Currently, if I want an iPhone, I have to choose from either Verizon or AT&T. Want a slide-out keyboard? Sorry, screw you. Want LTE? Sorry, screw you. Want WiMAX? Sorry, screw you. Want a screen size larger than 3.5 inches? Sorry, screw you. Want a dual-core processor, removable battery, removable storage (microSD), HDMI-out? Sorry, screw... oh well, you get the point.
I'm not going to sit here and lie and say that Google is a saint when it comes to patent laws on the SOFTWARE side. But to say that consumers don't benefit from having the variety that Android HARDWARE brings? I think that's being a bit disingenuous.
The problem with many in this community is that we've been taught that if Apple says that "It should be done this way", then we just go along with it. If Apple says no to LTE, it must because they have a good reason. If Apple says no to removable storage, then they know better than everyone else. If Apple says keyboards suck, well so be it.
Not all consumers want to be told what they can and can't have when it comes to a device that's on them 24-7-365. For me, my iPhone 4 is perfect. But I'm glad that Android manufacturers give consumers the choice that Apple doesn't.
I don't have a problem with this. If Google f**ked up, then by all means punish them. But Android is "Too big to fail"
Firstly, there are other software alternatives that utilize most if not all of those hardware features that you listed. Secondly, why do you think you are entitled to all of those choices from a single company? AFAIK, a company gets to decide what it produces, not the customer. In fact, that's why OEMs (handset and computer) are in trouble. They try to offer everything to every possible market which leads to thin profit margins or losses.
We have not got there yet. Right now, Google's objective is reduce the amount for any past infringement if at all ****for mixing GPL v2 with Apache*****.
And..... this case is about 12 files (already deleted from android) and 37 specifications (class & method names). That is .0001% of android. Oracle can ask for $1
Again, don't you think it's weird that YOU have managed to boil the case down to this, and yet teams and teams of lawyers appearing in front of judges have not managed to get across that there's this little at stake?
Perhaps there are more elements of this case in play. Perhaps.
Not directly but the monetization opportunities it offered Oracle to recoup it's investment in Sun has been pretty much destroyed by Google's misuse of Java in Android.
Not directly but the monetization opportunities it offered Oracle to recoup it's investment in Sun has been pretty much destroyed by Google's misuse of Java in Android.
Let us get to the facts. Download source for Java VM and class libraries from Oracle site www.openjdk.net and look at license in headers. Then got to gpl v2 license description (its simple to read). Nowhere it says I should not take the free source and not create a derivate work for mobile. Please take a look at it and share your feedback.
Firstly, there are other software alternatives that utilize most if not all of those hardware features that you listed. Secondly, why do you think you are entitled to all of those choices from a single company? AFAIK, a company gets to decide what it produces, not the customer. In fact, that's why OEMs (handset and computer) are in trouble. They try to offer everything to every possible market which leads to thin profit margins or losses.
1) You're right, but no other OS out there is as popular as Android or has as much variety. WP7 phones are pretty slim pickin's.
2) Who said that it had to be a single company? That's the beauty of Android being available from a wide variety of manufacturers and carriers. You can pretty much pick out your perfect device. You want LTE, a dual-core processor and 4" screen, there's probably an Android smartphone out there for you.
I'd liken the iPhone to a BMW dealership telling me that all I can have is a BMW 3-Series in black or white -- take it or leave it.
I'd liken Android phones to be walking into a Toyota dealership and them telling me you can have a sedan, or a crossover, or a minivan, or a pickup truck, or a coupe, etc.
3) Consumers don't give a crap about profit margins. Only geeks like us and investors talk about that kind of stuff. All consumers care about is getting the product they want. If Motorola were to drop dead tomorrow, customers would just go to HTC or Samsung.
Again, don't you think it's weird that YOU have managed to boil the case down to this, and yet teams and teams of lawyers appearing in front of judges have not managed to get across that there's this little at stake?
Perhaps there are more elements of this case in play. Perhaps.
Oracle conveniently removed GPL v2 headers from the source files submitted to the judge. Google asked Oracle to add it back.
Now the discussion is mostly about damage amount (in case of an infringement found). The real game is not yet started, players just warming up now.
