Comparing a zip file of code for testing audio drivers for one chipset with murder... seriously? <snip> If anything it's more like a paper cut, not murder.
Groklaw sure would like to paint this as SCO 2 but Oracle isn't desperate and Ellison isn't incompetent. PJ is as biased as every other freetard out there...
Anyone trying to paint this as SCO part 2 certainly is letting their biases show
Apple pulled AirPrint functionality from printers attached due to licensing issues right? They had the offending files in their development versions of OS X which were distributed to developers. You can even download the files which were included at http://netputing.com/2010/11/11/airprint-hacktivator/. Apple realized these files had licensing issues and didn't ship them to non development versions. To me it would be preposterous for anyone to think that just because Apple included these files in the development versions of their code and distributed it in this limited basis that there is any danger to OS X as a platform or that Apple would end up being liable for a per installation judgement. This case would be a more egregious violation of a copyright than the Google example because the files were actually used in the main development code base of OS X. In this example I wouldn't consider that Apple had no respect for intellectual property. They realized the code was a license violation and removed it before shipping it to their non-development install base. This kind of stuff happens all the time and doesn't endanger the viability of the platforms themselves.
Apple does not have copyright issues because the AirPrint code is not a copy of somebody else's code. No open airprint-like code is in the wild yet to copy from and Apples AirPrint implementation wouldn't be available as an open source code for anyone else to see anyway.
Patent licensing issues are at work there. The existence of non-working code doesn't means anything in a patent case, only in a copyright case (Oracle's case is both). Apple needed to get the licensing straight before they can ship an AirPrint implementation for other than HP printers, and as long as they don't they stay on the correct side of the patent law.
Oracle on the other hand has accused Google of infringing on JavaME patents with the Dalvik JVM among other parts. That's very central and in-use code within Android. Oracle has listed a single instance of copyright infringement to satisfy the judge that discovery should be allowed to go forward and not have the copyright part of the case dismissed. These teensy-tiny blogosphere file snippets are nowhere near what Oracle has to have already if they have put this much effort into the suit. If they were all Oracle could have we could be pretty sure the case would die with a whimper, and Oracle would know that. Since Larry isn't stupid, he must have a pretty long list of slam dunk problems for Google. Google hasn't debated the factualness of any of Oracles file claims, just counter-claimed that it must actually be OK to use those files because Google is using them via Open Source license.
The transfer of license issue Google is arguing (saying the old GPL2 implicit patent license still holds even though the code was improperly turned into an Apache license without Sun/Oracle permission) hasn't been ruled on before from what I see on the internet, but it is an awfully big bet for Google that it will go their way. Should Google lose, which I personally think is likely, the real problem is for all the handset and tab manufacturers, not Google itself. They will be next and subject to big claims for previously shipped phones, and no hope of winning because the technical precedent would be set in stone.
Let's remember guys - none of you are hot shot patent lawyers let alone judges. Your say on this is completely worthless. It is all biased opinion and conjecture.
Well, at least you finally realized you weren't convincing anyone that all is well in Androidville.
Oracle doesn't want damages. They want Android shut down until all infringing code is eliminated. So extents of economic damage don't matter, only is there an infringement or not, and how long would it take the Android devs to recover should the judge agree with Oracle.
I'm just referring to the 37 MMAPI files which were referred to in the AI article. Since Android doesn't use MMAPI I wouldn't imagine that they would have to shutdown for these particular files. I think all they would do is delete them from their repository. I understand there is a more complex issue at hand here with the ongoing suit between Oracle and Google for possibly infringing on Oracle's Java VM. I'm just referring to the 37 MMAPI files from the AI article.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
Apple does not have copyright issues ...Patent licensing issues are at work there.
Your right the fact that AirPrint was not shipped due to patent issues as opposed to a copyright issue does make this a poor example. I'll take a look around and see if I can find a better one.
Considering that this site is AppleInsider and not AndroidInsider, I don't think it's surprising no one's being convinced.
