Evil is indeed a discussion of morality, but patents are a matter of law, as is copyright. It's ludicrous to suggest that patent infringement is evil - I invite you to find a major religion with an injunction against it, or a moral philosopher with a cogent argument for it as 'evil' or immoral.
Evil is definitely used to mean extreme immorality. When George W Bush railed against the Axis of Evil, even americans didn't think he was including people who cheated on their spouses or double dipped their chips.
If Google is evil, then Apple is evil and no doubt even Ben and Jerries were evil. If everybody is evil then nobody is evil. A little sense of proportion would go a long way.
I would say that evil is a contradiction of what is considered morally right by a society, not a matter of some supernatural definition. The opposite of Good is Evil. While there may be different levels of "evilness", if you choose to take advantage of others for you own benefit...then I would classify you as Evil (or at least your actions).
But what would be cheaper? WP7? It's already an equivalent price and consumers are simply not interested - MS's brand value in the mobile space appears to be negative. Android isn't as compelling an OS as iOS but it is currently head and shoulders above the non-apple platforms, and another $20 per handset isn't going to meaningfully change that.
Now if WebOs or WP manage to take off and get serious penetration then the additional cost might start to have an impact, but as the market stands right now? No.
I haven't read ANY article that eludes that WP7 costs handset manufacturers $50+ per handset. In fact, B&N said that Microsoft demanded $15-20 per Nook which is TWICE the licensing cost of WP7 which means they are looking for $7.50-10 per device. $50 per phone/device for Android is waaay more money and as I said before, if the hardware companies are already losing money every quarter, why would they actually pay so much more just to run Google's OS?
You're arguing against a position I'm not taking. Let me make it more clear
Person A writes a book and owns the copyright on the book.
Person B scans the book and owns a derived copyright on the scan documents.
Person B's copyright doesn't allow him to distribute his scans fully without respect to Person A's copyright. Consent from person A isn't sufficient to allow person C the right to copy person B's files. The question as to whether person B was legally entitled to take the scan is a different one entirely. Should person A's copyright lapse, person B's copyright may still remain.
In the case of the old master, yes the original is public domain, but since the museum who owns it won't let you scan it yourself you'll never have a public domain digital representation because of the copyright on the derived scan. The scan is itself a reproduction, and has a derived copyright.
I replied to what you wrote.
To reply to your latest, if I write a book, it is mine. It is copyrighted material. (If I register the copyright, my rights to collect damages are expanded.) If you scan that work, and publish and file for a copyright on that book, you are only able to copyright that which is not owned by someone else.
1. What you scan and reproduce is not a derivative work. Period. To be a derivative work, you have to substantively change the original. A scan does not do that. So, what you scanned is not included in your copyright.
2. By reproducing my work without permission, you are liable for damages to me, the copyright holder. No one, not you or anyone else has the right to scan and reproduce my work, or that of any copyright holder without permission of the copyright owner. If they do so, they are also financially liable to the copyright owner.
3. The rules for reproducing copyrighted material without permission include fair use (e.g. news report or book review), academic use (by student or professor), etc. Under no circumstances do those rules allow for someone else to subtantively copy another's work on a wholesale basis or for profit by another without the permission of the copyright owner.
If you don't believe me, copy a book by oh, say James Patterson, change the cover and typeface and title and publish it. Claim it is a derivative work. See how far that gets you. Or, better yet, scan it onto your computer, and sell the scans as an ebook and claim it is a derivative work. See where that gets you.
My bet is you will end up on the rather nasty side of a law suit and a cease and desist order.
The only way you could legitimately argue that you have a right to scan/copy a copyrighted work is if you only make a single copy and claim that you did so to preserve it as a backup copy of the original work. You might win that law suit, or might not, depending on the jurisdiction. However, no one will ever agree that you own a copyright of a derivative work based on the original simply because you scanned it -- which is what you wrote.
If Google is found guilty of wilfully infringing Oracle's patents and proceeding to market this [Android] to 3rd-parties: manufacturers, carriers, resellers, developers, accessory makers, consumers, etc...
Is Google subject to recourse, regardless of the terms of the Android license.