Let us get to the facts. Download source for Java VM and class libraries from Oracle site www.openjdk.net and look at license in headers. Then got to gpl v2 license description (its simple to read). Nowhere it says I should not take the free source and not create a derivate work for mobile. Please take a look at it and share your feedback.
So it's your assertion that no one working for Google or Oracle noticed this? That the entire lengthy, expensive, intense litigation is based of a simple, boneheaded misunderstanding concerning the fundamentals of Java licensing, one the neither the CEOs of Google or Oracle nor the army of extremely high priced lawyers in each company's employ happened to notice?
And then what, at some point (perhaps you yourself rush into the courtroom brandishing your printout of the headers) someone thinks to read the actual license and everyone slaps their foreheads and cries "Oh shit! What were we thinking! Now we really have egg on our face!"?
I believe Google has the money to just buy Oracle. Don't tempt them... Honestly, this software patent crap is so far out of hand it's ridiculous. It used to not be this way and we had lots of innovation. Software patents block innovation.
Nope. As of today, Oracle market cap is $143 billion while Google market cap is $168 billion. Buying Oracle would take approximately $180 billion with the typical premium offer to current stock price.
Currently, if I want an iPhone, I have to choose from either Verizon or AT&T. Want a slide-out keyboard? Sorry, screw you. Want LTE? Sorry, screw you. Want WiMAX? Sorry, screw you. Want a screen size larger than 3.5 inches? Sorry, screw you. Want a dual-core processor, removable battery, removable storage (microSD), HDMI-out? Sorry, screw... oh well, you get the point.
I'm not going to sit here and lie and say that Google is a saint when it comes to patent laws on the SOFTWARE side. But to say that consumers don't benefit from having the variety that Android HARDWARE brings? I think that's being a bit disingenuous.
The problem with many in this community is that we've been taught that if Apple says that "It should be done this way", then we just go along with it. If Apple says no to LTE, it must because they have a good reason. If Apple says no to removable storage, then they know better than everyone else. If Apple says keyboards suck, well so be it.
Not all consumers want to be told what they can and can't have when it comes to a device that's on them 24-7-365. For me, my iPhone 4 is perfect. But I'm glad that Android manufacturers give consumers the choice that Apple doesn't.
I don't have a problem with this. If Google f**ked up, then by all means punish them. But Android is "Too big to fail"
So hardware manufacturers have to have Android software to offer those features? I don't think so. I also don't see why you choose to describe the iPhone as not having those features. Who cares? If someone wants those things in a phone then the don't want iPhone, they want another phone. Apple does not have a monopoly on phone hardware.
How dare you rain on our parade with your attention to relevant detail!
Why can't we just grab our pitchforks and torches and burn the witches alive as our blood-lust demands?
What a killjoy....
I know! Not only is he shaming the entire board with his keen legal insights, but he's proven that the entire legal profession, and indeed the top management of both Google and Oracle, are complete morons! Joy has indeed been killed!
Google should just drop the Android system and the Motorola Mobility purchase and focus on Chrome OS. They could morph that into a tablet product and sell it or lease it. With the right pricing they could dominate a segment of the market.
If they spent $12.5 billion subsidizing their own tablet or Chromebook they would be earning their profits back much faster through people utilizing their online products.
We all remember just how fast the Web OS tablets sold out when they were priced at $99 and $149. If Google did that with a tablet and Chromebook their products would spread super fast and dominate. I know I'd buy a Chromebook with either i3 or i5 dual core chips for $249. That subsidy from Google would get me using their products and I'm sure it would be way cheaper for Google to just have Samsung and Acer keep making such things for them than actually needing to run a company like Motorola Mobility.
The reason why they're going for an injunction isn't to stop Google and Android. It's to get into a better position to demand higher licensing fees. If they just go after the licensing, and the product remains on the market, they have less bargaining power than if the product is not allowed to be marketed and sold.
Is that what they dealt with Microsoft's infringement? I forget the details now.
1) You're right, but no other OS out there is as popular as Android or has as much variety. WP7 phones are pretty slim pickin's.
2) Who said that it had to be a single company? That's the beauty of Android being available from a wide variety of manufacturers and carriers. You can pretty much pick out your perfect device. You want LTE, a dual-core processor and 4" screen, there's probably an Android smartphone out there for you.
I'd liken the iPhone to a BMW dealership telling me that all I can have is a BMW 3-Series in black or white -- take it or leave it.
