You betcha skippy I am a fandroid. I am for the simple reason... its my portable computing device and I will put on it what I want and when I want, and how I want! Copyrights be damned!!!
Actually that didn't happen. Instead, a guy made some excuses for the files in question for ZDNet, and Ars similarly suggested that the new files found "were not a smoking gun," while also admitting that is was still a big problem for Google.
A confident rebuttal isn't necessarily "the last word" on a subject just because it might be what you want to hear.
The real issue for Google isn't these newly reported files anyway - they're just additional evidence that Google isn't doing a great job in managing Android.
The REAL problem, the one Oracle is suing over, is a series of files that you get when you disassemble Java, which turns out to be exactly what you get when you look at Android. Early development simply churned out Java and called it Android, then fixed some mobile-related problems with Java, such as its VM design, and called it non-Java and therefore not needing to license Java IP.
The problem is, there's lots of evidence that Android simply is Java, and these additional files just indicate how sloppy Android development is. Taking GPL code and replacing the license text with a more permissive license that allows commercial, proprietary development isn't just illegal and an affront to IP laws, it's also a slap in the face to the very Free and Open Source ideals Android is supposedly promoting, and very obviously a sign that Android developers don't respect others' IP.
Oracle/Sun offered some portions of Java under GPL for specific reasons. Google essentially took Oracle/Sun's GPL code and used it opposite of what it was licensed to do. Google had no right to do that, and appears to have assumed not just damages (which are pretty obvious given the hammering that Android has done to JavaME as a mobile platform) but also surrounded the event with lots of evidence that backs up that this was not just an isolated incident or automated mistake, but simply how Google rolls.
Every major cash-cow Google product is stolen IP: it stole its key paid search placement IP from Overture, it stole Android from Sun's Java, and WebM is pretty clearly an infringing implementation of MPEG, just like virtually every other proprietary codec On2 created. At least Microsoft wrote some of its own apps.
Google is killing off competition in the marketplace by simply stealing other people's IP and "selling" it as its own ad platform. Ask Gizmodo how the whole "selling of stolen goods" worked out.
But really, the Oracle case against Google is more than even that: Oracle is asserting a series of patent claims against Google's modified Java VM that it calls Dvalik. When Google first announced that it was doing this in 2007, the tech world gasped, but Sun never took any action so everyone seemed to decide it was okay. Well now Oracle is saying, hell no, you got to pay.
The Oracle case against Google is a lot like the Apple/Pystar case, except that Google simply changed more of the code it took, like Pystar, to sell its own product with less work.
Google still overtly repurposed Java to "create" Android. It could have gotten away with this if it had worked harder to do it the right way, making a very clean effort not to contaminate Android with obvious code theft from Java. It simply didn't, as is obvious in a number of parallel cases of evidence, not just the new files in question.
On2 been around for many years and made their codecs before MPEG4 came out. It's quite possible that MPEG4 is infringing on them.
As far as your Dalvik argument is concerned, improving on someone else's work and calling it your own isn't illegal. In fact, there are plenty of other programming languages that already did this and are not being sued over anything because Oracle can't. There's a much more technical argument over this back at ars forum, and if you really want to hear it from people much more knowledgeable about it, go there.
And if you are in favor of Oracle, you are in favor of software patents. So I'm sure you also favor Apple being sued over "double click", or via Mr. Horn (aka owner of the MPEG-LA) suing fellow licensee apple over phone operation, right?
This just looks like a little nit picky error that lawyers are going to make a big deal about. Little mistakes like this happen all the time. To me this just makes Oracle look like a patent troll.
Well suggesting that lawyers are "nit picky" when that is their job - to argue the law - is pretty silly, but then to turn around and call Oracle a "patent troll" for suing over patent infringement is simply absurd.
A Patent Troll is a holding company that does nothing but acquire patents and then sue companies who are actually producing products, usually with weak claims on obvious patents that were not known about by the companies who developed their "infringing" technology on their own.
Oracle's patents are intended to prevent the outright theft of the value of the IP created by Sun and productized in Java. Google wasn't unaware that Sun owned patents related to Java. This wasn't some submarine patent case.
It was a situation where Google could either have a) created its own technology or b) simply licensed Java, but instead decided to copy and then modify Java, give it away for free to kill the market for Java, and the use Android to sell its ads.
