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

1356710

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 186
    bkkcanuck said:
    I disagree with the Federal Court.  

    API is just the interface (e.g. add(operand1, operand2) - i.e. no implementation to that - and implementation is basically 99%+ of the code).

    Being able to use an API for compatibility purposes is no different than for example Open Office being able to implement the file format for Word.  The need for competition outweighs the argument as an API protected IP.   Google's implementation uses the API (common) and then the implementation code which is probably more than 99% of the code base.  As long as Google did not copy the code itself the API itself should be fair use.  Languages and APIs should not be able to be protected as API.  

    The court has already previously ruled that you cannot protect interfaces for hardware for the purposes of locking out the competition on things like printer cartridges etc.  An API is not much different than the software equivalent.  

    I agree that this is a pretty uninformed article.

    First of all, this whole case was about API definitions and not the Java language per se. You could always copy languages and people for a long time thought that Apis are just part of the language. 

    The only reason the CAFC ruled in this case is because the original Oracle case had patent claims and the CAFC gets all patent cases. The patent case was lost early on for Oracle and so they focused on the Apis which even Florian Mueller thought back in 2010 was an afterthought. Unexpectedly it became the central part of the case.

    Whether this decision will stand or will be thrown out by the supreme Court is open. The CAFC has a bad record for being reversed by the supreme Court because it is exceeding patentee friendly. CAFC  itself originally did not decide the fair use question during the first appeal (when it threw out the trial judge determination that Apis are functional and hence not copyrightable). When the jury then decided in 2016 that this was fair use the nineth circuit didn't seem to like that answer either and threw it out. This is uncommon and I am curious what happens during the appeal to the supreme Court.

    Finally, more specifics. Google used the harmony implementation of java from Apache which was under the Apache license.

    Sun and Oracle also had a GPL openJDK implementation with classpath exception (which makes it effectively the LGPL license) and with Android 6 Google switched the libraries from the harmony derived ones to openJDK. 

    So since 2016 the phone Android use openJDK and Chromebook runtime uses Android 7 and hence also openJDK. So the damages case (if the case is not reversed again by supreme Court) will cover usage up to Android 5. There were no major breaking changes when switching to openJDK. So it's not clear where exactly the damage is - Google just had the bad luck of using harmony instead of openJDK from the start (to be fair openJDK improved a lot over the years too).

    So there won't be any copyrigt injunction etc. There might be damages.

    However, even if you are diehard Google hater - it's not clear whether copyrighting Apis ist a good idea. You create Apis for third parties to create code. But you can essentially appropriate the code of these 3rd parties if they cannot write their own runtime to implement the same API. For this reason Apis were always considered to be a different animal than code implementing those Apis.
    edited March 28 gatorguybkkcanuckavon b7
  • Reply 42 of 186
    auxioauxio Posts: 1,872member
    bkkcanuck said:
    I disagree with the Federal Court.  

    API is just the interface (e.g. add(operand1, operand2) - i.e. no implementation to that - and implementation is basically 99%+ of the code).

    Being able to use an API for compatibility purposes is no different than for example Open Office being able to implement the file format for Word.  The need for competition outweighs the argument as an API protected IP.   Google's implementation uses the API (common) and then the implementation code which is probably more than 99% of the code base.  As long as Google did not copy the code itself the API itself should be fair use.  Languages and APIs should not be able to be protected as API.  

    The court has already previously ruled that you cannot protect interfaces for hardware for the purposes of locking out the competition on things like printer cartridges etc.  An API is not much different than the software equivalent.  

    However, even if you are diehard Google hater - it's not clear whether copyrighting Apis ist a good idea.
    I don't think it is.  However, I also don't think that someone who knowingly and willingly tries to find a way around a technology licensing agreement for tremendous profit should go unpunished.

    And yes, I know the history of Sun courting the open source crowd (which gave way to the licensing loopholes).  I even submitted patches to the Blackdown port of Java to Linux around 1999 or so.
    edited March 28 watto_cobrapropod
  • Reply 43 of 186
    auxio said:
    bkkcanuck said:
    I disagree with the Federal Court.  

    API is just the interface (e.g. add(operand1, operand2) - i.e. no implementation to that - and implementation is basically 99%+ of the code).

    Being able to use an API for compatibility purposes is no different than for example Open Office being able to implement the file format for Word.  The need for competition outweighs the argument as an API protected IP.   Google's implementation uses the API (common) and then the implementation code which is probably more than 99% of the code base.  As long as Google did not copy the code itself the API itself should be fair use.  Languages and APIs should not be able to be protected as API.  

    The court has already previously ruled that you cannot protect interfaces for hardware for the purposes of locking out the competition on things like printer cartridges etc.  An API is not much different than the software equivalent.  

    However, even if you are diehard Google hater - it's not clear whether copyrighting Apis ist a good idea.
    I don't think it is.  However, I also don't think that someone who knowingly and willingly tries to find a way around a technology licensing agreement for tremendous profit should go unpunished.
    Well if you think they shouldn't be copyrightable then you can't object to Google using them.

    I think it's also important to put the work that goes into Apis into perspective. Yes they take creativity. But they are not usually created out fo thin air. The Java API is influenced by countless Apis before it such as C and C++. 

