Google faces $9 billion in damages after ripping off Java in Android

14567810»

Comments

  • Reply 181 of 186
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,517member
    gatorguy said:
    melgross said:

    This is fanboy propaganda in the same way that the article deliberately blurred the distinction between Apis and implementing code.

    Google didn't use the Java API to save time developing Android (they could have easily renamed function names and changed them slightly) but in order to make it easy for third party to develop for the platform. It's not clear why an API developer should own the human capital that stored in form of muscle memory in the heads of thousands of developers if they profited handsomely already from these developers writing code for them.

    Finally, Apple stands on the shoulder of Giants like anyone else. Objective c is based on c and it's standard is heavily influenced by the c library. Swift's library is also obviously based on the countless libraries that came before. This is taken for granted: I have never seen the creators of C go around and Sue anyone I sight for repurpursing their libraries.

    Sure, Google "only steals". I guess that's why these hadoop companies reimplemented MapReduce and the Google file system from the seminal 2005 paper and created Hadoop out of it. That's the reason why kubernetes (developed by Google) has become the container orchestrator of choice. That's why tensor flow is opensourced by google and the tool of choice for deep learning. That's why Node uses the V8 JavaScript engine to develop a huge ecosystem around it. That's why countless academics use syntaxnet (Google too) for creating syntactic parse trees. Etc. Etc.

    Bending your mind like a pretzel to write stuff that fits your anti Google crusade isn't healthy.
    I wonder why the owners of C didn't sue NeXT or Apple over Objective-C?

    Maybe it's because neither NeXT nor Apple stole any code nor violated the licensing of anything.

    Google stole code and violated the GPL in order to screw over Java and take value that it did not own nor had any right to appropriate.  That's been decided after extensive legal review. 

    More importantly, your opinion doesn't matter. Google now faces the potential of having to pay for the work it appropriated in violation of Sun's licensing, to Oracle as the current owner. The fact that you're upset about Google having to pay to license technology it knew it should have paid for from the start makes it pretty clear who is the delusional fanboy here and who is just stating facts in a news article. 
    Well, I have to agree with you on this one. We have the emails from Google engineers stating that they needed to take out a license, and that they told their superiors that. We’ve also had, though I forget who it was, a top executive from Google stating that they should be allowed to use the IP of others for free, because Google was an “innovator”, as though those who spent the time developing that IP were not.
    I don't recall any Google exec saying they should be able to use any old IP for free because "innovator" or any other reason. I believe you are thinking of something else and mistaken but if you actually have some link to it.... 
    no, I’m not thinking of something else. That was stated.
  • Reply 182 of 186
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 18,704member
    melgross said:
    gatorguy said:
    melgross said:

    This is fanboy propaganda in the same way that the article deliberately blurred the distinction between Apis and implementing code.

    Google didn't use the Java API to save time developing Android (they could have easily renamed function names and changed them slightly) but in order to make it easy for third party to develop for the platform. It's not clear why an API developer should own the human capital that stored in form of muscle memory in the heads of thousands of developers if they profited handsomely already from these developers writing code for them.

    Finally, Apple stands on the shoulder of Giants like anyone else. Objective c is based on c and it's standard is heavily influenced by the c library. Swift's library is also obviously based on the countless libraries that came before. This is taken for granted: I have never seen the creators of C go around and Sue anyone I sight for repurpursing their libraries.

    Sure, Google "only steals". I guess that's why these hadoop companies reimplemented MapReduce and the Google file system from the seminal 2005 paper and created Hadoop out of it. That's the reason why kubernetes (developed by Google) has become the container orchestrator of choice. That's why tensor flow is opensourced by google and the tool of choice for deep learning. That's why Node uses the V8 JavaScript engine to develop a huge ecosystem around it. That's why countless academics use syntaxnet (Google too) for creating syntactic parse trees. Etc. Etc.

    Bending your mind like a pretzel to write stuff that fits your anti Google crusade isn't healthy.
    I wonder why the owners of C didn't sue NeXT or Apple over Objective-C?

    Maybe it's because neither NeXT nor Apple stole any code nor violated the licensing of anything.

    Google stole code and violated the GPL in order to screw over Java and take value that it did not own nor had any right to appropriate.  That's been decided after extensive legal review. 