The only group of people who could categorize this situation as anything other than the definitive, proper role and entire purpose patents are intended to serve are intellectual communists who don't believe research and invention can be owned or sold as entities. And if you don't believe in commercial rights to IP, you can't turn around and say the GPL can be used to enforce the opposite. Either we have intellectual property rights or we don't, and only have anarchy.
Google is screwing both, stealing commercial technology for commercial release under the guise of "Free Software," while violating the GPL by erasing copyrights and replacing them with its own invented license. Would be hard to find examples of more egregious theft of technology outside of China.
Note1) No he is not having his ... handed to him. I am following the comments too. Although his article is not the best article on this topic, short and useless in my opinion. Try this one which has better detailed analysis:
Note2) I do not think this code made it to the build and it is more likely for test purposes. Because the code is part of the MMAPI wrapper and Android does not use MMAPI!
Please let me know if you have an example of MMAPI wrapper used in Android builds and I shall bow to you!
Note3) As ARS stated, the other files which are not being discussed in ZDNET or even Appleinsider are the more interesting ones!
I don't even know what MMAPI is.
The code I looked at, supposedly debunked as a unit test was part of JAVA.Security.
explain to me why makers of smartphones are getting away from android or "hedging" their bets
is it that google is trying on the makers backs to make the UI all similar so that iPhone doesn't stand out as the standard?
or is google using the M$ approach therefore the makers units are just commodities? low or falling avg price....google wants more cheap smartphones
or is it the IP mess??
or is it they have had time to develop their own OS and will replace android??
or is it that the "bloom is off the rose" android sells units but at zero profit??
or is it that the developers don't have much enthusiasm because most are free or pirated??
or is it that android is becoming a virus magnet??
or is it that the handset makers are becoming irelevant
i thought android was the makers new "messiah"
the handset makers can now be relevant
so why "hedge your bets" apple will not license ios to others
well apple has a wonderful ios, and android is a mess, developers don't like making a complex mix of product, none make money on it, android has minimal upgrade to "newer" versions, when you buy android you don't know if they can upgrade, have missing features and what % go back
we will see as time goes by how android vs iphone works out
i like my iphone, upgrades are looked forward to, and it works
but provide me insight from a sony, or samsung, or motorola perspective or other handset maker
i remember when sony had style, moto had the razor, samsung was durable, etc
I read them, they provide an interesting TECHNICAL opinion, however what this involves is LEGAL opinion, did Google cause Oracles copyright files to be distributed without Oracles express permission?
Now as the files are/were freely available as part of Android repositories, then the most likely answer is "yes".
That's all Google had to do make the files available in order to infringe copyright.
You have to wonder at the sudden change in CEO at Google ... they knew this was about to hit the fan maybe? After all Android changed over night from a BB clone to an iPhone clone. Perhaps too fast to be have been done honestly.
It is code from SUN which determines which user is allowed user permissions. it is a fundamental part of package sun.security.
There is a fair amount of nonsense on this thread. Let me clarify:
1) the code here was taken and decompiled from Sun sources, not from the published GPL
2) the licence was changed, illegally. Sun/ Oracle grants licences to users, subject to the GPL. If the licence is changed the original patents apply. The licence was changed to Apache.
3) Publishing means making available on t'internet ( think of a book). The courts in copyright cases dont care about compilation. Was it in the unit test folder, and not compiled. Geeks may care, the courts are unconcerned.
Someone else's property ( Sun/Oracle) was taken and published ( on a source tree) for anyone to use using a licence which was not designed, nor approved by the creator of the intellectual property.
That in itself is enough. The other patent ( non copy right) suits are - suffice to say - encourged by this. You cant say you clean roomed the technology if a court has decided, as it must, that you copied some, or any, or the minutest percent, of someone else's technolgy.
when Compaq "cloned" the IBM BIOS. It
1) Hired engineers who had nothing to do with IBM
2) Had no code or decompiled IBM assembly.
3) Gave the virgin engineers some info about the inputs and the outputs of the BIOS. Fully documented procedures.
4) Created the same BIOS with no common source.
From this came the modern world. Back in 1982 people realised this had to be done. Not one line of IBM bios could be in the finished product.
Google hired Sun engineers, who ( basically) took the code with them and "engineered" a new JVM with most of the code from Sun.