I'd liken Android phones to be walking into a Toyota dealership and them telling me you can have a sedan, or a crossover, or a minivan, or a pickup truck, or a coupe, etc.
3) Consumers don't give a crap about profit margins. Only geeks like us and investors talk about that kind of stuff. All consumers care about is getting the product they want. If Motorola were to drop dead tomorrow, customers would just go to HTC or Samsung.
1) glad you acknowledge that. Also, popularity has zip to do with it. If Android was unavailable to handset makers, do you not think they would throw in as much resources (ad dollars and handset variety) as they originally did for Android?
2) I mentioned "one company" because you acted as if people who like Apple's products were brainwashed into not knowing about or caring about hardware differentiations. I doubt the majority of iPhone owners think that. Instead, they realize there are compromises that must be made if the overall value is high/useful enough. My point still stands with your analogy btw. What makes you feel entitled to dictate how many models and colors BMW makes? Yes, you can take it or leave it. Period.
3) sure consumers don't care but investors do. If profits are too small or non-existent, how long do you think these companies would last? Eventually, you'll end up with one or two OEMs and there goes that all important "competition" people spout off about when making statements against Apple. So competition is great when seen as a dig against Apple but bad when you can't get exactly what you want at the price you want?
If you pick up something offered free on the street, will you call it steal? The entire source code for java run time and libraries are offered free at openjdk.net by none other than Oracle itself. Under GPL v2, you are free to create a clone of Java. In Faq, Oracle says "Go hack yourself".
If that is true, the court will throw out the case shortly. I'm surprised it has gone on this long. Aren't you?
So it's your assertion that no one working for Google or Oracle noticed this? That the entire lengthy, expensive, intense litigation is based of a simple, boneheaded misunderstanding concerning the fundamentals of Java licensing, one the neither the CEOs of Google or Oracle nor the army of extremely high priced lawyers in each company's employ happened to notice?
And then what, at some point (perhaps you yourself rush into the courtroom brandishing your printout of the headers) someone thinks to read the actual license and everyone slaps their foreheads and cries "Oh shit! What were we thinking! Now we really have egg on our face!"?
I wonder if you have been reading forian muller's useless writing and whole press that write his throw up.
The trial has not started yet and it is not good at this point to mention this for Google or Oracle. For Google, it will look like immediate changing of the header to Gpl free to Apache free. For Oracle, it will be a hard one one saying they are giving it all these free under GPL in the first place and encouraging everyone to "hack" (exact words from Oracle site) the code.
At this point Oracle wants more money. Google wants the extra freedom in Apache license. It is very likely this gets settled before trial. That is the only way both can be satisfied. Otherwise, both lose.
So hardware manufacturers have to have Android software to offer those features? I don't think so. I also don't see why you choose to describe the iPhone as not having those features. Who cares? If someone wants those things in a phone then the don't want iPhone, they want another phone. Apple does not have a monopoly on phone hardware.
No, they don't need to use Android, but it's not like WP7 is exactly wowing consumers over. Symbian is dead, webOS is dead, RIM is treading water.
That pretty much leaves the iPhone which doesn't exactly cater to all audiences.
No, they don't need to use Android, but it's not like WP7 is exactly wowing consumers over. Symbian is dead, webOS is dead, RIM is treading water.
That pretty much leaves the iPhone which doesn't exactly cater to all audiences.
What difference does that make? So you think it's impossible for some other company to develop something new? I mean according to some people, everything Apple has done with iOS is completely "obvious."
If that is true, the court will throw out the case shortly. I'm surprised it has gone on this long. Aren't you?
I have to admit I am. Here is what I am thinking: At this point Oracle wants more money. Google wants the extra freedom in Apache license. It is very likely this gets settled before trial. That is the only way both can be satisfied. Otherwise, both lose.
One exception is Oracle's claim of 5 patents or so. Two of them got invalidated by patent office currently. So, there is this 3 patents in question. Not sure about the timings, but Google bought 2000+ patents from IBM plus 17000 + 7500(pending) will be added via Motorola. Some of the patents from IBM target parallel database features in Oracle databases. Maybe, Google is preparing to strike against Oracle's patent claims.
