Oracle wins key reversal in Java copyright case against Google's Android

1356789

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 176
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,210member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post



    Celebrating way too early are we. If this is fair use Google has nothing to worry about. Even if Google has to pay its only for 37 APIs most of which has been replaced and completely rewritten. The best case for oracle they walk out with a couple hundred million dollars. Lawsuits are not good to kill android. You rabid fanboys need to except that

    A lot of wishful thinking there, based on an apparent lack of understanding.  Wholesale copying of the API is unlikely to be judged as "fair use", particularly if it's for commercial purposes. And Google neither replaced nor rewrote the API. The penalty for willful infringement of a registered copyright can be triple the damages.

  • Reply 42 of 176
    morrolanmorrolan Posts: 35member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post





    Is that you Gatorguy?

    Gatorguy has better grammar.

  • Reply 43 of 176
    bulk001bulk001 Posts: 769member
    peterbob wrote: »
    What did Google sleal.
    Well according to the appeals court Google stole intellectual property owned by Oracle.
  • Reply 44 of 176
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,740member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post



    What did Google sleal.

     

    Sun's R&D resources in developing Java.  Did you read this part of the article?

     



    In August, Oracle's chief executive Larry Ellison stated, "When you write a program for the Android phone, you use the Oracle Java tools for everything. And then at the very end, you press a button and say, 'Convert this to Android format.'" 


     

    So basically they piggybacked the Android development environment on the work Sun/Oracle did.

     

    To me, it's the technological equivalent of Ford setting up an assembly line for cars, then having someone come along and add an extra station at the end of the line which swaps the Ford logos for KIA logos and then delivering the cars to KIA dealerships.

  • Reply 45 of 176
    ruddyruddy Posts: 94member
    Quote:



    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

     

     

    At least 47 lines of code.


    Actually it was more than 7000 lines of API declaring code that was copied verbatim. 

  • Reply 46 of 176
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ruddy View Post

     

    Actually it was more than 7000 lines of API declaring code that was copied verbatim. 


     

    Ooh! Ouch! That's going to leave a mark!

  • Reply 47 of 176
    sumergosumergo Posts: 215member

    The first two paragraphs of the Preface to Google's Code of Conduct says (bolded italic script is my emphasis):

    --------

    “Don’t be evil.” Googlers generally apply those words to how we serve our users. But “Don’t be evil” is much more than that. Yes, it’s about providing our users unbiased access to information, focusing on their needs and giving them the best products and services that we can. But it’s also about doing the right thing more generally – following the law, acting honorably and treating each other with respect.

     

    The Google Code of Conduct is one of the ways we put “Don’t be evil” into practice. It’s built around the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct. We set the bar that high for practical as well as aspirational reasons: Our commitment to the highest standards helps us hire great people, build great products, and attract loyal users. Trust and mutual respect among employees and users are the foundation of our success, and they are something we need to earn every day.

    -------

    Since corporate culture is driven from the top, I guess someone didn't even get past the first few lines of their own mantra.

  • Reply 48 of 176
    peterbobpeterbob Posts: 60member
    hill60 wrote: »
    At least 47 lines of code.

    If its fair use its not stealing.
  • Reply 49 of 176
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,819member
    sumergo wrote: »
    The first two paragraphs of the Preface to Google's Code of Conduct says (bolded italic script is my emphasis):
    “Don’t be evil.” Googlers generally apply those words to how we serve our users. But “Don’t be evil” is much more than that. Yes, it’s about providing our users unbiased access to information, focusing on their needs and giving them the best products and services that we can. But it’s also about doing the right thing more generally – following the law, acting honorably and treating each other with respect.

    The Google Code of Conduct is one of the ways we put “Don’t be evil” into practice. It’s built around the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct. We set the bar that high for practical as well as aspirational reasons: Our commitment to the highest standards helps us hire great people, build great products, and attract loyal users. Trust and mutual respect among employees and users are the foundation of our success, and they are something we need to earn every day.
    Since corporate culture is driven from the top, I guess someone didn't even get past the first few lines of their own mantra.

