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

1235710

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 186
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 4,919member
    bkkcanuck said:
    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 at all from Google not paying a licensing fee to the previous owner.
    I have been in the industry for close to 35 years... and although things have changed -- early on it was always understood generally that languages themselves could not be protected IP -- only the implementation of the compiler.  

    As far as I am concerned this is a very slippery slope since protecting languages, protecting APIs only leads to death of competition.  I have worked on projects that probably contains huge numbers of lines of code (some of it good, much of it bad and duplicated) and protecting a language and protecting an API would only lead to both the compiler being made a violation of IP, but also language translators, and things like Wine, of course, would be illegal since it implements APIs to run Windows Applications on Linux...  

    I don't have much love for Google - but I am worried about the long-term consequences.
    Yeah I personally disagree with the laws today and the notions of software patents -- implementation should be what is protected, and that's already copyrighted speech. Patents aren't needed and APIs aren't implementation.

    But that isn't the law today and thus moot in this case.
    cornchipwatto_cobra
  • Reply 82 of 186
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,428moderator
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    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. 
    Your putting words in my mouth.  Read it again.  I didn’t say google sold anyone’s personal data.  I inferred google mines people for data to sell to advertisers.  Data, not personal data.  So my point is not moot and you can’t avoid the obvious answer.  You are duplicitous in your communications here.
    Google doesn't sell ANY user data, personal or not AFAIK. Google isn't in the business of selling data like an Experian or TransUnion, they do contract ad placement for both large and small companies (along with other advertising-related services and a few subscription-based services thrown in with misc hardware stuff).  Whatever data they have is kept locked up tight to be used only for assisting with more accurate and therefore more valuable ad placement services or for the benefit of the user themselves for user-facing features. It's not sold. The companies like Apple and P&G and Grannies Korner Kafe are happily covering your entry fee for "free" Google services thru their ad payments to them. 
    Really?  You couldn’t just go back and read what I wrote?  I neither said user data nor personal data.  I said data!  Are you deliberately being obtuse?  
    StrangeDayssteven n.watto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 83 of 186
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,520member
    gatorguy said:
    auxio said:
    gatorguy said:
    auxio said:

    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." 



    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.

    ...

    Bending your mind like a pretzel to write stuff that fits your anti Google crusade isn't healthy.
    And twisting the argument about Google exploiting Java to gain a mature app development ecosystem for free into "ownership of human capital" is just plain misdirection.

    The fact of the matter is that Android gained an unfair competitive advantage in the mobile market by not paying for a Java license when everyone else was (and had to include that cost in their mobile devices).  Even outside of the iOS vs Android marketshare war, one could argue that it was a significant factor in devices based on Android taking significant marketshare from Blackberry (and other smaller mobile manufacturers).
    Yup a mind-blowingly bad decision. They could have had a perpetual license for $100K (IIRC), so no idea what the rationale was for cheaping out. Dumb stuff can come from very smart people.
    I don't know the licensing details, but my assumption is that it was a per-device-sold license, which is why they wanted to avoid it.  Google would have had to eat that cost for all of the devices using Android sold if they wanted to make it free for manufacturers.
    As I recall it was a one-off fee that was offered by Sun, but could be mistaken. BTW I wasn't aware of it but reportedly Ellison is going after others now too. 
    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/16/oracle_targets_java_users_non_compliance/

    EDIT: And yeah I could be wrong. Schmidt testified during trial that "Google was prepared to pay Sun Microsystems $30 to $40 million for a five-year license to use its Java technology in Android", but talks to determine the terms on renewals broke down and no money actually changed hands. 
    Actually, from public reports of what actually happened, they were talking about licensing. There are emails from engineers and others within Google stating that they needed to take out a license. But others said that they should just go ahead without it. Since Google has stated, again publically, in reflection of IP they take from other companies as being right and proper, because Google is an “innovator” and should thus be allowed to take IP without paying for it, I believe that Google is behind the 8-ball on this.
    watto_cobradocno42
  • Reply 84 of 186
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 4,919member
    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?
    Bringing up Apple & Xerox -- classic troll move. As you must know, Apple gave Xerox corporate a million in stock for the right to use whatever they gleaned from the famed Jobs office visit. Xerox's corporate leadership was just too dumb at the time to realize it was a bad idea. Any failed suit later was sour grapes. 