Considering that you think no one can be convinced that Google isn't on the wrong side of the law simply because this site is AppleInsider and not AndroidInsider, why do you bother to post?
I'm just referring to the 37 MMAPI files which were referred to in the AI article. Since Android doesn't use MMAPI I wouldn't imagine that they would have to shutdown for these particular files. I think all they would do is delete them from their repository. I understand there is a more complex issue at hand here with the ongoing suit between Oracle and Google for possibly infringing on Oracle's Java VM. I'm just referring to the 37 MMAPI files from the AI article.
Sure, those 37 files can be fixed right quick from a copyright perspective. If they indicate a patent issue in the tested code it might not be so clean though (chances of that actually low). Oracle wasn't the one to unearth those though, that was just someone poking though the code looking for obvious comment strings, and finding smoking guns trivially.
A realistic possibility is that if any form of tainted code can be found that easily, there probably is more tainted code not quite as easily found. Code where the comment headers were successfully changed with the license changes. On those more craftily hidden files, the computational power necessary to do a full comparison across Oracles proprietary, the Sun/Oracle GPL code, the Harmony Apache licensed code and Googles Android code belongs to Oracle and Google. Bloggers and others will just be taking semi-directed shots in the dark.
I'm sure the Oracle legal team has had at least several dedicated engineers on this task for months so far, and they don't have to tell anyone anything until discovery is complete. And once that's done the trial is either won or lost for Google because the law left after Googles response to Oracle is pretty cut and dried. No arguments over prior art, no attempts to invalidate patents, just claims of license transfer which has never been upheld before because it apparently never went to court before. Even FSF admits it's implicit patent license in the GPL2 hasn't been tested in court, which is the first step Google needs. But since the code in contention is Apache license without Oracle making it Apache license, they have to hope the courts get really liberal and grant patent license transfer, of implicit licenses granted only for unmodified code, against the owners wishes and into further modified code under a different less restrictive license. How likely does anyone really think that is?
If I move my company to Gmail, and Google gets sued and an injection gets issued against them what happens to my data? Yup, I can move my email to another provider, but what about my historical data? How do I get it back?
There's a reason that MS' cloud solutions allow you to self host. Self hosting isn't all that hard if you have an IT staff at all. The cloud is great for non-sensitive and data that isn't all THAT important if you lose it.
Oracle doesn't want damages. They want Android shut down until all infringing code is eliminated. So extents of economic damage don't matter, only is there an infringement or not, and how long would it take the Android devs to recover should the judge agree with Oracle.
Nah, Oracle would be happy if Google paid at the same rate as JavaME license holders including retroactively for all the handsets out there. Google will certainly try to claim that Oracle should be going after the handset manufacturers instead. Not sure that will work out...
Someone around here claimed that Google will indemnify hardware makers. Seems unlikely and that's something that would have been front page news. If they don't and MS, Apple and Oracle prevail then Android adoption among the handset vendors will plummet. Cheaper to go WP7 than the "free" Android.
Anyone trying to paint this as SCO part 2 certainly is letting their biases show
Yah, it's pretty silly to try to do so at this stage and even if you believe that SCO was a proxy for someone nefarious *cough*MS*cough* this isn't a fight through proxies but titan against titan. Stakes are far higher with billions at stake.
Someone around here claimed that Google will indemnify hardware makers. Seems unlikely and that's something that would have been front page news. If they don't and MS, Apple and Oracle prevail then Android adoption among the handset vendors will plummet. Cheaper to go WP7 than the "free" Android.
I don't remember anyone claiming that Google will indemnify the handset makers but I did make this comment:
Quote:
However, the Oracle suit hangs a dark could over Dalvik (and hence, Android) so I am surprised that Google has not indemnified the handset makers (this would demonstrate that Google strongly believes that they are in the clear). This just seems to make sense in the course of business. Were I running a handset maker, I might be very inclined to buy into the known costs of WP7 over the unknown cost (to be determined by the courts) of using Android.
