You are confusing copyright and patent. In a literal sense, copyright involves copying, but patent law involves invention and implementation of an "idea" which can be implemented in an number of ways, none involving copying in the literal sense, and yet can be illegal use of a patent.
I get what you are saying but in this case it is one step removed because Google is not doing anything except open sourcing the code. Anyone who takes the code and does something commercial with it assumes responsibility for their own use of the code. I am only suggesting that Google has insulated themselves to a certain degree, making it difficult sue them except in the case of Oracle where the repurposing of actual code is alleged.
I get what you are saying but in this case it is one step removed because Google is not doing anything except open sourcing the code. Anyone who takes the code and does something commercial with it assumes responsibility for their own use of the code. I am only suggesting that Google has insulated themselves to a certain degree, making it difficult sue them except in the case of Oracle where the repurposing of actual code is alleged.
I get what you are saying but in this case it is one step removed because Google is not doing anything except open sourcing the code. Anyone who takes the code and does something commercial with it assumes responsibility for their own use of the code. I am only suggesting that Google has insulated themselves to a certain degree, making it difficult sue them except in the case of Oracle where the repurposing of actual code is alleged.
The reason Apple isn't suing Google is that even if Apple would win on grounds of contributory infringement, the amount Apple could sue for in damages would be dismally small. The pockets of those companies selling Android containing phones are in contrast, quite deep.
Oracle has Google over a bit of a different barrel because of Java licensing, and somehow in that case the judge seems to be allowing Google ad revenue as being vulnerable to damages. Apple doesn't have that kind of direct connection to the Google Golden Goose to try to leverage.
Well that's obvious really...Andy was locked in Carbonite or something for 11? years then started Android in 2003...then Schmidt and Google bought Android in 05...keeping Rubin then Schmidt using I guess all the charm in the world somehow got Apple to invite him to the board in 2006...then the iPhone was released in 2007...then Google using decades of insider knowledge still took a year to steal iOS and make a direct 1:1 copy of it (a 1:1 copy that looks completely different and hardly functions the same) and yea...today is today....hence the fact that they STOLE!!!! Android from Apple...or Oracle...or both who knows depends who you ask...and yea...infringe = stolen (unless it's Apple) inspire = stolen (unless it's Apple)
Stolen is definitely the wrong word but no one cares....unless it's Apple.
Come on. Google has exhibited a pattern of not really giving a damn about other people's IP, whether it is Apple, Sun, or some little company in Kenya. As sleazy as Schmidt is, the company seems to have gone even further down the road to "evil" under Page.
The point of taking patent cases to the ITC is that it can block products relatively quickly, rather than fighting for years and getting either nothing or a vindication ruling 4 years later that doesn't matter anymore.
That's why Apple (and Motorola, Microsoft, etc) is taking cases to the ITC. But Apple is also suing in regular courts, and once it builds up enough wins (especially important ones like this 263 patent), it could sue Google for damages, if Google doesn't give up on copying Apple's stuff.
It actually seems more likely that Oracle will win enough of a case against Google to make the future of Android a dead end, converting it either to Java, or alternatively, Google backing away from a JVM design and jumping to phones that run web apps like the Chrome OS.
Oracle wants royalties, not to shut Android down. However, given Google's "free" Android OS business model, somebody's gotta foot the royalty bill.
And I do agree that at some point Google can and will be sued by Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
They should have had at least one win by now. So far it's only a few preliminary decisions that have both given and taken away. Apparently the blatant copying is nowhere near as cut-and-dried as some have made it out to be.
If you can see how divided technical experts are on whether Apple has a strong case or not, imagine how much more difficult this is for non-technical judges and juries....???
Quote:
Originally Posted by chabig
Still, there is nothing to prevent an injunction against the distribution of Android itself.
So far Apple is trying to block the importation of offending devices into the U.S. and other countries. I don't think the ITC can put an injunction in place when both Apple and Google are U.S. companies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason98
I am not a patent expert, but this looks like a bad and questionable patent to me.
But what about the essential UI innovations that define the iPhone, and also made Android so successful and interchangeable with the Apple's original products?
I mean multi-touch gestures, inertial scrolling, page transitions?
They covered by Apple's IP, aren't they? If so why can't they win based on these patents?
Are they considered prior art, invalid?
Apple has won on some IU points, such as inertial scrolling, and Samsung has had to remove such for importation into Australia. Court orders have forced other modifications to continue importing Samsung into parts of Europe.