Comments
Currently, if I want an iPhone, I have to choose from either Verizon or AT&T. Want a slide-out keyboard? Sorry, screw you. Want LTE? Sorry, screw you. Want WiMAX? Sorry, screw you. Want a screen size larger than 3.5 inches? Sorry, screw you. Want a dual-core processor, removable battery, removable storage (microSD), HDMI-out? Sorry, screw... oh well, you get the point.
I'm not going to sit here and lie and say that Google is a saint when it comes to patent laws on the SOFTWARE side. But to say that consumers don't benefit from having the variety that Android HARDWARE brings? I think that's being a bit disingenuous.
The problem with many in this community is that we've been taught that if Apple says that "It should be done this way", then we just go along with it. If Apple says no to LTE, it must because they have a good reason. If Apple says no to removable storage, then they know better than everyone else. If Apple says keyboards suck, well so be it.
Not all consumers want to be told what they can and can't have when it comes to a device that's on them 24-7-365. For me, my iPhone 4 is perfect. But I'm glad that Android manufacturers give consumers the choice that Apple doesn't.
I don't have a problem with this. If Google f**ked up, then by all means punish them. But Android is "Too big to fail"
Firstly, there are other software alternatives that utilize most if not all of those hardware features that you listed. Secondly, why do you think you are entitled to all of those choices from a single company? AFAIK, a company gets to decide what it produces, not the customer. In fact, that's why OEMs (handset and computer) are in trouble. They try to offer everything to every possible market which leads to thin profit margins or losses.
We have not got there yet. Right now, Google's objective is reduce the amount for any past infringement if at all ****for mixing GPL v2 with Apache*****.
And..... this case is about 12 files (already deleted from android) and 37 specifications (class & method names). That is .0001% of android. Oracle can ask for $1
Again, don't you think it's weird that YOU have managed to boil the case down to this, and yet teams and teams of lawyers appearing in front of judges have not managed to get across that there's this little at stake?
Perhaps there are more elements of this case in play. Perhaps.
No J2ME is involved.
Not directly but the monetization opportunities it offered Oracle to recoup it's investment in Sun has been pretty much destroyed by Google's misuse of Java in Android.
Not directly but the monetization opportunities it offered Oracle to recoup it's investment in Sun has been pretty much destroyed by Google's misuse of Java in Android.
Let us get to the facts. Download source for Java VM and class libraries from Oracle site www.openjdk.net and look at license in headers. Then got to gpl v2 license description (its simple to read). Nowhere it says I should not take the free source and not create a derivate work for mobile. Please take a look at it and share your feedback.
Firstly, there are other software alternatives that utilize most if not all of those hardware features that you listed. Secondly, why do you think you are entitled to all of those choices from a single company? AFAIK, a company gets to decide what it produces, not the customer. In fact, that's why OEMs (handset and computer) are in trouble. They try to offer everything to every possible market which leads to thin profit margins or losses.
1) You're right, but no other OS out there is as popular as Android or has as much variety. WP7 phones are pretty slim pickin's.
2) Who said that it had to be a single company? That's the beauty of Android being available from a wide variety of manufacturers and carriers. You can pretty much pick out your perfect device. You want LTE, a dual-core processor and 4" screen, there's probably an Android smartphone out there for you.
I'd liken the iPhone to a BMW dealership telling me that all I can have is a BMW 3-Series in black or white -- take it or leave it.
I'd liken Android phones to be walking into a Toyota dealership and them telling me you can have a sedan, or a crossover, or a minivan, or a pickup truck, or a coupe, etc.
3) Consumers don't give a crap about profit margins. Only geeks like us and investors talk about that kind of stuff. All consumers care about is getting the product they want. If Motorola were to drop dead tomorrow, customers would just go to HTC or Samsung.
Again, don't you think it's weird that YOU have managed to boil the case down to this, and yet teams and teams of lawyers appearing in front of judges have not managed to get across that there's this little at stake?
Perhaps there are more elements of this case in play. Perhaps.
Oracle conveniently removed GPL v2 headers from the source files submitted to the judge. Google asked Oracle to add it back.
Now the discussion is mostly about damage amount (in case of an infringement found). The real game is not yet started, players just warming up now.
Let us get to the facts. Download source for Java VM and class libraries from Oracle site www.openjdk.net and look at license in headers. Then got to gpl v2 license description (its simple to read). Nowhere it says I should not take the free source and not create a derivate work for mobile. Please take a look at it and share your feedback.