Nah, Oracle would be happy if Google paid at the same rate as JavaME license holders including retroactively for all the handsets out there. Google will certainly try to claim that Oracle should be going after the handset manufacturers instead. Not sure that will work out...
Someone around here claimed that Google will indemnify hardware makers. Seems unlikely and that's something that would have been front page news. If they don't and MS, Apple and Oracle prevail then Android adoption among the handset vendors will plummet. Cheaper to go WP7 than the "free" Android.
I don't think Oracle can get much out of Google cash-wise. Google will just argue they have no Android income, so there aren't any infringing sales to recoup against. I would also bet it's a longshot that Oracle could convince a judge of ad related revenue being Android specific enough. And then there's that pesky code in Android that's not under a clear gotta pay Oracle license. Elimination of that code in the business-using wild is really what Oracle is after.
If Oracle wins against Google on Android, I do see them suing the handset makers at the rates you mention. Maybe releasing Android code themselves with appropriately fixed licensing language, but never allowing the current Google curated Android versions to remain -- too much risk there.
Considering that you think no one can be convinced that Google isn't on the wrong side of the law simply because this site is AppleInsider and not AndroidInsider, why do you bother to post?
Because I can? I didn't see a rule that says "All users must post comments that appease the user anonymouse".
Seems like you're the only one here that has any issue with me speaking my mind. If you didn't like my post, then why do you bother to read and respond to it?
Comments
Just tried Blekko with .. /date ... at end of search (e.g. global warming/date) ... it works well as intended.
Yup, so far Blekko is reminding me of what Google was in the early days. I'm using it more and more - I hope they can keep it going!
Comparing a zip file of code for testing audio drivers for one chipset with murder... seriously? <snip> If anything it's more like a paper cut, not murder.
You seriously missed the point of his remark...
Groklaw sure would like to paint this as SCO 2 but Oracle isn't desperate and Ellison isn't incompetent. PJ is as biased as every other freetard out there...
Anyone trying to paint this as SCO part 2 certainly is letting their biases show
Apple pulled AirPrint functionality from printers attached due to licensing issues right? They had the offending files in their development versions of OS X which were distributed to developers. You can even download the files which were included at http://netputing.com/2010/11/11/airprint-hacktivator/. Apple realized these files had licensing issues and didn't ship them to non development versions. To me it would be preposterous for anyone to think that just because Apple included these files in the development versions of their code and distributed it in this limited basis that there is any danger to OS X as a platform or that Apple would end up being liable for a per installation judgement. This case would be a more egregious violation of a copyright than the Google example because the files were actually used in the main development code base of OS X. In this example I wouldn't consider that Apple had no respect for intellectual property. They realized the code was a license violation and removed it before shipping it to their non-development install base. This kind of stuff happens all the time and doesn't endanger the viability of the platforms themselves.
Apple does not have copyright issues because the AirPrint code is not a copy of somebody else's code. No open airprint-like code is in the wild yet to copy from and Apples AirPrint implementation wouldn't be available as an open source code for anyone else to see anyway.
Patent licensing issues are at work there. The existence of non-working code doesn't means anything in a patent case, only in a copyright case (Oracle's case is both). Apple needed to get the licensing straight before they can ship an AirPrint implementation for other than HP printers, and as long as they don't they stay on the correct side of the patent law.
Oracle on the other hand has accused Google of infringing on JavaME patents with the Dalvik JVM among other parts. That's very central and in-use code within Android. Oracle has listed a single instance of copyright infringement to satisfy the judge that discovery should be allowed to go forward and not have the copyright part of the case dismissed. These teensy-tiny blogosphere file snippets are nowhere near what Oracle has to have already if they have put this much effort into the suit. If they were all Oracle could have we could be pretty sure the case would die with a whimper, and Oracle would know that. Since Larry isn't stupid, he must have a pretty long list of slam dunk problems for Google. Google hasn't debated the factualness of any of Oracles file claims, just counter-claimed that it must actually be OK to use those files because Google is using them via Open Source license.