While all this is going on both Samsung and Amazon have done a fork of Android version 2.2 which has, in effect, deprived Google of some of the data mining they need to support their advertising model...which negates the whole purpose of giving away Android.
Apple, by attacking the weaker HTC, has improved their odds of a win. Once there is a win on '363 with HTC, Apple has a defacto win on all Android imports and can effect an immediate shut down of all imports.
Then they can go butcher the big sow over at Google.
Apple is making several statements by all this legal action:
1. Don't mess with Apple.
2. It doesn't matter if you are making an OS or including an offending OS in your product; don't think you are safe from costly litigation with Apple if the OS is tainted.
3. Apple knows that enterprise users are watching all this unfold, and if they get jittery about Android, they will back away from using it in their plans.
Come on. Google has exhibited a pattern of not really giving a damn about other people's IP, whether it is Apple, Sun, or some little company in Kenya. As sleazy as Schmidt is, the company seems to have gone even further down the road to "evil" under Page.
We have very different definitions of evil I guess...evil to me are the diamond brokers and oil executives purposefully polluting, harrassing and terrorizing locals to get at their land.
Nothing that Apple, Google, etc has done would ever fall under "Evil" in my eyes. Ever...at least not yet.
Andy Rubin stole the basic idea for this *kind* of OS from Apple. Then he stole the code (Java/Davlik) for most of it from Oracle.
Andy is an equal opportunity thief.
I don't really know why anyone is surprised. He's on the record (through court release of documents) as to basically not giving a shit about the concept of IP and theft of same. He's just one of those guys that just thinks everything should be free to take for those that want to take it.
you can't steal the idea for an OS...don't be naive. Full touch OSes aren't even Apple's idea...neither are full capacitive touch OSes...in fact, the IDEA of a phone like the iPhone isn't Apple's idea. (not saying they STOLE!!!! the idea from anyone btw)
And THE code for Android was not stolen from Oracle (or even said to be stolen from Oracle) Oracle is arguing that some of the code in Android is theirs...none of which has been proven yet but something tells me anyone but Apple is guilty before innocent.
One of the worst things I've seen any dot com company do was Google's attempt to copy every printed work and put it online to make money from it - without the authors' permission. It just boggles my mind that they couldn't see anything wrong with that.
And then, after that was shot down, they tried to get Congress to rewrite the copyright laws to allow it.
Really dishonest company.
I honestly don't have a problem with Google trying to do that. Part of my reason is I tend to respect patent law more than copyright law. The main reason I do that is because corporate lobbyists have kept the patent system sort of in check. A patent term is 20 years, compared to over a hundred years for a copyright. If you think about it the discrepancy is odd, considering patented ideas have to satisfy a much higher standard than a copyrighted idea to receive protection. The difference is corporate lobbyists have essentially screwed the public with copyrights.
Moreover, It isn't illegal to copy a book you legally possess provided your purpose is not commercial and you don't substantially deprive the copyright holder of money. The concept is similar to when Sony first allowed a person to copy a TV show without the copyright holder's permission. The Supreme Court held that was legal (even though Sony was making money indirectly off the copyright holders work).
Google set up shop by me at the University of Michigan and was largely copying text books, many of them being out of print for years. It is a shame Google failed to continue to fight that battle out, as the public was really deprived by Google throwing in the towel (especially since it had a good chance of winning the fight in the end). Imagine the information contained in all those textbooks, many not used. Imagine being able to search them from home.
More importantly, Google wasn't allowing people to just read the books in their entirety. It was indexing them so that people could search for topics within the books. Again, many of these books were out of print. People would have been able to read small sections of the books, and than been able to find out how to get a hold of the book itself. Books in the public domain would have been freely available. That would have been an incredibly useful tool. The copyright holders probably would have made money they otherwise wouldn't have made, and Google would have further entrenched its search business.
The main objections to Google's proposed service was that Google would be the only party that had the data. So, competitors like Microsoft's Bing would be at a disadvantage. I didn't see the problem with that considering Google spend a lot of time copying and indexing the works. Microsoft could have done the same thing. It would have taken a long time to catch up.
The difference with Oracle and Apple, however, is Google is actually using the other companies IP to harm the other companies. Google is using Java, but violating the license by making it incompatible with other versions of Java. This violates the write once run everywhere philosophy of Java. Moreover, Google smells in regards to Apple 1) because of it gaining inside knowledge while Google's CEO was sitting on Apple's Board, and 2) dramatically altered Android to emulate iOS after the iPhone came out.