So it's your assertion that no one working for Google or Oracle noticed this? That the entire lengthy, expensive, intense litigation is based of a simple, boneheaded misunderstanding concerning the fundamentals of Java licensing, one the neither the CEOs of Google or Oracle nor the army of extremely high priced lawyers in each company's employ happened to notice?
And then what, at some point (perhaps you yourself rush into the courtroom brandishing your printout of the headers) someone thinks to read the actual license and everyone slaps their foreheads and cries "Oh shit! What were we thinking! Now we really have egg on our face!"?
I believe Google has the money to just buy Oracle. Don't tempt them... Honestly, this software patent crap is so far out of hand it's ridiculous. It used to not be this way and we had lots of innovation. Software patents block innovation.
Nope. As of today, Oracle market cap is $143 billion while Google market cap is $168 billion. Buying Oracle would take approximately $180 billion with the typical premium offer to current stock price.
Currently, if I want an iPhone, I have to choose from either Verizon or AT&T. Want a slide-out keyboard? Sorry, screw you. Want LTE? Sorry, screw you. Want WiMAX? Sorry, screw you. Want a screen size larger than 3.5 inches? Sorry, screw you. Want a dual-core processor, removable battery, removable storage (microSD), HDMI-out? Sorry, screw... oh well, you get the point.
I'm not going to sit here and lie and say that Google is a saint when it comes to patent laws on the SOFTWARE side. But to say that consumers don't benefit from having the variety that Android HARDWARE brings? I think that's being a bit disingenuous.
The problem with many in this community is that we've been taught that if Apple says that "It should be done this way", then we just go along with it. If Apple says no to LTE, it must because they have a good reason. If Apple says no to removable storage, then they know better than everyone else. If Apple says keyboards suck, well so be it.
Not all consumers want to be told what they can and can't have when it comes to a device that's on them 24-7-365. For me, my iPhone 4 is perfect. But I'm glad that Android manufacturers give consumers the choice that Apple doesn't.
I don't have a problem with this. If Google f**ked up, then by all means punish them. But Android is "Too big to fail"
So hardware manufacturers have to have Android software to offer those features? I don't think so. I also don't see why you choose to describe the iPhone as not having those features. Who cares? If someone wants those things in a phone then the don't want iPhone, they want another phone. Apple does not have a monopoly on phone hardware.
How dare you rain on our parade with your attention to relevant detail!
Why can't we just grab our pitchforks and torches and burn the witches alive as our blood-lust demands?
What a killjoy....
I know! Not only is he shaming the entire board with his keen legal insights, but he's proven that the entire legal profession, and indeed the top management of both Google and Oracle, are complete morons! Joy has indeed been killed!
If they spent $12.5 billion subsidizing their own tablet or Chromebook they would be earning their profits back much faster through people utilizing their online products.
We all remember just how fast the Web OS tablets sold out when they were priced at $99 and $149. If Google did that with a tablet and Chromebook their products would spread super fast and dominate. I know I'd buy a Chromebook with either i3 or i5 dual core chips for $249. That subsidy from Google would get me using their products and I'm sure it would be way cheaper for Google to just have Samsung and Acer keep making such things for them than actually needing to run a company like Motorola Mobility.
The reason why they're going for an injunction isn't to stop Google and Android. It's to get into a better position to demand higher licensing fees. If they just go after the licensing, and the product remains on the market, they have less bargaining power than if the product is not allowed to be marketed and sold.
Is that what they dealt with Microsoft's infringement? I forget the details now.
1) You're right, but no other OS out there is as popular as Android or has as much variety. WP7 phones are pretty slim pickin's.
2) Who said that it had to be a single company? That's the beauty of Android being available from a wide variety of manufacturers and carriers. You can pretty much pick out your perfect device. You want LTE, a dual-core processor and 4" screen, there's probably an Android smartphone out there for you.
I'd liken the iPhone to a BMW dealership telling me that all I can have is a BMW 3-Series in black or white -- take it or leave it.
I'd liken Android phones to be walking into a Toyota dealership and them telling me you can have a sedan, or a crossover, or a minivan, or a pickup truck, or a coupe, etc.