    Oracle itself has benefited from standing on the shoulder of Giants. I am not aware that they pay IBM for the SQL syntax (admittedly a language rather than API but clearly groundbreaking and which changed the database industry). All the companies that use Hadoop based their work on the original Google 2005 MapReduce paper that outlines MR and GFS (both of which Hadoop implements).

    Oracle stands out for being incredible litigious and greedy. We will see who will win the next round in this particular fight.
    edited March 28 bkkcanuck
  • Reply 44 of 186
    auxioauxio Posts: 1,872member
    auxio said:
    bkkcanuck said:
    I disagree with the Federal Court.  

    API is just the interface (e.g. add(operand1, operand2) - i.e. no implementation to that - and implementation is basically 99%+ of the code).

    Being able to use an API for compatibility purposes is no different than for example Open Office being able to implement the file format for Word.  The need for competition outweighs the argument as an API protected IP.   Google's implementation uses the API (common) and then the implementation code which is probably more than 99% of the code base.  As long as Google did not copy the code itself the API itself should be fair use.  Languages and APIs should not be able to be protected as API.  

    The court has already previously ruled that you cannot protect interfaces for hardware for the purposes of locking out the competition on things like printer cartridges etc.  An API is not much different than the software equivalent.  

    However, even if you are diehard Google hater - it's not clear whether copyrighting Apis ist a good idea.
    I don't think it is.  However, I also don't think that someone who knowingly and willingly tries to find a way around a technology licensing agreement for tremendous profit should go unpunished.
    Well if you think they shouldn't be copyrightable then you can't object to Google suing them.

    I think it's also important to put the work that goes into Apis into perspective. Yes they take creativity. But they are not usually created out fo thin air. The Java API is influenced by countless Apis before it such as C and C++. 

    Oracle itself has benefited from standing on the shoulder of Giants. I am not aware that they pay IBM for the SQL syntax (admittedly a language rather than API but clearly groundbreaking and which changed the database industry). All the companies that use Hadoop based their work on the original Google 2005 MapReduce paper that outlines MR and GFS (both of which Hadoop implements).

    Oracle stands out for being incredible litigious and greedy. We will see who will win the next round in this particular fight.
    Forget the world of business and who owns what company.  I just have one simple question: do you think what Andy Rubin and company did with Java is right?

    In regard to those cases you state, if there are clear cases of licensing infringement (or clear intentional loophole exploitation) there, then I think Oracle should be made to pay.  The same way I think that Google should pay for what was done with Java.  Regardless of the fact that Java is now open source to anyone, at the time, the intent of Sun was to allow open source usage of Java in educational/non-profit situations, but you had to take a license if it was bundled in a commercial product.  Which was pretty standard for the time -- Qt used this model as well.
    edited March 28 watto_cobrahlee1169propod
  • Reply 45 of 186
    gatorguy said:
    Of course you wouldn't want to code around the agreement. You'd code around the patented part of the technology to try and avoid infringing if you don't want to pay the inventor, and I'm sure that's what you've done before if you've been at it very long. No matter how you get there you're building on someone else's hard work while refusing the originator profit for it.

    How many times have you seen some good, inventive and hopefully profitable 3rd party feature "copied" in essence by Apple or whoever and integrated into their own software while the person/company with the original idea withers away on the vine? All quite legal as long as the surgery is good.
    Your whataboutism and both-sidesing are phony distractions from the fact that:

    Google stole significant Java code available under the GPL, then distributed it in violation of that license to make money without paying a licensing fee for Java, without following Suns' licensing rules for Java (stealing control of Sun's platform), and also without respect for the GPL. 

    Apple didn't steal code, it didn't steal somebody else's platform, and it didn't violate the GPL just because it might have been convenient for a large company wanting to run things without doing the work to earn or acquire ownership. 

    Google also stole content from Yelp, stole content from authors, stole content from news sites, etc and then repressed lawsuits until it achieved monopolistic control over advertising on the web, and everyone just had to agree that it was okay Google scraped their work because they were being given traffic by Google. 

    Google also helped its licensees steal clearly patented ideas from iOS, and only escaped there because it was giving away the support of its theft. 

    When Apple acquired former Palm talent to build its notification system (which Google had simply ripped off for Android), Android fans accused Apple of taking Google's (unprotected) ideas. But that wasn't true, Google had no ownership, and Apple had been working on it for just as long.

    Apple didn't steal code from Android. It didn't steal Unix code, and it worked to make sure its implementation of BSD was legitimate. Apple has had IP disagreements with Nokia, Qualcomm and many others, but those didn't result from Apple deciding to steal their work and just not pay for it because it was a larger company. Further, Apple has shown a willingness to pay the licensing costs of agreements, even when they are not exactly fair. 

    Google's culture is all about stealing. It stole its first business model, stole its primary platform, attempted to steal iPhone and iPad, and it steals content with abandon. That's because it's made up largely of Microsoft people, which shared the same steal first, pay later ethos. 

    Your consistent, slavish support for Google reflects the same sort of amorality that often takes the shape of hypocrisy as you try to paint Google as perfectly righteous and (at the same time) the rest of the world as "just as criminal." 



    lordjohnwhorfinradarthekatStrangeDaystmaycornchipwatto_cobrahlee1169propodjony0docno42
  • Reply 46 of 186
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,049member
    auxio said:
    auxio said:
    bkkcanuck said:
    I disagree with the Federal Court.  

    API is just the interface (e.g. add(operand1, operand2) - i.e. no implementation to that - and implementation is basically 99%+ of the code).