And THE code for Android was not stolen from Oracle (or even said to be stolen from Oracle) Oracle is arguing that some of the code in Android is theirs...none of which has been proven yet but something tells me anyone but Apple is guilty before innocent.
What more proof do you need than Google admitting it in internal emails?
Nothing that Apple, Google, etc has done would ever fall under "Evil" in my eyes. Ever...at least not yet.
Do you honestly think a slogan like "Don't Be Evil" is referring to Hilter type actions? One of Google's founders gave the example of Google separating its search results from its advertising as an example of Google not being evil. So, it seems Google's standard for being evil falls a bit lower than the blood diamonds sort of evil you are referring to.
Based on the standard offered by Google itself, I'd argue trying to take one's lively hood by using his work to compete against him might be considered evil. Certainly more evil than not separating search from advertisements.
Do you honestly think a slogan like "Don't Be Evil" is referring to Hilter type actions? One of Google's founders gave the example of Google separating its search results from its advertising as an example of Google not being evil. So, it seems Google's standard for being evil falls a bit lower than the blood diamonds sort of evil you are referring to.
Based on the standard offered by Google itself, I'd argue trying to take one's lively hood by using his work to compete against him might be considered evil. Certainly more evil than not separating search from advertisements.
"Yo we stole Java from oracle who doesn't even own it yet and won't for half a decade?"
Don't parrot bullshit. Learn what the actual case is about then bring it up
So your argument is that they didn't really copy Java code because Oracle doesn't actually own Sun's Java yet. For fuck's sake, man, admit you are wrong for once!
The reason Apple isn't suing Google is that even if Apple would win on grounds of contributory infringement, the amount Apple could sue for in damages would be dismally small. The pockets of those companies selling Android containing phones are in contrast, quite deep.
Oracle has Google over a bit of a different barrel because of Java licensing, and somehow in that case the judge seems to be allowing Google ad revenue as being vulnerable to damages. Apple doesn't have that kind of direct connection to the Google Golden Goose to try to leverage.
Willful infringement allows a Court to award Treble damages. Apple's has been arguing to Courts that a person lost to Android is likely ever lost to Apple.
If you think about it in those terms, Google could be on the hook to Apple for big dollars because Apple would argue its damages are 1) lost hardware sales, and 2) lost App store sales. Apple might loss with that argument.
Apple could also argue for a big piece of the rumored 10 dollars a year for each Android device Google is rumored to make.
Apple relies to heavily on Google's mapping services right now to risk Google pulling out of its agreement with Apple to provide those services. Apple has bought a lot of mapping software companies. Apple has to working on getting rid of Google as its map providers. It has bought at least three map companies.
So your argument is that they didn't really copy Java code because Oracle doesn't actually own Sun's Java yet. For fuck's sake, man, admit you are wrong for once!
So now it's copy? I thought it was stolen....make up your mind.
And no I'm saying they didn't steal a damn thing from Oracle...I never mentioned Java.
And more importantly, whether or not this case is won by Oracle or not, Android was not stolen from Oracle as others have said.
Speaking as someone who hates Google and purposely avoids all their products ...
I still have to say that this is a huge exaggeration and misrepresentation of what that project was actually all about.
It's not worth taking the thread off course to get into it in detail, but this is basically just the Fox media version of what they were doing. Not actually true.
Really? Care to explain how this is the Fox News version? Google was ruled to have violated copyright in their original intent with Google Books and had to scale back what they were doing. You are talking about their original intentions, right, not what's there now?
And even the scaled back version is a trampling of copyright. Last night, I was thinking about some of the details at the end of Thinner, the novel by Stephen King, which I read when I was in high school many, many years ago. I did a quick search and found a majority of the novel available to read online at Google Books. I was able to sit and read the entire ending of the book.
Comments
You are confusing copyright and patent. In a literal sense, copyright involves copying, but patent law involves invention and implementation of an "idea" which can be implemented in an number of ways, none involving copying in the literal sense, and yet can be illegal use of a patent.
I get what you are saying but in this case it is one step removed because Google is not doing anything except open sourcing the code. Anyone who takes the code and does something commercial with it assumes responsibility for their own use of the code. I am only suggesting that Google has insulated themselves to a certain degree, making it difficult sue them except in the case of Oracle where the repurposing of actual code is alleged.