The transfer of license issue Google is arguing (saying the old GPL2 implicit patent license still holds even though the code was improperly turned into an Apache license without Sun/Oracle permission) hasn't been ruled on before from what I see on the internet, but it is an awfully big bet for Google that it will go their way. Should Google lose, which I personally think is likely, the real problem is for all the handset and tab manufacturers, not Google itself. They will be next and subject to big claims for previously shipped phones, and no hope of winning because the technical precedent would be set in stone.
Yup, so far Blekko is reminding me of what Google was in the early days. I'm using it more and more - I hope they can keep it going!
I hope it does better than Cuil.
You seriously missed the point of his remark...
ok. I understood the point he was making after he clarified.
Let's remember guys - none of you are hot shot patent lawyers let alone judges. Your say on this is completely worthless. It is all biased opinion and conjecture.
Well, at least you finally realized you weren't convincing anyone that all is well in Androidville.
Oracle doesn't want damages. They want Android shut down until all infringing code is eliminated. So extents of economic damage don't matter, only is there an infringement or not, and how long would it take the Android devs to recover should the judge agree with Oracle.
I'm just referring to the 37 MMAPI files which were referred to in the AI article. Since Android doesn't use MMAPI I wouldn't imagine that they would have to shutdown for these particular files. I think all they would do is delete them from their repository. I understand there is a more complex issue at hand here with the ongoing suit between Oracle and Google for possibly infringing on Oracle's Java VM. I'm just referring to the 37 MMAPI files from the AI article.
Apple does not have copyright issues ...Patent licensing issues are at work there.
Your right the fact that AirPrint was not shipped due to patent issues as opposed to a copyright issue does make this a poor example. I'll take a look around and see if I can find a better one.
http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/trade_defin.jsp
Well, at least you finally realized you weren't convincing anyone that all is well in Androidville.
Considering that this site is AppleInsider and not AndroidInsider, I don't think it's surprising no one's being convinced.
Considering that this site is AppleInsider and not AndroidInsider, I don't think it's surprising no one's being convinced.
Considering that you think no one can be convinced that Google isn't on the wrong side of the law simply because this site is AppleInsider and not AndroidInsider, why do you bother to post?
I'm just referring to the 37 MMAPI files which were referred to in the AI article. Since Android doesn't use MMAPI I wouldn't imagine that they would have to shutdown for these particular files. I think all they would do is delete them from their repository. I understand there is a more complex issue at hand here with the ongoing suit between Oracle and Google for possibly infringing on Oracle's Java VM. I'm just referring to the 37 MMAPI files from the AI article.
Sure, those 37 files can be fixed right quick from a copyright perspective. If they indicate a patent issue in the tested code it might not be so clean though (chances of that actually low). Oracle wasn't the one to unearth those though, that was just someone poking though the code looking for obvious comment strings, and finding smoking guns trivially.
A realistic possibility is that if any form of tainted code can be found that easily, there probably is more tainted code not quite as easily found. Code where the comment headers were successfully changed with the license changes. On those more craftily hidden files, the computational power necessary to do a full comparison across Oracles proprietary, the Sun/Oracle GPL code, the Harmony Apache licensed code and Googles Android code belongs to Oracle and Google. Bloggers and others will just be taking semi-directed shots in the dark.
I'm sure the Oracle legal team has had at least several dedicated engineers on this task for months so far, and they don't have to tell anyone anything until discovery is complete. And once that's done the trial is either won or lost for Google because the law left after Googles response to Oracle is pretty cut and dried. No arguments over prior art, no attempts to invalidate patents, just claims of license transfer which has never been upheld before because it apparently never went to court before. Even FSF admits it's implicit patent license in the GPL2 hasn't been tested in court, which is the first step Google needs. But since the code in contention is Apache license without Oracle making it Apache license, they have to hope the courts get really liberal and grant patent license transfer, of implicit licenses granted only for unmodified code, against the owners wishes and into further modified code under a different less restrictive license. How likely does anyone really think that is?