    Further, Apple's devs added much, much more to the rough GUI ideas they saw at Xerox. From the people in the room:

    http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=On_Xerox,_Apple_and_Progress.txt
    steven n.bkkcanuckairmanchairmanHabi_tweetwatto_cobrahlee1169propodjony0docno42
  • Reply 86 of 186
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 4,919member

    gatorguy said:
    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
    You do realize that you constant whataboutism ("But Apple! But Oracle!") is also a form of ad hominem fallacy, right? How many times must we post this link....here ya go:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 87 of 186
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,520member

    melgross said:
    I recently read that the court is expressing extreme skepticism over Oracle’s valuation of Java. It’s very likely that if Google does lose this, the amount of money involved will be far less that what Oracle is demanding.
    Yes, to GatorGuy’s credit he stated early in this thread, damages are, well, damages.  The courts attempt to ascertain how, and by how much, the defendant damaged the plaintive.  

    Let’s make up an example.  I keep a leased backhoe for a few extra weeks and upon retiring it late refuse to pay the extra time on the lease.  In addition, I clogged the thing up with sand causing $50k of damage to it.  You, the construction company who leased it to me, sue me and win the case.  What do I owe you?  Wait, before answering, just know that during those few extra weeks I had your backhoe I dug up an old wreck down at the beach and recovered $700 million in gold.  
    It doesn’t matter what you did with it. It’s what you owe in late fees, and whatever the contract stated about possible damage payments. But that $700 million would go to the question of whether you could pony up the amount of money the court may state that you owe. In other words, no crying out of poverty, and an inability to shell out the cash.
  • Reply 88 of 186
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,520member
    bkkcanuck said:
    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 at all from Google not paying a licensing fee to the previous owner.
    I have been in the industry for close to 35 years... and although things have changed -- early on it was always understood generally that languages themselves could not be protected IP -- only the implementation of the compiler.  

    As far as I am concerned this is a very slippery slope since protecting languages, protecting APIs only leads to death of competition.  I have worked on projects that probably contains huge numbers of lines of code (some of it good, much of it bad and duplicated) and protecting a language and protecting an API would only lead to both the compiler being made a violation of IP, but also language translators, and things like Wine, of course, would be illegal since it implements APIs to run Windows Applications on Linux...  

    I don't have much love for Google - but I am worried about the long-term consequences.
    Yeah I personally disagree with the laws today and the notions of software patents -- implementation should be what is protected, and that's already copyrighted speech. Patents aren't needed and APIs aren't implementation.

    But that isn't the law today and thus moot in this case.
    Patents are absolutely needed. Without patents, everything would be a free-for-all. In addition, it would hardly pay to innovate, because you would spend years, and possibly vast amounts of funds to develop something, only to see other companies bypass all of that work and time because they could just take yours the minute it comes out. They would then have the advantage, because they didn’t have to spend that time and money. How is this good?

    too many people have no understanding of the patent system.
    edited March 28 radarthekathlee1169propodjony0docno42
  • Reply 89 of 186
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 18,717member
    gatorguy said:

    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 
    More whataboutism, a known logical fallacy we've explained to you before. It doesn't matter if Ellison & Oracle kick puppies, it has no bearing on their argument.
    Who's "we"? You mean "You"? My bad for sometimes not paying any attention to what you post. I missed the explanation "we" explained to me before.

    So that's great news really, you've decided whataboutism is a bad thing to do here along with any other logical fallacies too, correct? Well that should cut down on a few of your posts about Android/Google in Apple specific threads and a multitude of various comments offered to explain away stuff you didn't like reading from others here.  So logic from now on from you and you'll teach me the way by example. Thanks!

    So just to make sure I get it since I don't want to bother "we" for yet another slap on the wrist:  If rather than arguing the specific content of some post I make someone were to say to me "Your consistent, slavish support for Google reflects the same sort of amorality that often takes the shape of hypocrisy" or "Must be so upsetting for you to find your employer steals IP" or "Typical of a googler, tho, as valuing privacy is not part of your business model"  that would be the kind of illogical Tu quoque ad-hom that you're trying to educate me about, right? Just trying to wrap my head around who you think argues by logic and who argues by illogical ad-hom or other fallacy of thought. Wanna' make sure I recognize it when I see it. 