    Being able to use an API for compatibility purposes is no different than for example Open Office being able to implement the file format for Word.  The need for competition outweighs the argument as an API protected IP.   Google's implementation uses the API (common) and then the implementation code which is probably more than 99% of the code base.  As long as Google did not copy the code itself the API itself should be fair use.  Languages and APIs should not be able to be protected as API.  

    The court has already previously ruled that you cannot protect interfaces for hardware for the purposes of locking out the competition on things like printer cartridges etc.  An API is not much different than the software equivalent.  

    However, even if you are diehard Google hater - it's not clear whether copyrighting Apis ist a good idea.
    I don't think it is.  However, I also don't think that someone who knowingly and willingly tries to find a way around a technology licensing agreement for tremendous profit should go unpunished.
    Well if you think they shouldn't be copyrightable then you can't object to Google suing them.

    I think it's also important to put the work that goes into Apis into perspective. Yes they take creativity. But they are not usually created out fo thin air. The Java API is influenced by countless Apis before it such as C and C++. 

    Oracle itself has benefited from standing on the shoulder of Giants. I am not aware that they pay IBM for the SQL syntax (admittedly a language rather than API but clearly groundbreaking and which changed the database industry). All the companies that use Hadoop based their work on the original Google 2005 MapReduce paper that outlines MR and GFS (both of which Hadoop implements).

    Oracle stands out for being incredible litigious and greedy. We will see who will win the next round in this particular fight.
    Forget the world of business and who owns what company.  I just have one simple question: do you think what Andy Rubin and company did with Java is right?

    In regard to those cases you state, if there are clear cases of licensing infringement (or clear intentional loophole exploitation) there, then I think Oracle should be made to pay.  The same way I think that Google should pay for what was done with Java.  Regardless of the fact that Java is now open source to anyone, at the time, the intent of Sun was to allow open source usage of Java in educational/non-profit situations, but you had to take a license if it was bundled in a commercial product.  Which was pretty standard for the time -- Qt used this model as well.
    Business decisions are not dependent on morality as a general rule. So yes let's forget who owns the company.

    There's been lots of questionable moves over the years, the highest profile example off the top of my head being Apple's use of Xerox IP and "hard work" design. While it didn't turn out to be found illegal the argument could be made it just wasn't right, that the intent to take it without recompense was there.  Yeah some money changed hands but not for the usage that Apple put it to IIRC.  After all the court filings from Xerox were over with it wasn't actually illegal tho, even if it might not have been "right" in the view of some folks. 
    https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xerox-sues-apple-computer-over-macintosh-copyright.html
    Are there similarities here?
    edited March 28
  • Reply 47 of 186
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,047member
    bigmushroom said:

    I agree that this is a pretty uninformed article.

    First of all, this whole case was about API definitions and not the Java language per se. You could always copy languages and people for a long time thought that Apis are just part of the language. 



    Honestly, I have not thought that the APIs were just part of the language since college nearly 35 years ago. I don't think any of the developers and software architects I have worked with over the past 20 years have thought the API were part of the language.

  • Reply 48 of 186
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,049member
    gatorguy said:
    Of course you wouldn't want to code around the agreement. You'd code around the patented part of the technology to try and avoid infringing if you don't want to pay the inventor, and I'm sure that's what you've done before if you've been at it very long. No matter how you get there you're building on someone else's hard work while refusing the originator profit for it.

    How many times have you seen some good, inventive and hopefully profitable 3rd party feature "copied" in essence by Apple or whoever and integrated into their own software while the person/company with the original idea withers away on the vine? All quite legal as long as the surgery is good.
    Your whataboutism and both-sidesing are phony distractions from the fact that:

    Google stole significant Java code available under the GPL, then distributed it in violation of that license to make money without paying a licensing fee for Java, without following Suns' licensing rules for Java (stealing control of Sun's platform), and also without respect for the GPL. 

    Apple didn't steal code, it didn't steal somebody else's platform, and it didn't violate the GPL just because it might have been convenient for a large company wanting to run things without doing the work to earn or acquire ownership. 

    Google also stole content from Yelp, stole content from authors, stole content from news sites, etc and then repressed lawsuits until it achieved monopolistic control over advertising on the web, and everyone just had to agree that it was okay Google scraped their work because they were being given traffic by Google. 

    Google also helped its licensees steal clearly patented ideas from iOS, and only escaped there because it was giving away the support of its theft. 

    When Apple acquired former Palm talent to build its notification system (which Google had simply ripped off for Android), Android fans accused Apple of taking Google's (unprotected) ideas. But that wasn't true, Google had no ownership, and Apple had been working on it for just as long.

    Apple didn't steal code from Android. It didn't steal Unix code, and it worked to make sure its implementation of BSD was legitimate. Apple has had IP disagreements with Nokia, Qualcomm and many others, but those didn't result from Apple deciding to steal their work and just not pay for it because it was a larger company. Further, Apple has shown a willingness to pay the licensing costs of agreements, even when they are not exactly fair. 

    Google's culture is all about stealing. It stole its first business model, stole its primary platform, attempted to steal iPhone and iPad, and it steals content with abandon. That's because it's made up largely of Microsoft people, which shared the same steal first, pay later ethos. 

    Your consistent, slavish support for Google reflects the same sort of amorality that often takes the shape of hypocrisy as you try to paint Google as perfectly righteous and (at the same time) the rest of the world as "just as criminal." 