3) Consumers don't give a crap about profit margins. Only geeks like us and investors talk about that kind of stuff. All consumers care about is getting the product they want. If Motorola were to drop dead tomorrow, customers would just go to HTC or Samsung.
1) glad you acknowledge that. Also, popularity has zip to do with it. If Android was unavailable to handset makers, do you not think they would throw in as much resources (ad dollars and handset variety) as they originally did for Android?
2) I mentioned "one company" because you acted as if people who like Apple's products were brainwashed into not knowing about or caring about hardware differentiations. I doubt the majority of iPhone owners think that. Instead, they realize there are compromises that must be made if the overall value is high/useful enough. My point still stands with your analogy btw. What makes you feel entitled to dictate how many models and colors BMW makes? Yes, you can take it or leave it. Period.
3) sure consumers don't care but investors do. If profits are too small or non-existent, how long do you think these companies would last? Eventually, you'll end up with one or two OEMs and there goes that all important "competition" people spout off about when making statements against Apple. So competition is great when seen as a dig against Apple but bad when you can't get exactly what you want at the price you want?
If you pick up something offered free on the street, will you call it steal? The entire source code for java run time and libraries are offered free at openjdk.net by none other than Oracle itself. Under GPL v2, you are free to create a clone of Java. In Faq, Oracle says "Go hack yourself".
If that is true, the court will throw out the case shortly. I'm surprised it has gone on this long. Aren't you?
So it's your assertion that no one working for Google or Oracle noticed this? That the entire lengthy, expensive, intense litigation is based of a simple, boneheaded misunderstanding concerning the fundamentals of Java licensing, one the neither the CEOs of Google or Oracle nor the army of extremely high priced lawyers in each company's employ happened to notice?
And then what, at some point (perhaps you yourself rush into the courtroom brandishing your printout of the headers) someone thinks to read the actual license and everyone slaps their foreheads and cries "Oh shit! What were we thinking! Now we really have egg on our face!"?
I wonder if you have been reading forian muller's useless writing and whole press that write his throw up.
The trial has not started yet and it is not good at this point to mention this for Google or Oracle. For Google, it will look like immediate changing of the header to Gpl free to Apache free. For Oracle, it will be a hard one one saying they are giving it all these free under GPL in the first place and encouraging everyone to "hack" (exact words from Oracle site) the code.
At this point Oracle wants more money. Google wants the extra freedom in Apache license. It is very likely this gets settled before trial. That is the only way both can be satisfied. Otherwise, both lose.
So hardware manufacturers have to have Android software to offer those features? I don't think so. I also don't see why you choose to describe the iPhone as not having those features. Who cares? If someone wants those things in a phone then the don't want iPhone, they want another phone. Apple does not have a monopoly on phone hardware.
No, they don't need to use Android, but it's not like WP7 is exactly wowing consumers over. Symbian is dead, webOS is dead, RIM is treading water.
That pretty much leaves the iPhone which doesn't exactly cater to all audiences.
No, they don't need to use Android, but it's not like WP7 is exactly wowing consumers over. Symbian is dead, webOS is dead, RIM is treading water.
That pretty much leaves the iPhone which doesn't exactly cater to all audiences.
What difference does that make? So you think it's impossible for some other company to develop something new? I mean according to some people, everything Apple has done with iOS is completely "obvious."
I say Oracle should just nuke Android from orbit.
Only way to be sure...
Post Of The Week!
If that is true, the court will throw out the case shortly. I'm surprised it has gone on this long. Aren't you?
I have to admit I am. Here is what I am thinking: At this point Oracle wants more money. Google wants the extra freedom in Apache license. It is very likely this gets settled before trial. That is the only way both can be satisfied. Otherwise, both lose.
One exception is Oracle's claim of 5 patents or so. Two of them got invalidated by patent office currently. So, there is this 3 patents in question. Not sure about the timings, but Google bought 2000+ patents from IBM plus 17000 + 7500(pending) will be added via Motorola. Some of the patents from IBM target parallel database features in Oracle databases. Maybe, Google is preparing to strike against Oracle's patent claims.
So Oracle would be ok with an incompatible version of Java polluting their write once run everywhere mantra as long as they pay the license?
If Google licensed the "real" version, they could move to that. This seems to be the opinion of some pretty smart people.