    Edit: Gosh I'm sorry @StrangeDays ;. That last illogical ad-hom was yours from a day or so ago. Must have been a simple slip-up on your part. 
    edited March 28 avon b7singularitycornchip
  • Reply 90 of 186
    gatorguy said:
    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. 
    Appreciate of the acknowledgment of the facts. I actually don’t think they care (as they will still end up with the dominant market position) and I very much doubt they will even give doing something like this again a second thought, no matter how large the fine. Just because some people murder doesn’t mean this is justification for others to do so. I get your aim, that they are just another creature in the dirty swamp of capitalism and as such the behavior, while wrong, is par for the course. It is precisely this way of thinking that largely allows the swamp to exist in the first place. If we only hold ourselves to the morals and ideals of the lowest common denominator, every action is justifiable based on the mistakes or failings of others ... a inevitable decline to the bottom. As a society in an effort to stop this ruinous outcome we establish morals and laws based upon them. The laws should: 1) stop the offending party from doing the action again 2) rectify the advantage the ill gotten gains have afforded them 3) jail time for the individual(s) who suggested breaking the law. It is in this that our legal system is failing. In this instance Google should be excluded from the industry and suffer a harsh financial penalty (handles point 1 & 2), Rubin should spend time in prison.That would put things as close to right as possible to all of the companies who have suffered from the market place disruption this caused. That’s in a perfect world, in the world we live in the laws have been tainted by greed and corruption and as such they will suffer no regulation on their participation in the industry, will be served a slap on the wrist fine (in porportion to the what they have taken) and none of the responsible parties will even have to worry about the possibility of jail time. 


    radarthekatwatto_cobrajony0propod
  • Reply 91 of 186
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 29,346member
    melgross said:
    I recently read that the court is expressing extreme skepticism over Oracle’s valuation of Java. It’s very likely that if Google does lose this, the amount of money involved will be far less that what Oracle is demanding.
    Probably. Apple’s Samsung suit resulted in a fraction of the original claim.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 92 of 186
    gatorguy said:
    auxio said:
    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).
    So that you're completely OK with. No issue with Android being influenced by Apple design choices then? It's certainly a fairly different version of it, requires years of work and a lot of money, and includes developing custom hardware. 
    You clearly don’t know the history of xerox parc and Apple.  SMH
    <br><br>
    No sir, you don't. Apple paid $1m in Apple shares for the privilege of what it took from PARC Xerox and vastly improved on it to boot.
  • Reply 93 of 186
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,241member
    That took long enough.
    edited March 28 cornchipwatto_cobra
  • Reply 94 of 186
    farmboyfarmboy Posts: 137member
    gatorguy said:
    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.
    While none of us know what's in the original Oracle/Sun agreement, typically the purchaser gets all the assets and the liabilities of a company they buy. So Sun's IP loss or potential loss transfers to the new owner of the property. Oracle stands (has standing) in place of Sun, in this case. This doesn't address the merits, but Oracle has the right to pursue redress. 

    I agree that it's unlikely that any loss would total $9 billion (but when they sit down at the table that's where the negotiations will start). About 25% of that will settle the case.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 95 of 186
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 18,717member
    gatorguy said:
    auxio said:
    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).
    So that you're completely OK with. No issue with Android being influenced by Apple design choices then? It's certainly a fairly different version of it, requires years of work and a lot of money, and includes developing custom hardware. 
    You clearly don’t know the history of xerox parc and Apple.  SMH
    <br><br>
    No sir, you don't. Apple paid $1m in Apple shares for the privilege of what it took from PARC Xerox and vastly improved on it to boot.
    You sir are apparently the one not familiar with it, and I've no idea what @radarthekat ; is hinting at. Perhaps he'll expand on his lone sentence.  

    f you go back at look at the history that's not what Apple gave them stock options for, not that it ended up mattering, and no Apple did not give Xerox a $million in stock. They gave Xerox the right to BUY 100,000 shares at $10/share which Xerox did,  spending $1M of Xerox money buying those shares. Apple may have received a double benefit too. Besides getting $1M from Xerox they also may have avoided a patent infringement suit from one of the Xerox divisions, Shugart, by making Xerox an investor. So yeah I kinda get the history. 
    https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xerox-sues-apple-computer-over-macintosh-copyright.html
    edited March 28 cornchip
  • Reply 96 of 186
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 1,270member
    bkkcanuck said:
    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 at all from Google not paying a licensing fee to the previous owner.
    I have been in the industry for close to 35 years... and although things have changed -- early on it was always understood generally that languages themselves could not be protected IP -- only the implementation of the compiler.  

    As far as I am concerned this is a very slippery slope since protecting languages, protecting APIs only leads to death of competition.  I have worked on projects that probably contains huge numbers of lines of code (some of it good, much of it bad and duplicated) and protecting a language and protecting an API would only lead to both the compiler being made a violation of IP, but also language translators, and things like Wine, of course, would be illegal since it implements APIs to run Windows Applications on Linux...  

    I don't have much love for Google - but I am worried about the long-term consequences.
    Yeah I personally disagree with the laws today and the notions of software patents -- implementation should be what is protected, and that's already copyrighted speech. Patents aren't needed and APIs aren't implementation.