I get what you are saying but in this case it is one step removed because Google is not doing anything except open sourcing the code. Anyone who takes the code and does something commercial with it assumes responsibility for their own use of the code. I am only suggesting that Google has insulated themselves to a certain degree, making it difficult sue them except in the case of Oracle where the repurposing of actual code is alleged.
That is not correct.
Look up contributory infringement.
That is not correct.
Look up contributory infringement.
Maybe you should look it up as well
That is not correct.
Look up contributory infringement.
this^^.
I get what you are saying but in this case it is one step removed because Google is not doing anything except open sourcing the code. Anyone who takes the code and does something commercial with it assumes responsibility for their own use of the code. I am only suggesting that Google has insulated themselves to a certain degree, making it difficult sue them except in the case of Oracle where the repurposing of actual code is alleged.
The reason Apple isn't suing Google is that even if Apple would win on grounds of contributory infringement, the amount Apple could sue for in damages would be dismally small. The pockets of those companies selling Android containing phones are in contrast, quite deep.
Oracle has Google over a bit of a different barrel because of Java licensing, and somehow in that case the judge seems to be allowing Google ad revenue as being vulnerable to damages. Apple doesn't have that kind of direct connection to the Google Golden Goose to try to leverage.
The interesting part is the judge. If you could have any judge agree with your position it would be Posner. The guy is a living legend.
Agreed. Posner is one of the most brilliant jurists in the US. A classic, free-market, 'Chicago-school' jurist, so this is all the more significant.
As an aside, his prolific academic work has truly pushed the envelope in law schools.
Well that's obvious really...Andy was locked in Carbonite or something for 11? years then started Android in 2003...then Schmidt and Google bought Android in 05...keeping Rubin then Schmidt using I guess all the charm in the world somehow got Apple to invite him to the board in 2006...then the iPhone was released in 2007...then Google using decades of insider knowledge still took a year to steal iOS and make a direct 1:1 copy of it (a 1:1 copy that looks completely different and hardly functions the same) and yea...today is today....hence the fact that they STOLE!!!! Android from Apple...or Oracle...or both who knows depends who you ask...and yea...infringe = stolen (unless it's Apple) inspire = stolen (unless it's Apple)
Stolen is definitely the wrong word but no one cares....unless it's Apple.
Come on. Google has exhibited a pattern of not really giving a damn about other people's IP, whether it is Apple, Sun, or some little company in Kenya. As sleazy as Schmidt is, the company seems to have gone even further down the road to "evil" under Page.
The point of taking patent cases to the ITC is that it can block products relatively quickly, rather than fighting for years and getting either nothing or a vindication ruling 4 years later that doesn't matter anymore.
That's why Apple (and Motorola, Microsoft, etc) is taking cases to the ITC. But Apple is also suing in regular courts, and once it builds up enough wins (especially important ones like this 263 patent), it could sue Google for damages, if Google doesn't give up on copying Apple's stuff.
It actually seems more likely that Oracle will win enough of a case against Google to make the future of Android a dead end, converting it either to Java, or alternatively, Google backing away from a JVM design and jumping to phones that run web apps like the Chrome OS.
Oracle wants royalties, not to shut Android down. However, given Google's "free" Android OS business model, somebody's gotta foot the royalty bill.
And I do agree that at some point Google can and will be sued by Apple.
They should have had at least one win by now. So far it's only a few preliminary decisions that have both given and taken away. Apparently the blatant copying is nowhere near as cut-and-dried as some have made it out to be.
If you can see how divided technical experts are on whether Apple has a strong case or not, imagine how much more difficult this is for non-technical judges and juries....???
Still, there is nothing to prevent an injunction against the distribution of Android itself.
So far Apple is trying to block the importation of offending devices into the U.S. and other countries. I don't think the ITC can put an injunction in place when both Apple and Google are U.S. companies.
I am not a patent expert, but this looks like a bad and questionable patent to me.
But what about the essential UI innovations that define the iPhone, and also made Android so successful and interchangeable with the Apple's original products?
I mean multi-touch gestures, inertial scrolling, page transitions?
They covered by Apple's IP, aren't they? If so why can't they win based on these patents?
Are they considered prior art, invalid?
Apple has won on some IU points, such as inertial scrolling, and Samsung has had to remove such for importation into Australia. Court orders have forced other modifications to continue importing Samsung into parts of Europe.