    Wheww...
    I guess you missed the much earlier post where I said Google was wrong (post 5) and the later one stating likely have to pay up for cutting Sun out and doing an end-around (post 30). You shouldn't be in such a hurry to attack the person and instead read the messages first. There's a whole thread here. 

    BTW have you ever done a search for "Apple guilty of willful infringement"? Willfulness isn't an accident. Like I said, all the big companies try to get away with what they can, as quickly as they can, and for the lowest cost. Business. 
    edited March 28
  • Reply 49 of 186
    auxioauxio Posts: 1,872member
    gatorguy said:
    auxio said:
    auxio said:
    bkkcanuck said:
    I disagree with the Federal Court.  

    API is just the interface (e.g. add(operand1, operand2) - i.e. no implementation to that - and implementation is basically 99%+ of the code).

    Being able to use an API for compatibility purposes is no different than for example Open Office being able to implement the file format for Word.  The need for competition outweighs the argument as an API protected IP.   Google's implementation uses the API (common) and then the implementation code which is probably more than 99% of the code base.  As long as Google did not copy the code itself the API itself should be fair use.  Languages and APIs should not be able to be protected as API.  

    The court has already previously ruled that you cannot protect interfaces for hardware for the purposes of locking out the competition on things like printer cartridges etc.  An API is not much different than the software equivalent.  

    However, even if you are diehard Google hater - it's not clear whether copyrighting Apis ist a good idea.
    I don't think it is.  However, I also don't think that someone who knowingly and willingly tries to find a way around a technology licensing agreement for tremendous profit should go unpunished.
    Well if you think they shouldn't be copyrightable then you can't object to Google suing them.

    I think it's also important to put the work that goes into Apis into perspective. Yes they take creativity. But they are not usually created out fo thin air. The Java API is influenced by countless Apis before it such as C and C++. 

    Oracle itself has benefited from standing on the shoulder of Giants. I am not aware that they pay IBM for the SQL syntax (admittedly a language rather than API but clearly groundbreaking and which changed the database industry). All the companies that use Hadoop based their work on the original Google 2005 MapReduce paper that outlines MR and GFS (both of which Hadoop implements).

    Oracle stands out for being incredible litigious and greedy. We will see who will win the next round in this particular fight.
    Forget the world of business and who owns what company.  I just have one simple question: do you think what Andy Rubin and company did with Java is right?

    In regard to those cases you state, if there are clear cases of licensing infringement (or clear intentional loophole exploitation) there, then I think Oracle should be made to pay.  The same way I think that Google should pay for what was done with Java.  Regardless of the fact that Java is now open source to anyone, at the time, the intent of Sun was to allow open source usage of Java in educational/non-profit situations, but you had to take a license if it was bundled in a commercial product.  Which was pretty standard for the time -- Qt used this model as well.
    Business decisions are not dependent on morality as a general rule. So yes let's forget who owns the company.

    There's been lots of questionable moves over the years, the highest profile example off the top of my head being Apple's use of Xerox IP and "hard work" design. While it didn't turn out to be found illegal the argument could be made it just wasn't right, that the intent to take it without recompense was there.  Yeah some money changed hands but not for the usage that Apple put it to IIRC.  After all the court filings from Xerox were over with it wasn't actually illegal tho, even if it might not have been "right" in the view of some folks. 
    https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xerox-sues-apple-computer-over-macintosh-copyright.html
    Are there similarities here?
    Opening the doors to your technology company (Xerox), giving someone a demo of the technology you're working on without an agreement in place, and having them go off and invest 5 or 6 years + a lot of money creating their own, fairly different version of it (including designing custom hardware) is pretty different than having someone willfully look for a loophole in your software licensing agreement (and exploit open source projects to do so with minimal investment of time, effort, or ideas).
    edited March 28 radarthekatcornchipwatto_cobrahlee1169propoddocno42
  • Reply 50 of 186
    bkkcanuck said:
    I disagree with the Federal Court.  

    API is just the interface (e.g. add(operand1, operand2) - i.e. no implementation to that - and implementation is basically 99%+ of the code).

    Being able to use an API for compatibility purposes is no different than for example Open Office being able to implement the file format for Word.  The need for competition outweighs the argument as an API protected IP.   Google's implementation uses the API (common) and then the implementation code which is probably more than 99% of the code base.  As long as Google did not copy the code itself the API itself should be fair use.  Languages and APIs should not be able to be protected as API.  

    The court has already previously ruled that you cannot protect interfaces for hardware for the purposes of locking out the competition on things like printer cartridges etc.  An API is not much different than the software equivalent.  


    So since 2016 the phone Android use openJDK and Chromebook runtime uses Android 7 and hence also openJDK. So the damages case (if the case is not reversed again by supreme Court) will cover usage up to Android 5. 



    I doubt the court will see it this way.

    It's irrelevant that Google switched. What's relevant is their entire Android platform was launched and gained momentum largely because of stealing Java from Oracle. You can't do something illegal to gain an advantage in the market, and then expect to retain that advantage in perpetuity.
    Habi_tweetwatto_cobrapropod
  • Reply 51 of 186
    gatorguy said:
    auxio said:
    auxio said:
    bkkcanuck said:
    I disagree with the Federal Court.  