You have to wonder at the sudden change in CEO at Google ... they knew this was about to hit the fan maybe? After all Android changed over night from a BB clone to an iPhone clone. Perhaps too fast to be have been done honestly.
While I have no doubt that all three "agreed" to Schmidt being bumped upstairs, I also have little doubt that the move was initiated by Page and Brin and that Schmidt was not given a lot of choice.
When Schmidt came to Google to provide "adult supervision", Google's ambitions were to take on Microsoft. A few years later, we find Google doing battle with not only Microsoft but Apple and Oracle, as well. I am not sure this is what Page and Brin had in mind when Schmidt was hired.
While I have no doubt that all three "agreed" to Schmidt being bumped upstairs, I also have little doubt that the move was initiated by Page and Brin and that Schmidt was not given a lot of choice.
When Schmidt came to Google to provide "adult supervision", Google's ambitions were to take on Microsoft. A few years later, we find Google doing battle with not only Microsoft but Apple and Oracle, as well. I am not sure this is what Page and Brin had in mind when Schmidt was hired.
Schmidt and Rubin will cost Google money. If the iOS were as dominant as Android and iOS is now iOS would use google search, and google maps, and gmail. The benefits of Android are zero.
Only a MS product would use its own technology. So why the war with Apple?
These guys are Java fanatics. Except they forgot to buy Sun.
3) Gave the virgin engineers some info about the inputs and the outputs of the BIOS. Fully documented procedures.
4) Created the same BIOS with no common source.
From this came the modern world. Back in 1982 people realised this had to be done. Not one line of IBM bios could be in the finished product.
Google hired Sun engineers, who ( basically) took the code with them and "engineered" a new JVM with most of the code from Sun.
Goodbye android. And good riddance.
Where did they take the code with them? In their heads?
Even with a clean room implementation you quoted they had to decompile the original BIOS to see how it worked. They then make a note of how it worked and pass it on to another party to make the Compaq code themselves, to avoid copyright infringement. Hence the "clean room" meaning.
Oracle doesn't care whether or not the code is different; they care that the code infringes on their patents on how Java works, which are broad and obvious. And again, like already mentioned, if you favor Oracle, you favor software patents and people who sue over it, such as those phone patents apple is getting sued over.
In the spirit of constructive criticism was there anything in particular you didn't like? Did I post a little too much from the fence? A little too short? Spelling? Grammar maybe?
In all fairness that one was posted from my iPad which explains the brevity. Maybe I should have tagged "Posted from my iPad" for a little more leniency!
Not this post, but your previous posts have been, how I say, a tad forceful, which I took exception to. Also I don't care if you post from a pc, Mac or even an iPad, it makes no difference to me, but I do understand why you mentioned it.
I suggest you go back and look at some of your posts, the nasty ones, and maybe you will understand where I am coming from.
So if you are seeking help not just from AI staffers but support from the bloggers, you can count me out, it's that simple. Maybe others may have similar attitudue to mine.
Comments
You betcha skippy I am a fandroid. I am for the simple reason... its my portable computing device and I will put on it what I want and when I want, and how I want! Copyrights be damned!!!
Clarified that for you.
Thus is a triple violation. Patents, copyright, and licensing.
A patent on it wouldn't apply. Copyright is based on the license.
Do you know what you are talking about?
No.
Let's see,
1. Apache Foundation wants nothing to do with Android code so they wash their hands.
2. CEO Eric gets whacked.
3. Larry has the Oracle BIG GUN lawyers pointing at Google.
This does not look good for Google. Time will tell.
At least it's still a verb. Right?
Behold the art of conjugating:
I google I am googling
You google You are googling
He googles He is googling
Actually that didn't happen. Instead, a guy made some excuses for the files in question for ZDNet, and Ars similarly suggested that the new files found "were not a smoking gun," while also admitting that is was still a big problem for Google.
A confident rebuttal isn't necessarily "the last word" on a subject just because it might be what you want to hear.
The real issue for Google isn't these newly reported files anyway - they're just additional evidence that Google isn't doing a great job in managing Android.
The REAL problem, the one Oracle is suing over, is a series of files that you get when you disassemble Java, which turns out to be exactly what you get when you look at Android. Early development simply churned out Java and called it Android, then fixed some mobile-related problems with Java, such as its VM design, and called it non-Java and therefore not needing to license Java IP.