While all this is going on both Samsung and Amazon have done a fork of Android version 2.2 which has, in effect, deprived Google of some of the data mining they need to support their advertising model...which negates the whole purpose of giving away Android.
Apple, by attacking the weaker HTC, has improved their odds of a win. Once there is a win on '363 with HTC, Apple has a defacto win on all Android imports and can effect an immediate shut down of all imports.
Then they can go butcher the big sow over at Google.
Apple is making several statements by all this legal action:
1. Don't mess with Apple.
2. It doesn't matter if you are making an OS or including an offending OS in your product; don't think you are safe from costly litigation with Apple if the OS is tainted.
3. Apple knows that enterprise users are watching all this unfold, and if they get jittery about Android, they will back away from using it in their plans.
Come on. Google has exhibited a pattern of not really giving a damn about other people's IP, whether it is Apple, Sun, or some little company in Kenya. As sleazy as Schmidt is, the company seems to have gone even further down the road to "evil" under Page.
We have very different definitions of evil I guess...evil to me are the diamond brokers and oil executives purposefully polluting, harrassing and terrorizing locals to get at their land.
Nothing that Apple, Google, etc has done would ever fall under "Evil" in my eyes. Ever...at least not yet.
Technically no.
Andy Rubin stole the basic idea for this *kind* of OS from Apple. Then he stole the code (Java/Davlik) for most of it from Oracle.
Andy is an equal opportunity thief.
I don't really know why anyone is surprised. He's on the record (through court release of documents) as to basically not giving a shit about the concept of IP and theft of same. He's just one of those guys that just thinks everything should be free to take for those that want to take it.
you can't steal the idea for an OS...don't be naive. Full touch OSes aren't even Apple's idea...neither are full capacitive touch OSes...in fact, the IDEA of a phone like the iPhone isn't Apple's idea. (not saying they STOLE!!!! the idea from anyone btw)
And THE code for Android was not stolen from Oracle (or even said to be stolen from Oracle) Oracle is arguing that some of the code in Android is theirs...none of which has been proven yet but something tells me anyone but Apple is guilty before innocent.
It goes back well before that.
One of the worst things I've seen any dot com company do was Google's attempt to copy every printed work and put it online to make money from it - without the authors' permission. It just boggles my mind that they couldn't see anything wrong with that.
And then, after that was shot down, they tried to get Congress to rewrite the copyright laws to allow it.
Really dishonest company.
I honestly don't have a problem with Google trying to do that. Part of my reason is I tend to respect patent law more than copyright law. The main reason I do that is because corporate lobbyists have kept the patent system sort of in check. A patent term is 20 years, compared to over a hundred years for a copyright. If you think about it the discrepancy is odd, considering patented ideas have to satisfy a much higher standard than a copyrighted idea to receive protection. The difference is corporate lobbyists have essentially screwed the public with copyrights.
Moreover, It isn't illegal to copy a book you legally possess provided your purpose is not commercial and you don't substantially deprive the copyright holder of money. The concept is similar to when Sony first allowed a person to copy a TV show without the copyright holder's permission. The Supreme Court held that was legal (even though Sony was making money indirectly off the copyright holders work).
Google set up shop by me at the University of Michigan and was largely copying text books, many of them being out of print for years. It is a shame Google failed to continue to fight that battle out, as the public was really deprived by Google throwing in the towel (especially since it had a good chance of winning the fight in the end). Imagine the information contained in all those textbooks, many not used. Imagine being able to search them from home.
More importantly, Google wasn't allowing people to just read the books in their entirety. It was indexing them so that people could search for topics within the books. Again, many of these books were out of print. People would have been able to read small sections of the books, and than been able to find out how to get a hold of the book itself. Books in the public domain would have been freely available. That would have been an incredibly useful tool. The copyright holders probably would have made money they otherwise wouldn't have made, and Google would have further entrenched its search business.
The main objections to Google's proposed service was that Google would be the only party that had the data. So, competitors like Microsoft's Bing would be at a disadvantage. I didn't see the problem with that considering Google spend a lot of time copying and indexing the works. Microsoft could have done the same thing. It would have taken a long time to catch up.
The difference with Oracle and Apple, however, is Google is actually using the other companies IP to harm the other companies. Google is using Java, but violating the license by making it incompatible with other versions of Java. This violates the write once run everywhere philosophy of Java. Moreover, Google smells in regards to Apple 1) because of it gaining inside knowledge while Google's CEO was sitting on Apple's Board, and 2) dramatically altered Android to emulate iOS after the iPhone came out.