    API is just the interface (e.g. add(operand1, operand2) - i.e. no implementation to that - and implementation is basically 99%+ of the code).

    Being able to use an API for compatibility purposes is no different than for example Open Office being able to implement the file format for Word.  The need for competition outweighs the argument as an API protected IP.   Google's implementation uses the API (common) and then the implementation code which is probably more than 99% of the code base.  As long as Google did not copy the code itself the API itself should be fair use.  Languages and APIs should not be able to be protected as API.  

    The court has already previously ruled that you cannot protect interfaces for hardware for the purposes of locking out the competition on things like printer cartridges etc.  An API is not much different than the software equivalent.  

    However, even if you are diehard Google hater - it's not clear whether copyrighting Apis ist a good idea.
    I don't think it is.  However, I also don't think that someone who knowingly and willingly tries to find a way around a technology licensing agreement for tremendous profit should go unpunished.
    Well if you think they shouldn't be copyrightable then you can't object to Google suing them.

    I think it's also important to put the work that goes into Apis into perspective. Yes they take creativity. But they are not usually created out fo thin air. The Java API is influenced by countless Apis before it such as C and C++. 

    Oracle itself has benefited from standing on the shoulder of Giants. I am not aware that they pay IBM for the SQL syntax (admittedly a language rather than API but clearly groundbreaking and which changed the database industry). All the companies that use Hadoop based their work on the original Google 2005 MapReduce paper that outlines MR and GFS (both of which Hadoop implements).

    Oracle stands out for being incredible litigious and greedy. We will see who will win the next round in this particular fight.
    Forget the world of business and who owns what company.  I just have one simple question: do you think what Andy Rubin and company did with Java is right?

    In regard to those cases you state, if there are clear cases of licensing infringement (or clear intentional loophole exploitation) there, then I think Oracle should be made to pay.  The same way I think that Google should pay for what was done with Java.  Regardless of the fact that Java is now open source to anyone, at the time, the intent of Sun was to allow open source usage of Java in educational/non-profit situations, but you had to take a license if it was bundled in a commercial product.  Which was pretty standard for the time -- Qt used this model as well.
    Business decisions are not dependent on morality as a general rule. So yes let's forget who owns the company.

    There's been lots of questionable moves over the years, the highest profile example off the top of my head being Apple's use of Xerox IP and "hard work" design. While it didn't turn out to be found illegal the argument could be made it just wasn't right, that the intent to take it without recompense was there.  Yeah some money changed hands but not for the usage that Apple put it to IIRC.  After all the court filings from Xerox were over with it wasn't actually illegal tho, even if it might not have been "right" in the view of some folks. 
    https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xerox-sues-apple-computer-over-macintosh-copyright.html
    Are there similarities here?

    Must be so upsetting for you to find your employer steals IP and now has to pay for it. Why else would you be trying to drag Apple into this mess to somehow imply they do similar things?
    watto_cobrapropod
  • Reply 52 of 186
    gatorguy said:
    Of course you wouldn't want to code around the agreement. You'd code around the patented part of the technology to try and avoid infringing if you don't want to pay the inventor, and I'm sure that's what you've done before if you've been at it very long. No matter how you get there you're building on someone else's hard work while refusing the originator profit for it.

    How many times have you seen some good, inventive and hopefully profitable 3rd party feature "copied" in essence by Apple or whoever and integrated into their own software while the person/company with the original idea withers away on the vine? All quite legal as long as the surgery is good.
    Your whataboutism and both-sidesing are phony distractions from the fact that:

    Google stole significant Java code available under the GPL, then distributed it in violation of that license to make money without paying a licensing fee for Java, without following Suns' licensing rules for Java (stealing control of Sun's platform), and also without respect for the GPL. 

    Apple didn't steal code, it didn't steal somebody else's platform, and it didn't violate the GPL just because it might have been convenient for a large company wanting to run things without doing the work to earn or acquire ownership. 

    Google also stole content from Yelp, stole content from authors, stole content from news sites, etc and then repressed lawsuits until it achieved monopolistic control over advertising on the web, and everyone just had to agree that it was okay Google scraped their work because they were being given traffic by Google. 

    Google also helped its licensees steal clearly patented ideas from iOS, and only escaped there because it was giving away the support of its theft. 

    When Apple acquired former Palm talent to build its notification system (which Google had simply ripped off for Android), Android fans accused Apple of taking Google's (unprotected) ideas. But that wasn't true, Google had no ownership, and Apple had been working on it for just as long.

    Apple didn't steal code from Android. It didn't steal Unix code, and it worked to make sure its implementation of BSD was legitimate. Apple has had IP disagreements with Nokia, Qualcomm and many others, but those didn't result from Apple deciding to steal their work and just not pay for it because it was a larger company. Further, Apple has shown a willingness to pay the licensing costs of agreements, even when they are not exactly fair. 

    Google's culture is all about stealing. It stole its first business model, stole its primary platform, attempted to steal iPhone and iPad, and it steals content with abandon. That's because it's made up largely of Microsoft people, which shared the same steal first, pay later ethos. 

    Your consistent, slavish support for Google reflects the same sort of amorality that often takes the shape of hypocrisy as you try to paint Google as perfectly righteous and (at the same time) the rest of the world as "just as criminal." 



