. Let's say LG makes and ships one million android phones under that license. That is an extra $50,000,000 and if they are already losing money while android is "free" then there is zero incentive for them to continue selling android phones. Then you add in workarounds which would cost Google more money in development costs. google has already stated that they plan to make $10 per handset from ads so I'm not seeing how these extra costs would translate in any kind of profit for either party.



    As for Google coming up with a new language for android to avoid infringement, that brings up even more headaches business-wise. I'm no techie, but I do have a mind for business and I don't see any handset maker falling for a "free" OS from Google again unless Google is prepared to offer indemnification. Why? Because if HTC loses it's case against Apple then Apple will go after every other handest maker. In order to trust Google again after this legal mess, they all will need/require some kind of insurance that the same issues will not happen yet again.
  • Reply 79 of 353
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,238member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    Evil? Really? You americans have abused that word to within an inch of meaninglessness. Even knowingly infringing isn't evil - did you stop using web browsers when you found out about the gif patent? Did you stop using JPEGs when it became clear that the standard was encumbered? If not you're evil too.



    The only reason why most software developers aren't knowingly infringing something is because we choose not to look at the horrors that have been patented. We are wilfully ignorant because it would be simply too depressing to find out exactly what it was we cannot do.



    Infringing isn't evil - it's a civil offense, it's about as evil as jay walking or using a region free DVD player.









    Covering it up by illegally deleting emails might be evil. Making an email inadmissible by arguing that it is a privileged communication clearly isn't - unless you believe that the law is itself evil.



    The word "evil" isn't a definition of law, it's a definition of morality. If you know you are doing something wrong, then what would you call it? Is evil just a level of immorality, or is it immorality itself? Do you want to get into a philosophical discussion over this?
  • Reply 80 of 353
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    I want Baidu to extend their bizarre 'sim city' like maps system to the rest of the world - I would never use google maps again!



    http://map.baidu.com/?newmap=1&l=18&...26c%3D131&sc=0



    Wow!



    That is neat and faster and more responsive than Google Maps ever is.
Sign In or Register to comment.