And THE code for Android was not stolen from Oracle (or even said to be stolen from Oracle) Oracle is arguing that some of the code in Android is theirs...none of which has been proven yet but something tells me anyone but Apple is guilty before innocent.
What more proof do you need than Google admitting it in internal emails?
Nothing that Apple, Google, etc has done would ever fall under "Evil" in my eyes. Ever...at least not yet.
Do you honestly think a slogan like "Don't Be Evil" is referring to Hilter type actions? One of Google's founders gave the example of Google separating its search results from its advertising as an example of Google not being evil. So, it seems Google's standard for being evil falls a bit lower than the blood diamonds sort of evil you are referring to.
Based on the standard offered by Google itself, I'd argue trying to take one's lively hood by using his work to compete against him might be considered evil. Certainly more evil than not separating search from advertisements.
What more proof do you need than Google admitting it in internal emails?
And that's old news.
What more proof do you need than Google admitting it in internal emails?
What exactly do you think the email said?
"Yo we stole Java from oracle who doesn't even own it yet and won't for half a decade?"
Don't parrot bullshit. Learn what the actual case is about then bring it up
Note I'm arguing the "Google stole Android from Oracle" debate not that they may or may not have some copyrighted code.
Do you honestly think a slogan like "Don't Be Evil" is referring to Hilter type actions? One of Google's founders gave the example of Google separating its search results from its advertising as an example of Google not being evil. So, it seems Google's standard for being evil falls a bit lower than the blood diamonds sort of evil you are referring to.
Based on the standard offered by Google itself, I'd argue trying to take one's lively hood by using his work to compete against him might be considered evil. Certainly more evil than not separating search from advertisements.
"Trying to take one's livelihood"
What?
What exactly do you think the email said?
"Yo we stole Java from oracle who doesn't even own it yet and won't for half a decade?"
Don't parrot bullshit. Learn what the actual case is about then bring it up
So your argument is that they didn't really copy Java code because Oracle doesn't actually own Sun's Java yet. For fuck's sake, man, admit you are wrong for once!
The reason Apple isn't suing Google is that even if Apple would win on grounds of contributory infringement, the amount Apple could sue for in damages would be dismally small. The pockets of those companies selling Android containing phones are in contrast, quite deep.
Oracle has Google over a bit of a different barrel because of Java licensing, and somehow in that case the judge seems to be allowing Google ad revenue as being vulnerable to damages. Apple doesn't have that kind of direct connection to the Google Golden Goose to try to leverage.
Willful infringement allows a Court to award Treble damages. Apple's has been arguing to Courts that a person lost to Android is likely ever lost to Apple.
If you think about it in those terms, Google could be on the hook to Apple for big dollars because Apple would argue its damages are 1) lost hardware sales, and 2) lost App store sales. Apple might loss with that argument.
Apple could also argue for a big piece of the rumored 10 dollars a year for each Android device Google is rumored to make.
Apple relies to heavily on Google's mapping services right now to risk Google pulling out of its agreement with Apple to provide those services. Apple has bought a lot of mapping software companies. Apple has to working on getting rid of Google as its map providers. It has bought at least three map companies.
So your argument is that they didn't really copy Java code because Oracle doesn't actually own Sun's Java yet. For fuck's sake, man, admit you are wrong for once!
So now it's copy? I thought it was stolen....make up your mind.
And no I'm saying they didn't steal a damn thing from Oracle...I never mentioned Java.
And more importantly, whether or not this case is won by Oracle or not, Android was not stolen from Oracle as others have said.
Speaking as someone who hates Google and purposely avoids all their products ...
I still have to say that this is a huge exaggeration and misrepresentation of what that project was actually all about.
It's not worth taking the thread off course to get into it in detail, but this is basically just the Fox media version of what they were doing. Not actually true.
Really? Care to explain how this is the Fox News version? Google was ruled to have violated copyright in their original intent with Google Books and had to scale back what they were doing. You are talking about their original intentions, right, not what's there now?
And even the scaled back version is a trampling of copyright. Last night, I was thinking about some of the details at the end of Thinner, the novel by Stephen King, which I read when I was in high school many, many years ago. I did a quick search and found a majority of the novel available to read online at Google Books. I was able to sit and read the entire ending of the book.
http://books.google.com/books?id=KKh...page&q&f=false
I'm pretty sure no author wants their work available free to read online like that but Google did it anyway.