The problem is, there's lots of evidence that Android simply is Java, and these additional files just indicate how sloppy Android development is. Taking GPL code and replacing the license text with a more permissive license that allows commercial, proprietary development isn't just illegal and an affront to IP laws, it's also a slap in the face to the very Free and Open Source ideals Android is supposedly promoting, and very obviously a sign that Android developers don't respect others' IP.
Oracle/Sun offered some portions of Java under GPL for specific reasons. Google essentially took Oracle/Sun's GPL code and used it opposite of what it was licensed to do. Google had no right to do that, and appears to have assumed not just damages (which are pretty obvious given the hammering that Android has done to JavaME as a mobile platform) but also surrounded the event with lots of evidence that backs up that this was not just an isolated incident or automated mistake, but simply how Google rolls.
Every major cash-cow Google product is stolen IP: it stole its key paid search placement IP from Overture, it stole Android from Sun's Java, and WebM is pretty clearly an infringing implementation of MPEG, just like virtually every other proprietary codec On2 created. At least Microsoft wrote some of its own apps.
Google is killing off competition in the marketplace by simply stealing other people's IP and "selling" it as its own ad platform. Ask Gizmodo how the whole "selling of stolen goods" worked out.
But really, the Oracle case against Google is more than even that: Oracle is asserting a series of patent claims against Google's modified Java VM that it calls Dvalik. When Google first announced that it was doing this in 2007, the tech world gasped, but Sun never took any action so everyone seemed to decide it was okay. Well now Oracle is saying, hell no, you got to pay.
The Oracle case against Google is a lot like the Apple/Pystar case, except that Google simply changed more of the code it took, like Pystar, to sell its own product with less work.
Google still overtly repurposed Java to "create" Android. It could have gotten away with this if it had worked harder to do it the right way, making a very clean effort not to contaminate Android with obvious code theft from Java. It simply didn't, as is obvious in a number of parallel cases of evidence, not just the new files in question.
On2 been around for many years and made their codecs before MPEG4 came out. It's quite possible that MPEG4 is infringing on them.
As far as your Dalvik argument is concerned, improving on someone else's work and calling it your own isn't illegal. In fact, there are plenty of other programming languages that already did this and are not being sued over anything because Oracle can't. There's a much more technical argument over this back at ars forum, and if you really want to hear it from people much more knowledgeable about it, go there.
And if you are in favor of Oracle, you are in favor of software patents. So I'm sure you also favor Apple being sued over "double click", or via Mr. Horn (aka owner of the MPEG-LA) suing fellow licensee apple over phone operation, right?
This just looks like a little nit picky error that lawyers are going to make a big deal about. Little mistakes like this happen all the time. To me this just makes Oracle look like a patent troll.
Well suggesting that lawyers are "nit picky" when that is their job - to argue the law - is pretty silly, but then to turn around and call Oracle a "patent troll" for suing over patent infringement is simply absurd.
A Patent Troll is a holding company that does nothing but acquire patents and then sue companies who are actually producing products, usually with weak claims on obvious patents that were not known about by the companies who developed their "infringing" technology on their own.
Oracle's patents are intended to prevent the outright theft of the value of the IP created by Sun and productized in Java. Google wasn't unaware that Sun owned patents related to Java. This wasn't some submarine patent case.
It was a situation where Google could either have a) created its own technology or b) simply licensed Java, but instead decided to copy and then modify Java, give it away for free to kill the market for Java, and the use Android to sell its ads.
The only group of people who could categorize this situation as anything other than the definitive, proper role and entire purpose patents are intended to serve are intellectual communists who don't believe research and invention can be owned or sold as entities. And if you don't believe in commercial rights to IP, you can't turn around and say the GPL can be used to enforce the opposite. Either we have intellectual property rights or we don't, and only have anarchy.
Google is screwing both, stealing commercial technology for commercial release under the guise of "Free Software," while violating the GPL by erasing copyrights and replacing them with its own invented license. Would be hard to find examples of more egregious theft of technology outside of China.
Note1) No he is not having his ... handed to him. I am following the comments too. Although his article is not the best article on this topic, short and useless in my opinion. Try this one which has better detailed analysis:
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/n...moking-gun.ars
Note2) I do not think this code made it to the build and it is more likely for test purposes. Because the code is part of the MMAPI wrapper and Android does not use MMAPI!