    More importantly, your opinion doesn't matter. Google now faces the potential of having to pay for the work it appropriated in violation of Sun's licensing, to Oracle as the current owner. The fact that you're upset about Google having to pay to license technology it knew it should have paid for from the start makes it pretty clear who is the delusional fanboy here and who is just stating facts in a news article. 
    Well, I have to agree with you on this one. We have the emails from Google engineers stating that they needed to take out a license, and that they told their superiors that. We’ve also had, though I forget who it was, a top executive from Google stating that they should be allowed to use the IP of others for free, because Google was an “innovator”, as though those who spent the time developing that IP were not.
    I don't recall any Google exec saying they should be able to use any old IP for free because "innovator" or any other reason. I believe you are thinking of something else and mistaken but if you actually have some link to it.... 
    no, I’m not thinking of something else. That was stated.
    Where? When? Any evidence other than Mel remembers it? If no one can find it I'd say it didn't happen. You apparently can't find it, nor can I. 
    edited April 6 singularity
  • Reply 183 of 186
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,517member
    gatorguy said:
    melgross said:
    gatorguy said:
    melgross said:

    This is fanboy propaganda in the same way that the article deliberately blurred the distinction between Apis and implementing code.

    Google didn't use the Java API to save time developing Android (they could have easily renamed function names and changed them slightly) but in order to make it easy for third party to develop for the platform. It's not clear why an API developer should own the human capital that stored in form of muscle memory in the heads of thousands of developers if they profited handsomely already from these developers writing code for them.

    Finally, Apple stands on the shoulder of Giants like anyone else. Objective c is based on c and it's standard is heavily influenced by the c library. Swift's library is also obviously based on the countless libraries that came before. This is taken for granted: I have never seen the creators of C go around and Sue anyone I sight for repurpursing their libraries.

    Sure, Google "only steals". I guess that's why these hadoop companies reimplemented MapReduce and the Google file system from the seminal 2005 paper and created Hadoop out of it. That's the reason why kubernetes (developed by Google) has become the container orchestrator of choice. That's why tensor flow is opensourced by google and the tool of choice for deep learning. That's why Node uses the V8 JavaScript engine to develop a huge ecosystem around it. That's why countless academics use syntaxnet (Google too) for creating syntactic parse trees. Etc. Etc.

    Bending your mind like a pretzel to write stuff that fits your anti Google crusade isn't healthy.
    I wonder why the owners of C didn't sue NeXT or Apple over Objective-C?

    Maybe it's because neither NeXT nor Apple stole any code nor violated the licensing of anything.

    Google stole code and violated the GPL in order to screw over Java and take value that it did not own nor had any right to appropriate.  That's been decided after extensive legal review. 

    More importantly, your opinion doesn't matter. Google now faces the potential of having to pay for the work it appropriated in violation of Sun's licensing, to Oracle as the current owner. The fact that you're upset about Google having to pay to license technology it knew it should have paid for from the start makes it pretty clear who is the delusional fanboy here and who is just stating facts in a news article. 
    Well, I have to agree with you on this one. We have the emails from Google engineers stating that they needed to take out a license, and that they told their superiors that. We’ve also had, though I forget who it was, a top executive from Google stating that they should be allowed to use the IP of others for free, because Google was an “innovator”, as though those who spent the time developing that IP were not.
    I don't recall any Google exec saying they should be able to use any old IP for free because "innovator" or any other reason. I believe you are thinking of something else and mistaken but if you actually have some link to it.... 
    no, I’m not thinking of something else. That was stated.
    Where? When? Any evidence other than Mel remembers it? If no one can find it I'd say it didn't happen. You apparently can't find it, nor can I. 
    I wasn’t looking for it. It wasn’t that I couldn’t find it. I’m not going to try to look for a particular quote, but this article tells you pretty much exactly what I said about this from Google’s point of view. Yes, it’s not a quote, but it’s true, and real. There’s a lot more about this, as well as articles about Google’s intentional whining about other companies lack of transparency in patent applications, while Google is, by far, the worst at that as well.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/innovation-and-googles-attack-on-the-patent-system-2011-8
  • Reply 184 of 186
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,517member
    Come on Gatorguy, you’re not going to respond to my last post?
  • Reply 185 of 186
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 18,704member
    melgross said:
    Come on Gatorguy, you’re not going to respond to my last post?
    Sorry. Didn't see it until you poked me.