    Certainly not Andy "making enemies along the way" Rubin. The Father of Android.
  • Reply 50 of 176
    peterbobpeterbob Posts: 60member
    ruddy wrote: »
    Actually it was more than 7000 lines of API declaring code that was copied verbatim. 

    I'll wait for the trial. If its fair use. It's not stealing.
  • Reply 51 of 176
    ruddyruddy Posts: 94member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post





    If its fair use its not stealing.

     

    If it's not fair use, then Android is fucked.

  • Reply 52 of 176
    frank popefrank pope Posts: 55member
    tundraboy wrote: »
    Good thing the appeals court reversed the lower court's judgement that short phrases are not copyrightable.  That would have spelled the end of my budding career writing haiku.

    So the legal skirmish will now be over fair use.  Google uses Oracle's copyrighted material to build a business with annual combined smart phone, mobile app and ad sales of X billions.  It wan't used for instruction, scholarship, criticism, comment, artistic expression, reporting or anything else  except profit. Let's see who can argue fair use out of that.

    And beyond that, fair use is to promote interoperability.
    Last time I checked no android phone interacts with oracle's java.
    The only interoperable part is the programmer who takes his knowledge of Java
    and uses it on android's "Java".
    Nothing new to learn 'cause it's all "borrowed" from Java,
    works like java,
    but interoperates only with android.

    If you want your own java, this is not how you should do it.
  • Reply 53 of 176
    macky the mackymacky the macky Posts: 4,801member
    While this may turn out costing Google, it has got to send a chill down the backs of Samsung's management... Sales success, in both these companies, mean bigger fines and costs piling up down the road.
  • Reply 54 of 176
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,339member
    ruddy wrote: »
    Actually it was more than 7000 lines of API declaring code that was copied verbatim. 
    Yet the Appeals Court did not find that code was protected. That's to be determined in a new trial over the issue of fair use.
  • Reply 55 of 176
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post

    If its fair use its not stealing.

     

    LIKE CLOCKWORK. What’d I tell you, @hill60? (sorry for sending you an e-mail because of the @ sign) 

     

    It’s not fair use. Period.

  • Reply 56 of 176
    dickprinterdickprinter Posts: 1,060member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ruddy View Post

     

     

    If it's not fair use, then Android is fucked.


    LOL. There's a reason why the original ruling has been reversed, Peterbob.

     

    He must be worried about losing his shill money….<img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />

  • Reply 57 of 176
    drwamdrwam Posts: 38member
    So, they stole the back end from Larry Ellison and the front end from Steve Jobs. They did this because they needed to make sure they had guaranteed revenue stream from mobile advertising (and careful analysis and sale of customer data). Because they were skating where the puck had been in 2007, they needed to take some short cuts. I do not think it unreasonable that they should be made to pay for the short cuts they took.
    However, getting a payoff from the courts is going to be a difficult proposition.
  • Reply 58 of 176
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,773member
    morrolan wrote: »
    Gatorguy has better grammar.

    True, my bad.
  • Reply 59 of 176
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,740member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post





    I'll wait for the trial. If its fair use. It's not stealing.

     

    If it's fair use, then it's a loophole in the system that Google knowingly exploited.  Because clearly Sun/Oracle didn't give them permission to do what they did.

     

    Look, I came from the same technology background as many of the people at Google did: hacking Linux systems in my basement, trying to make it look like other OSes, cloning existing commercial applications, etc.  But not once did I think that it would be right to commercially release my work.  It was for fun and learning purposes only, and I eventually grew up/out of it.

     

    The fact that some people at Google did just that: cloned Java and then licensed it commercially to others, shows that they never really grew out of that mentality.  In fact, it seems like they went to great lengths to find ways to do it using grey/fuzzy areas of the law.  Which is even worse than simply being naive.  Just because it isn't against the law doesn't make it right.

  • Reply 60 of 176
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,773member
    ruddy wrote: »
    Actually it was more than 7000 lines of API declaring code that was copied verbatim. 

    Your honor, it's coincidence those 7000 lines look the same, honestly!
Sign In or Register to comment.