Has Google committed fraud?
What about liability to GOOG shareholders?
Google's liability to the manufacturer's that licensened Android depends completely on the language of the license between the manufacturer and Google. So does the issue of fraud. If sold "as is," there may be no recourse at all.
Before you chaps return to battle read this article on the subject of theft - if only for the Helicopter joke. I think you will both recognize your own and the other's viewpoints and realize it's not such a clear cut case as 'theft is theft', or ' infringement cannot be theft'.
Looks like the smoking gun has been found! BTW, I worked for Sun and a colleague of mine covered Google, and Yahoo, so I have a little perspective. Basically, Sun and Yahoo were able to successfully negotiate a Java license, but Sun and Google were not. This was a HUGE bone of legal contention although Android had yet to ship.
Oracle certainly must have factored any potential future Java licensing revenue into the purchase price of Sun Microsystems. Java was probably THE most valuable asset Oracle acquired. Heck, even James Gosling the father of Java left shortly after the acquisition.
Good thing Google is sitting on a pile of cash. They will need it
Infringing a patent isn't theft. Not legally, not morally, not factually, not in any way.
If it was theft then you would be sent to prison for it and the state would handle the prosecution. The fact that theft is immoral is completely irrelevant.
Google WILLFULLY Infringed on patents. THEY KNEW THIS 5 years ago, they knew this a few months ago.
Just because the punishment for willful infringement is not imprisonment, does NOT MEAN it's not THEFT.
You can spin this however you want but what Google did/doing to Sun/Oracle, Apple, MS, etc. is THEFT if proven (which based on this emails from that Retard Rubin and the other engr. , looks like it's a slam dunk).
The whole concept of "infringement as theft" is one popularised by big media who are seeking to be victims in whatever forum they can.
It is not theft. When you infringe IP you do not deprive that person of the thing you've thieved. You may deprive them of the revenue from that thing, but that is different. You might call that 'infringement of IP'.
You may not be depriving them of the IP itself, but you are definitely depriving them of some of the benefits resulting from the (originally) exclusive exploitation of said IP. Ask the RIAA if you don't believe me
Giving something away for free does not exonerate you from stealing it in the first place, just as giving your billions to charity does not exonerate you from the nefarious business practices that got you those billions in the first place (**cough** Bill Gates **cough**)
This is by far not the first infringement/theft thread on the internet and, undoubtedly, will not be the last.
I'm also quite sure this is not the longest thread on the subject.
... and, yes, I'm sure Google will pay before the trial starts in October... unless Oracle decides that a delay in proceedings is needed to reassess damages.
Get out the popcorn...
Oh... almost forgot... Go Ogle is Evil!
PS - C'mon people... let's get this thread past 300!!
PS - C'mon people... let's get this thread past 300!!
Lol, ok. I've got a bit of insomnia so I'll throw this question out to hopefully get a response. Cloudgazer is stating that Oracle's patents are definitely still up in the air which technically is true, BUT the judge (who most likely has a background in IP law and maybe even experience on either/both jobs of counsel) is clearly telling Google that they most likely will lose one or more points in their case and should try to settle for a reasonable amount. Wouldn't the judge have reviewed the patents in question? And would that judge's informed opinion give a really good hint on who is on the "wrong" side of the fence?
@cloudgazer you seem to feel that you, and you only, understand all the legal and patent issues involved -- better than the lawyers, USPTO professionals, judges, public record, bloggers with bona fides, legal training, principals involved -- and anyone with the ability to read, reason and differentiate.
In truth, you have become your sig.
BTW, when do you find time for your, obviously vast, legal practice?
/sarcasm
I think what he is saying is that violations of patent law, willfull or not, can never be criminal acts but can only be civil acts. His detractors are saying the opposite. It's hard to see why one side gets to sneer about the other's "vast legal practice", which is an ad Hominen.
In any case I have never heard of patent violations being criminal matters. Provide proof, if you have any.
EDIT: guardian article about inventor trying to crminalise patent infringements. In the UK but similar laws apply to the US and worldwide. Patents are civil matters, cases are never brought by Police or Public Prosecutors.