    Based on the timeline (2011) my guess is Business Insider is referring to concern over foundational Novell IP coupled with the essential Nortel patents bought by Microsoft/Apple being used as a wall to stifle competition, lock out certain players such as Google with refusal to license at all which was a rumored goal at the time. Fortunately that never came to pass due to a warning to abstain from doing so from the US government and a written agreement between the involved parties in 2012 not to do so (after Google countered with Moto patents), but if that's what the attorney was expressing concern about and considering the atmosphere in 2011 it seems a valid issue to raise. It was not patents in general but specific massive groups of patents that are foundational in nature being withheld from licensing in order to block competition. 2010-2013 was a wild time with everyone threatening everyone with ridiculous attempts to throttle commerce via IP blockades. 

    In essence IIRC the argument was made that some types of patents should be subject to compulsory licensing which is exactly what I suspected you were thinking of but missing on the detail. There was no suggestion that patent ownership was to be ignored, or proper recompense should not be made for using them.  It's hardly what you originally claimed, that Google said they should be able to use everyone's patents for free because "innovation!". Any suggestion that Google wanted everything and anything for free in that article was supposition and "click-baitery" by the article's author and not anything Google even implied, much less stated. Put in context with the times the actual intent is pretty evident: Don't allow anyone to buy up big patent troves that have historically been fairly licensed and then remove access to them to harm competitors.
     
    You could have linked instead to the AI article on the subject authored by DED about that same time, which is probably the one you were remembering reading. Even he didn't claim Google wanted everyone's IP for free.
    https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/129818/google-complains-of-patent-attacks-upon-android-from-apple-microsoft/p1

    FWIW, and not necessarily related to this, but compulsory licensing is beginning to gain some traction in the past couple of years with a small handful of court orders that accomplish just that. Personally I expect to see more of 'em.
    edited April 12
  • Reply 186 of 186
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,517member
    gatorguy said:
    melgross said:
    Come on Gatorguy, you’re not going to respond to my last post?
    Sorry. Didn't see it until you poked me.

    Based on the timeline (2011) my guess is Business Insider is referring to concern over foundational Novell IP coupled with the essential Nortel patents bought by Microsoft/Apple being used as a wall to stifle competition, lock out certain players such as Google with refusal to license at all which was a rumored goal at the time. Fortunately that never came to pass due to a warning to abstain from doing so from the US government and a written agreement between the involved parties in 2012 not to do so (after Google countered with Moto patents), but if that's what the attorney was expressing concern about and considering the atmosphere in 2011 it seems a valid issue to raise. It was not patents in general but specific massive groups of patents that are foundational in nature being withheld from licensing in order to block competition. 2010-2013 was a wild time with everyone threatening everyone with ridiculous attempts to throttle commerce via IP blockades. 

    In essence IIRC the argument was made that some types of patents should be subject to compulsory licensing which is exactly what I suspected you were thinking of but missing on the detail. There was no suggestion that patent ownership was to be ignored, or proper recompense should not be made for using them.  It's hardly what you originally claimed, that Google said they should be able to use everyone's patents for free because "innovation!". Any suggestion that Google wanted everything and anything for free in that article was supposition and "click-baitery" by the article's author and not anything Google even implied, much less stated. Put in context with the times the actual intent is pretty evident: Don't allow anyone to buy up big patent troves that have historically been fairly licensed and then remove access to them to harm competitors.
     
    You could have linked instead to the AI article on the subject authored by DED about that same time, which is probably the one you were remembering reading. Even he didn't claim Google wanted everyone's IP for free.
    https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/129818/google-complains-of-patent-attacks-upon-android-from-apple-microsoft/p1

    FWIW, and not necessarily related to this, but compulsory licensing is beginning to gain some traction in the past couple of years with a small handful of court orders that accomplish just that. Personally I expect to see more of 'em.
    Oh please, you’re again confusing the issues. Google bidder on numerous patent bundles, but was outbid. It shows their desire. And it’s nice that you continually try to defend the indefensible.
Sign In or Register to comment.