    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.
    edited March 28 bkkcanuck
  • Reply 53 of 186
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,528moderator
    gatorguy said:
    The argument Google was making in this latest appeal was pretty thin, since they were relying in part on arguing "interoperability" being a rationale. In actual practice there was limited interoperability. I expected they'd lose this particular court case, but do not expect monetary damages from a follow-up retrial anywhere near the $9B that Ellison would like. He couldn't have expected that level of profit when he bought Sun years after Google introduced Android anyway which is why Sun sold so cheap.

    So in reality Ellison suffered no loss due to Google not licensing Java from the previous owner. It's really not all that different from a patent troll buying up a couple of unused patents for a hundred bucks and then using a claim from one of them to sue Apple for stealing from them for use in Siri or something and demanding $Millions for the harm.

    As for "stolen Java" the way that Google used it was more like copying chapter names and then writing the original book that filled the rest of the 1000 pages as I've understood it. If accurate it hardly seems like a stolen product, more like a handful of bolts scooped up. 

    What Oracle has done with Java since they bought it (well after Android was on the market) has sent it far downhill in my view. First they started bundling trashy and near impossible to rid ASK malware in with their automatic Java updates to slip it past consumers, then trying to force McAfee subscription virus software on those same consumers by using the same sneaky method, and then Yahoo snatching your browser and who knows what other software packages that many folks didn't even know was being installed too. That they escaped being sued for it is only because of technicalities IMO. It's still despicable conduct.
    https://www.infoworld.com/article/2613298/java/java-scam--how-oracle-and-ask-profit-from-sneaky-add-ons.html
    https://www.techlicious.com/blog/java-yahoo-browser-search-settings-hijacking/

    Even the Oracle Java software as a whole has become more problematic security-wise and far less trustworthy, to the point that a great number of folks won't get anywhere near it given the choice, and professional advice is to rid your computer's of it.

    So I don't weep for an Ellison-led Oracle who wants to claim they've lost profit on Java because of Google. They're not seeing the profits they could due to their own uncaring attitude towards it, and destroying it's reputation further with their sneak malware installs seemingly driven by a personal vendetta pursued by Larry Ellison and his Ask search bar and Yahoo browser replacement hoping to cause harm to Google but hurting computer users to do so. He evidently does not care about any collateral damage as long as he gets what he wants.

    He paid little for Sun because it wasn't worth much.  He was hoping he could discover hidden gold there and with his $B's it was a only a blip on the financials. Ellison didn't want Sun's Java because he thought he could make it better IMO. He was buying a lotto ticket that could be tossed away without much loss if it didn't pan out. 
    The most interesting, and telling, part of your comment was this bit:

    It's still despicable conduct.”

    I note that you reserve that sentiment for Oracle but don’t apply it to Google, which willfully stole technology from Oracle and stole the whole damn interface and user interaction model from Apple.  What would Google need to do to earn a despicable badge?  Mine people for data to sell to advertisers?  Would that do it?
    edited March 28 watto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 54 of 186
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,049member
    gatorguy said:
    The argument Google was making in this latest appeal was pretty thin, since they were relying in part on arguing "interoperability" being a rationale. In actual practice there was limited interoperability. I expected they'd lose this particular court case, but do not expect monetary damages from a follow-up retrial anywhere near the $9B that Ellison would like. He couldn't have expected that level of profit when he bought Sun years after Google introduced Android anyway which is why Sun sold so cheap.

    So in reality Ellison suffered no loss due to Google not licensing Java from the previous owner. It's really not all that different from a patent troll buying up a couple of unused patents for a hundred bucks and then using a claim from one of them to sue Apple for stealing from them for use in Siri or something and demanding $Millions for the harm.

    As for "stolen Java" the way that Google used it was more like copying chapter names and then writing the original book that filled the rest of the 1000 pages as I've understood it. If accurate it hardly seems like a stolen product, more like a handful of bolts scooped up. 

    What Oracle has done with Java since they bought it (well after Android was on the market) has sent it far downhill in my view. First they started bundling trashy and near impossible to rid ASK malware in with their automatic Java updates to slip it past consumers, then trying to force McAfee subscription virus software on those same consumers by using the same sneaky method, and then Yahoo snatching your browser and who knows what other software packages that many folks didn't even know was being installed too. That they escaped being sued for it is only because of technicalities IMO. It's still despicable conduct.
    https://www.infoworld.com/article/2613298/java/java-scam--how-oracle-and-ask-profit-from-sneaky-add-ons.html
    https://www.techlicious.com/blog/java-yahoo-browser-search-settings-hijacking/

    Even the Oracle Java software as a whole has become more problematic security-wise and far less trustworthy, to the point that a great number of folks won't get anywhere near it given the choice, and professional advice is to rid your computer's of it.

    So I don't weep for an Ellison-led Oracle who wants to claim they've lost profit on Java because of Google. They're not seeing the profits they could due to their own uncaring attitude towards it, and destroying it's reputation further with their sneak malware installs seemingly driven by a personal vendetta pursued by Larry Ellison and his Ask search bar and Yahoo browser replacement hoping to cause harm to Google but hurting computer users to do so. He evidently does not care about any collateral damage as long as he gets what he wants.