Please let me know if you have an example of MMAPI wrapper used in Android builds and I shall bow to you!
Note3) As ARS stated, the other files which are not being discussed in ZDNET or even Appleinsider are the more interesting ones!
I don't even know what MMAPI is.
The code I looked at, supposedly debunked as a unit test was part of JAVA.Security.
More to come.
Everyone go read this:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/oops-no-copied-java-code-or-weapons-of-mass-destruction-found-in-android/2162
then, AppleInsider needs to update this article with a retraction.
Google is in deep doodoo and they know it.
Indeedy doo! I corrected the order for you.
2. Larry has the Oracle BIG GUN lawyers pointing at Google.
3. CEO Eric gets whacked.
I love this website. But I would be happy with one or two articles a day, instead of inflating your number of posts with this total nonsense.
Everyone go read this:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/oops-no-copied-java-code-or-weapons-of-mass-destruction-found-in-android/2162
then, AppleInsider needs to update this article with a retraction.
Retraction, my arse. This code is no more a unit test than I am a glowing green talking carrot.
But it doesn't matter. It is still a copyright violation ( which is separate from the patent infringement).
Goggle's thievery is over.
is it that google is trying on the makers backs to make the UI all similar so that iPhone doesn't stand out as the standard?
or is google using the M$ approach therefore the makers units are just commodities? low or falling avg price....google wants more cheap smartphones
or is it the IP mess??
or is it they have had time to develop their own OS and will replace android??
or is it that the "bloom is off the rose" android sells units but at zero profit??
or is it that the developers don't have much enthusiasm because most are free or pirated??
or is it that android is becoming a virus magnet??
or is it that the handset makers are becoming irelevant
i thought android was the makers new "messiah"
the handset makers can now be relevant
so why "hedge your bets" apple will not license ios to others
well apple has a wonderful ios, and android is a mess, developers don't like making a complex mix of product, none make money on it, android has minimal upgrade to "newer" versions, when you buy android you don't know if they can upgrade, have missing features and what % go back
we will see as time goes by how android vs iphone works out
i like my iphone, upgrades are looked forward to, and it works
but provide me insight from a sony, or samsung, or motorola perspective or other handset maker
i remember when sony had style, moto had the razor, samsung was durable, etc
I read them, they provide an interesting TECHNICAL opinion, however what this involves is LEGAL opinion, did Google cause Oracles copyright files to be distributed without Oracles express permission?
Now as the files are/were freely available as part of Android repositories, then the most likely answer is "yes".
That's all Google had to do make the files available in order to infringe copyright.
You have to wonder at the sudden change in CEO at Google ... they knew this was about to hit the fan maybe? After all Android changed over night from a BB clone to an iPhone clone. Perhaps too fast to be have been done honestly.
Google is in deep doodoo and they know it.
Let's see,
1. Apache Foundation wants nothing to do with Android code so they wash their hands.
2. CEO Eric gets whacked.
3. Larry has the Oracle BIG GUN lawyers pointing at Google.
This does not look good for Google. Time will tell.
At least it's still a verb. Right?
Behold the art of conjugating:
I google I am googling
You google You are googling
He googles He is googling
If this truly does turn out to be a big deal ... add a new variant ... "To be Googled' as in "Wow, poor bastard, he was really Googled on that one"
http://bit.ly/gAI3nI from SUN.
It is not a unit test.
It is code from SUN which determines which user is allowed user permissions. it is a fundamental part of package sun.security.
There is a fair amount of nonsense on this thread. Let me clarify:
1) the code here was taken and decompiled from Sun sources, not from the published GPL
2) the licence was changed, illegally. Sun/ Oracle grants licences to users, subject to the GPL. If the licence is changed the original patents apply. The licence was changed to Apache.
3) Publishing means making available on t'internet ( think of a book). The courts in copyright cases dont care about compilation. Was it in the unit test folder, and not compiled. Geeks may care, the courts are unconcerned.
Someone else's property ( Sun/Oracle) was taken and published ( on a source tree) for anyone to use using a licence which was not designed, nor approved by the creator of the intellectual property.