    But that isn't the law today and thus moot in this case.
    If the case relates to a virtual machine APIs are implementation.
  • Reply 97 of 186
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 18,717member
    farmboy said:
    gatorguy said:
    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.
    While none of us know what's in the original Oracle/Sun agreement, typically the purchaser gets all the assets and the liabilities of a company they buy. So Sun's IP loss or potential loss transfers to the new owner of the property. Oracle stands (has standing) in place of Sun, in this case. This doesn't address the merits, but Oracle has the right to pursue redress. 

    I agree that it's unlikely that any loss would total $9 billion (but when they sit down at the table that's where the negotiations will start). About 25% of that will settle the case.
    I absolutely agree with you. Oracle does have the right to pursue redress, and I've not ever disputed that. 
  • Reply 98 of 186
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 18,717member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    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. 
    Your putting words in my mouth.  Read it again.  I didn’t say google sold anyone’s personal data.  I inferred google mines people for data to sell to advertisers.  Data, not personal data.  So my point is not moot and you can’t avoid the obvious answer.  You are duplicitous in your communications here.
    Google doesn't sell ANY user data, personal or not AFAIK. Google isn't in the business of selling data like an Experian or TransUnion, they do contract ad placement for both large and small companies (along with other advertising-related services and a few subscription-based services thrown in with misc hardware stuff).  Whatever data they have is kept locked up tight to be used only for assisting with more accurate and therefore more valuable ad placement services or for the benefit of the user themselves for user-facing features. It's not sold. The companies like Apple and P&G and Grannies Korner Kafe are happily covering your entry fee for "free" Google services thru their ad payments to them. 
    Really?  You couldn’t just go back and read what I wrote?  I neither said user data nor personal data.  I said data!  Are you deliberately being obtuse?  
    Ok, let's start again. What data do you want to claim Google is selling so we can figure out if it's despicable @radarthekat ; (wanted to be sure you didn't miss the question)?  If it has nothing to do with users as you say I can't imagine what problem you have with whatever it is. 
    edited March 28
  • Reply 99 of 186
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,520member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    auxio said:
    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).
    So that you're completely OK with. No issue with Android being influenced by Apple design choices then? It's certainly a fairly different version of it, requires years of work and a lot of money, and includes developing custom hardware. 
    You clearly don’t know the history of xerox parc and Apple.  SMH
    <br><br>
    No sir, you don't. Apple paid $1m in Apple shares for the privilege of what it took from PARC Xerox and vastly improved on it to boot.
    You sir are apparently the one not familiar with it, and I've no idea what @radarthekat  is hinting at. Perhaps he'll expand on his lone sentence.  

    f you go back at look at the history that's not what Apple gave them stock options for, not that it ended up mattering, and no Apple did not give Xerox a $million in stock. They gave Xerox the right to BUY 100,000 shares at $10/share which Xerox did,  spending $1M of Xerox money buying those shares. Apple may have received a double benefit too. Besides getting $1M from Xerox they also may have avoided a patent infringement suit from one of the Xerox divisions, Shugart, by making Xerox an investor. So yeah I kinda get the history. 
    https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xerox-sues-apple-computer-over-macintosh-copyright.html
    That’s lawsuit was a bit of nonsense. At the time Apple visited PARC, a number of companies were working on the same concepts. The thing that matters here is that while Apple came out with the Lisa, which failed, they then modified it to become the Macintosh, which succeeded.

    at the same time, Xerox came out with their own version, which they called the Star. That failed, and as a result, Xerox withdrew from the independent computer business.

    this has been a problem for Xeros going back many years. They come up with an idea, and fail to capitalize on it. Apple made major improvements to Xerox’s very primitive UI. When Apple was finished, you could barely see any of Xerox’s work in it. Xerox;s idea for window controls were so,complex they weren’t usable. Other companies working on the concept also had complexity problems. All were eventually abandoned in favor of the much simpler, and intuitive system Apple came up with. So I guess that everyone stole Apple’s ideas. Should they sue everyone else?
    hlee1169jony0propod
  • Reply 100 of 186
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 18,717member
    Mel, very obviously the court system at the time felt that the case had too many questions surrounding it from the timing to the possible issue of copyright notice and chose to dismiss it. Had the Google/Java/Oracle lawsuit taken place back in 89 instead of now I think perhaps it too would have been dismissed. But it isn't.

    By the same token if Apple would have to defend against that same Xerox case today instead of back in 1989 I'm not certain they'd fare as well. A lot has changed in IP law and its translation in the past 15 years.
    edited March 28
Sign In or Register to comment.