    He paid little for Sun because it wasn't worth much.  He was hoping he could discover hidden gold there and with his $B's it was a only a blip on the financials. Ellison didn't want Sun's Java because he thought he could make it better IMO. He was buying a lotto ticket that could be tossed away without much loss if it didn't pan out. 
    The most interesting, and telling, part of your comment was this bit:

    ”It's still despicable conduct.”

    i moted that you reserve that sentiment for Oracle but don’t apply it to Google, which willfully stole technology from Oracle and the whole damn interface and user interaction
    model from Apple.  What would Google need to do to earn a despicable badge?  Mine people for data to sell to advertisers?  Would that do it?
    You've not ever seen me call Google out for lying? You don't follow my posts as close as you think you do then. I have. 

    ..and if Google mined people for your personal data to sell to ANYONE I'd call that out as despicable too. They don't so you're arguing a moot point. 
    edited March 28
  • Reply 55 of 186
    gatorguy said:
    auxio said:
    For all of the people who are splitting hairs over whether code was copied or they just created compatible APIs, you're missing the point.

    Sun invested hundreds of millions of dollars creating the Java platform and marketing it.  In doing so, it became well known to software developers who created a large ecosystem of server-side and mobile applications for it (not to mention having a ton of experience with it).  Andy Rubin and company come along with Android and realize that they need a good software development environment for it.  As stated in an email exchange between Tim Lindholm and Andy Rubin, they understood well that the only option was Java, but they simply didn't want to pay a licensing fee for it.  So they effectively cloned and owned Java by taking advantage of open-source projects at the time which had special licensing terms for Java.  Thus gaining the benefit of the money invested in Java by Sun in a commercial product (which went on to help Google make a lot of money), but not paying a dime for it.

    If you work in the software industry and somehow think it's cool that they found this loophole and exploited it, then I sincerely hope someone does the same to any products you happen to work on.  It's not right and I refuse to use Android because of it.

    And if you think that simply because Oracle bought Sun, it gives them a pass, it doesn't.
    And if you think Larry Ellison's Oracle suffered any loss because Google didn't pay a license fee to the previous owner...
    He didn't. And he doesn't.

    He still has his Lotto ticket and might end up paying nothing at all for Sun, even after helping destroy Java thru his company's negligence.
    You and your strawman arguments. Google stole. Stealing is illegal. Intentional IP theft is subject to treble damages. What Oracle did or did not pay for Sun has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

    All that’s left if to calculate how much google profited by stealing and giving away another’s illegally appropriated IP. Android has the largest marketshare in an very high value industry. If not for Android, then Sun’s platform would likely have almost the same number of devices all paying a licensing fee. Google themselves stated that it was either steal or license the only decent non IOS platform. I hope the penalties are substantial.

    Had Oracle not purchased Sun, then “do no evil” company would have steamrolled Sun out of business with the profit made from the theft of their product. Oracle’s purchase and deep pockets simply allowed justice to be served.
    watto_cobrahlee1169propod
  • Reply 56 of 186
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,049member
    gatorguy said:
    auxio said:
    auxio said:
    bkkcanuck said:
    I disagree with the Federal Court.  

    API is just the interface (e.g. add(operand1, operand2) - i.e. no implementation to that - and implementation is basically 99%+ of the code).

    Being able to use an API for compatibility purposes is no different than for example Open Office being able to implement the file format for Word.  The need for competition outweighs the argument as an API protected IP.   Google's implementation uses the API (common) and then the implementation code which is probably more than 99% of the code base.  As long as Google did not copy the code itself the API itself should be fair use.  Languages and APIs should not be able to be protected as API.  

    The court has already previously ruled that you cannot protect interfaces for hardware for the purposes of locking out the competition on things like printer cartridges etc.  An API is not much different than the software equivalent.  

    However, even if you are diehard Google hater - it's not clear whether copyrighting Apis ist a good idea.
    I don't think it is.  However, I also don't think that someone who knowingly and willingly tries to find a way around a technology licensing agreement for tremendous profit should go unpunished.
    Well if you think they shouldn't be copyrightable then you can't object to Google suing them.

    I think it's also important to put the work that goes into Apis into perspective. Yes they take creativity. But they are not usually created out fo thin air. The Java API is influenced by countless Apis before it such as C and C++. 

    Oracle itself has benefited from standing on the shoulder of Giants. I am not aware that they pay IBM for the SQL syntax (admittedly a language rather than API but clearly groundbreaking and which changed the database industry). All the companies that use Hadoop based their work on the original Google 2005 MapReduce paper that outlines MR and GFS (both of which Hadoop implements).

    Oracle stands out for being incredible litigious and greedy. We will see who will win the next round in this particular fight.
    Forget the world of business and who owns what company.  I just have one simple question: do you think what Andy Rubin and company did with Java is right?

    In regard to those cases you state, if there are clear cases of licensing infringement (or clear intentional loophole exploitation) there, then I think Oracle should be made to pay.  The same way I think that Google should pay for what was done with Java.  Regardless of the fact that Java is now open source to anyone, at the time, the intent of Sun was to allow open source usage of Java in educational/non-profit situations, but you had to take a license if it was bundled in a commercial product.  Which was pretty standard for the time -- Qt used this model as well.
    Business decisions are not dependent on morality as a general rule. So yes let's forget who owns the company.

    There's been lots of questionable moves over the years, the highest profile example off the top of my head being Apple's use of Xerox IP and "hard work" design. While it didn't turn out to be found illegal the argument could be made it just wasn't right, that the intent to take it without recompense was there.  Yeah some money changed hands but not for the usage that Apple put it to IIRC.  After all the court filings from Xerox were over with it wasn't actually illegal tho, even if it might not have been "right" in the view of some folks. 
    https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xerox-sues-apple-computer-over-macintosh-copyright.html
    Are there similarities here?