That in itself is enough. The other patent ( non copy right) suits are - suffice to say - encourged by this. You cant say you clean roomed the technology if a court has decided, as it must, that you copied some, or any, or the minutest percent, of someone else's technolgy.
when Compaq "cloned" the IBM BIOS. It
1) Hired engineers who had nothing to do with IBM
2) Had no code or decompiled IBM assembly.
3) Gave the virgin engineers some info about the inputs and the outputs of the BIOS. Fully documented procedures.
4) Created the same BIOS with no common source.
From this came the modern world. Back in 1982 people realised this had to be done. Not one line of IBM bios could be in the finished product.
Google hired Sun engineers, who ( basically) took the code with them and "engineered" a new JVM with most of the code from Sun.
Goodbye android. And good riddance.
You have to wonder at the sudden change in CEO at Google ... they knew this was about to hit the fan maybe? After all Android changed over night from a BB clone to an iPhone clone. Perhaps too fast to be have been done honestly.
While I have no doubt that all three "agreed" to Schmidt being bumped upstairs, I also have little doubt that the move was initiated by Page and Brin and that Schmidt was not given a lot of choice.
When Schmidt came to Google to provide "adult supervision", Google's ambitions were to take on Microsoft. A few years later, we find Google doing battle with not only Microsoft but Apple and Oracle, as well. I am not sure this is what Page and Brin had in mind when Schmidt was hired.
I love this website. But I would be happy with one or two articles a day, instead of inflating your number of posts with this total nonsense.
Everyone go read this:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/oops-no-copied-java-code-or-weapons-of-mass-destruction-found-in-android/2162
then, AppleInsider needs to update this article with a retraction.
lol, the "unit test" defence.
While I have no doubt that all three "agreed" to Schmidt being bumped upstairs, I also have little doubt that the move was initiated by Page and Brin and that Schmidt was not given a lot of choice.
When Schmidt came to Google to provide "adult supervision", Google's ambitions were to take on Microsoft. A few years later, we find Google doing battle with not only Microsoft but Apple and Oracle, as well. I am not sure this is what Page and Brin had in mind when Schmidt was hired.
Schmidt and Rubin will cost Google money. If the iOS were as dominant as Android and iOS is now iOS would use google search, and google maps, and gmail. The benefits of Android are zero.
Only a MS product would use its own technology. So why the war with Apple?
These guys are Java fanatics. Except they forgot to buy Sun.
Because the alleged files are:
1. Unit test files, they aren't packaged, they only serve to test the classes before compiling
2. A zip file with source files that aren't used anywhere, actually they can't be used because are java me files
So if you are correct, then what sort of idiot would do this? Are you saying Oracle have no claim at all?
when Compaq "cloned" the IBM BIOS. It
1) Hired engineers who had nothing to do with IBM
2) Had no code or decompiled IBM assembly.
3) Gave the virgin engineers some info about the inputs and the outputs of the BIOS. Fully documented procedures.
4) Created the same BIOS with no common source.
From this came the modern world. Back in 1982 people realised this had to be done. Not one line of IBM bios could be in the finished product.
Google hired Sun engineers, who ( basically) took the code with them and "engineered" a new JVM with most of the code from Sun.
Goodbye android. And good riddance.
Where did they take the code with them? In their heads?
Even with a clean room implementation you quoted they had to decompile the original BIOS to see how it worked. They then make a note of how it worked and pass it on to another party to make the Compaq code themselves, to avoid copyright infringement. Hence the "clean room" meaning.
Oracle doesn't care whether or not the code is different; they care that the code infringes on their patents on how Java works, which are broad and obvious. And again, like already mentioned, if you favor Oracle, you favor software patents and people who sue over it, such as those phone patents apple is getting sued over.
Brutal.
In the spirit of constructive criticism was there anything in particular you didn't like? Did I post a little too much from the fence? A little too short? Spelling? Grammar maybe?
In all fairness that one was posted from my iPad which explains the brevity. Maybe I should have tagged "Posted from my iPad" for a little more leniency!
Not this post, but your previous posts have been, how I say, a tad forceful, which I took exception to. Also I don't care if you post from a pc, Mac or even an iPad, it makes no difference to me, but I do understand why you mentioned it.
I suggest you go back and look at some of your posts, the nasty ones, and maybe you will understand where I am coming from.
So if you are seeking help not just from AI staffers but support from the bloggers, you can count me out, it's that simple. Maybe others may have similar attitudue to mine.