If I move my company to Gmail, and Google gets sued and an injection gets issued against them what happens to my data? Yup, I can move my email to another provider, but what about my historical data? How do I get it back?
There's a reason that MS' cloud solutions allow you to self host. Self hosting isn't all that hard if you have an IT staff at all. The cloud is great for non-sensitive and data that isn't all THAT important if you lose it.
Oracle doesn't want damages. They want Android shut down until all infringing code is eliminated. So extents of economic damage don't matter, only is there an infringement or not, and how long would it take the Android devs to recover should the judge agree with Oracle.
Nah, Oracle would be happy if Google paid at the same rate as JavaME license holders including retroactively for all the handsets out there. Google will certainly try to claim that Oracle should be going after the handset manufacturers instead. Not sure that will work out...
Someone around here claimed that Google will indemnify hardware makers. Seems unlikely and that's something that would have been front page news. If they don't and MS, Apple and Oracle prevail then Android adoption among the handset vendors will plummet. Cheaper to go WP7 than the "free" Android.
Anyone trying to paint this as SCO part 2 certainly is letting their biases show
Yah, it's pretty silly to try to do so at this stage and even if you believe that SCO was a proxy for someone nefarious *cough*MS*cough* this isn't a fight through proxies but titan against titan. Stakes are far higher with billions at stake.
Someone around here claimed that Google will indemnify hardware makers. Seems unlikely and that's something that would have been front page news. If they don't and MS, Apple and Oracle prevail then Android adoption among the handset vendors will plummet. Cheaper to go WP7 than the "free" Android.
I don't remember anyone claiming that Google will indemnify the handset makers but I did make this comment:
However, the Oracle suit hangs a dark could over Dalvik (and hence, Android) so I am surprised that Google has not indemnified the handset makers (this would demonstrate that Google strongly believes that they are in the clear). This just seems to make sense in the course of business. Were I running a handset maker, I might be very inclined to buy into the known costs of WP7 over the unknown cost (to be determined by the courts) of using Android.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=157
Well, at least you finally realized you weren't convincing anyone that all is well in Androidville.
and all is not well in Appleland either. Jobs probably went home to die. no offense meant to him.
Nah, Oracle would be happy if Google paid at the same rate as JavaME license holders including retroactively for all the handsets out there. Google will certainly try to claim that Oracle should be going after the handset manufacturers instead. Not sure that will work out...
Someone around here claimed that Google will indemnify hardware makers. Seems unlikely and that's something that would have been front page news. If they don't and MS, Apple and Oracle prevail then Android adoption among the handset vendors will plummet. Cheaper to go WP7 than the "free" Android.
I don't think Oracle can get much out of Google cash-wise. Google will just argue they have no Android income, so there aren't any infringing sales to recoup against. I would also bet it's a longshot that Oracle could convince a judge of ad related revenue being Android specific enough. And then there's that pesky code in Android that's not under a clear gotta pay Oracle license. Elimination of that code in the business-using wild is really what Oracle is after.
If Oracle wins against Google on Android, I do see them suing the handset makers at the rates you mention. Maybe releasing Android code themselves with appropriately fixed licensing language, but never allowing the current Google curated Android versions to remain -- too much risk there.
We need a bigger popcorn popper for this show.
I don't remember anyone claiming that Google will indemnify the handset makers but I did make this comment:
It was one of the usual trolls that I have on ignore now...so Im not going back to look for whom.
Considering that you think no one can be convinced that Google isn't on the wrong side of the law simply because this site is AppleInsider and not AndroidInsider, why do you bother to post?
Because I can? I didn't see a rule that says "All users must post comments that appease the user anonymouse".
Seems like you're the only one here that has any issue with me speaking my mind. If you didn't like my post, then why do you bother to read and respond to it?