    Must be so upsetting for you to find your employer steals IP and now has to pay for it. Why else would you be trying to drag Apple into this mess to somehow imply they do similar things?
    Ah I knew you couldn't resist and come along with an ad-hom or three. Seeing as you ran away from our last try at an intelligent discussion I don't expect this one to turn out any differently if I were to try to have another now. 
     https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/comment/3044608/#Comment_3044608
  • Reply 57 of 186
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,049member
    gatorguy said:
    auxio said:
    For all of the people who are splitting hairs over whether code was copied or they just created compatible APIs, you're missing the point.

    Sun invested hundreds of millions of dollars creating the Java platform and marketing it.  In doing so, it became well known to software developers who created a large ecosystem of server-side and mobile applications for it (not to mention having a ton of experience with it).  Andy Rubin and company come along with Android and realize that they need a good software development environment for it.  As stated in an email exchange between Tim Lindholm and Andy Rubin, they understood well that the only option was Java, but they simply didn't want to pay a licensing fee for it.  So they effectively cloned and owned Java by taking advantage of open-source projects at the time which had special licensing terms for Java.  Thus gaining the benefit of the money invested in Java by Sun in a commercial product (which went on to help Google make a lot of money), but not paying a dime for it.

    If you work in the software industry and somehow think it's cool that they found this loophole and exploited it, then I sincerely hope someone does the same to any products you happen to work on.  It's not right and I refuse to use Android because of it.

    And if you think that simply because Oracle bought Sun, it gives them a pass, it doesn't.
    And if you think Larry Ellison's Oracle suffered any loss because Google didn't pay a license fee to the previous owner...
    He didn't. And he doesn't.

    He still has his Lotto ticket and might end up paying nothing at all for Sun, even after helping destroy Java thru his company's negligence.
    You and your strawman arguments. Google stole. Stealing is illegal. Intentional IP theft is subject to treble damages. What Oracle did or did not pay for Sun has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

    All that’s left if to calculate how much google profited by stealing and giving away another’s illegally appropriated IP. Android has the largest marketshare in an very high value industry. If not for Android, then Sun’s platform would likely have almost the same number of devices all paying a licensing fee. Google themselves stated that it was either steal or license the only decent non IOS platform. I hope the penalties are substantial.

    Had Oracle not purchased Sun, then “do no evil” company would have steamrolled Sun out of business with the profit made from the theft of their product. Oracle’s purchase and deep pockets simply allowed justice to be served.
    Yup Google stole, if not legally as least morally. Bad decision, which Google no doubt thinks too in hindsight. When you can think of a big company that hasn't let us know. 
    edited March 28 singularity
  • Reply 58 of 186
    auxioauxio Posts: 1,872member
    gatorguy said:
    auxio said:
    auxio said:
    bkkcanuck said:
    I disagree with the Federal Court.  

    API is just the interface (e.g. add(operand1, operand2) - i.e. no implementation to that - and implementation is basically 99%+ of the code).

    Being able to use an API for compatibility purposes is no different than for example Open Office being able to implement the file format for Word.  The need for competition outweighs the argument as an API protected IP.   Google's implementation uses the API (common) and then the implementation code which is probably more than 99% of the code base.  As long as Google did not copy the code itself the API itself should be fair use.  Languages and APIs should not be able to be protected as API.  

    The court has already previously ruled that you cannot protect interfaces for hardware for the purposes of locking out the competition on things like printer cartridges etc.  An API is not much different than the software equivalent.  

    However, even if you are diehard Google hater - it's not clear whether copyrighting Apis ist a good idea.
    I don't think it is.  However, I also don't think that someone who knowingly and willingly tries to find a way around a technology licensing agreement for tremendous profit should go unpunished.
    Well if you think they shouldn't be copyrightable then you can't object to Google suing them.

    I think it's also important to put the work that goes into Apis into perspective. Yes they take creativity. But they are not usually created out fo thin air. The Java API is influenced by countless Apis before it such as C and C++. 

    Oracle itself has benefited from standing on the shoulder of Giants. I am not aware that they pay IBM for the SQL syntax (admittedly a language rather than API but clearly groundbreaking and which changed the database industry). All the companies that use Hadoop based their work on the original Google 2005 MapReduce paper that outlines MR and GFS (both of which Hadoop implements).

    Oracle stands out for being incredible litigious and greedy. We will see who will win the next round in this particular fight.
    Forget the world of business and who owns what company.  I just have one simple question: do you think what Andy Rubin and company did with Java is right?
    Business decisions are not dependent on morality as a general rule. So yes let's forget who owns the company.
    It's not about morality.  It's about the actions of individuals influencing the behaviour of people going forward.  If enough people in the industry honestly believe that what was done with Java is perfectly fine and legitimate, then the industry will continue along that path or worse.
    watto_cobrahlee1169propodjony0
  • Reply 59 of 186
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 1,776member
    Google... 


    watto_cobra
  • Reply 60 of 186
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 1,776member
    adm1 said:
    If they're on the hook for anything financial, it would be the standard licensing fee that they avoided paying initially. I can't see the 9B profit argument holding up in court.
    Making money on the thing while having not paid the license is WHY damages are sought. It's punishment.
    Habi_tweetwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.