I think what he is saying is that violations of patent law, willfull or not, can never be criminal acts but can only be civil acts. His detractors are saying the opposite. It's hard to see why one side gets to sneer about the other's "vast legal practice", which is an ad Hominen.
In ant case I have never heard of patent violations being criminal matters. Provide proof, if you have any.
I definitely agree with this. Nobody's getting carried out in handcuffs for this.
You need to correct your signature - Steve in 2012: iCloud, not our finest hour - He was referring to mobileme not icloud. You don't want to googlize reality do you?
Tongue in cheek humor. Although I am still looking forward to iCloud, just wished they didn't kill, or keep quit on, the seamless integration of Aperture and Galleries. To me, there's simply no alternative. Flickr & Facepalm is not for me, missing the elegance I believe Galleries has. I am currently trying out the various plugins that are available for Aperture.
Android's free ride will certainly come to an end next year. but an extra $50 license cost per phone is not going to make that big a difference in the market. and they'll find workarounds for Apple's stuff.
so where does this lead?
Well wouldn't think it would be $50... and $50 would be deadly in the phone market... look up the BOM on phones sometime. It's a competitive market and they'll to great lengths to shave $0.50 let alone $50
Lol, ok. I've got a bit of insomnia so I'll throw this question out to hopefully get a response. Cloudgazer is stating that Oracle's patents are definitely still up in the air which technically is true, BUT the judge (who most likely has a background in IP law and maybe even experience on either/both jobs of counsel) is clearly telling Google that they most likely will lose one or more points in their case and should try to settle for a reasonable amount. Wouldn't the judge have reviewed the patents in question? And would that judge's informed opinion give a really good hint on who is on the "wrong" side of the fence?
The judge could order a stay until the invalidation process was complete, but there's no requirement to do so. Google has said they would prefer a stay but they have left it to the judge's discretion. Oracle is firmly opposed to a stay. This may be a tactical ploy - from foss-patents (http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...emorandum.html)
'This way, Google tries to build pressure on Oracle to narrow its claims if it wants a swift resolution of the case, but Google knows that a stay would very much be in the discretion of the judge, which is why Google defers to him.'
The judge's tentative case plan also pointed out that Oracle would have to take the risk of possibly getting a decision based on claims that might be narrowed or invalidated later as a result of reexamination.
It's not that the judge is unaware of the invalidation process, but the decision of this case is based on the patents as they currently stand. Subsequent invalidation, as the judge himself says could render the decision irrelevant.
Comments
Evil is indeed a discussion of morality, but patents are a matter of law, as is copyright. It's ludicrous to suggest that patent infringement is evil - I invite you to find a major religion with an injunction against it, or a moral philosopher with a cogent argument for it as 'evil' or immoral.
Evil is definitely used to mean extreme immorality. When George W Bush railed against the Axis of Evil, even americans didn't think he was including people who cheated on their spouses or double dipped their chips.
If Google is evil, then Apple is evil and no doubt even Ben and Jerries were evil. If everybody is evil then nobody is evil. A little sense of proportion would go a long way.
I would say that evil is a contradiction of what is considered morally right by a society, not a matter of some supernatural definition. The opposite of Good is Evil. While there may be different levels of "evilness", if you choose to take advantage of others for you own benefit...then I would classify you as Evil (or at least your actions).
But what would be cheaper? WP7? It's already an equivalent price and consumers are simply not interested - MS's brand value in the mobile space appears to be negative. Android isn't as compelling an OS as iOS but it is currently head and shoulders above the non-apple platforms, and another $20 per handset isn't going to meaningfully change that.
Now if WebOs or WP manage to take off and get serious penetration then the additional cost might start to have an impact, but as the market stands right now? No.
I haven't read ANY article that eludes that WP7 costs handset manufacturers $50+ per handset. In fact, B&N said that Microsoft demanded $15-20 per Nook which is TWICE the licensing cost of WP7 which means they are looking for $7.50-10 per device. $50 per phone/device for Android is waaay more money and as I said before, if the hardware companies are already losing money every quarter, why would they actually pay so much more just to run Google's OS?
You're arguing against a position I'm not taking. Let me make it more clear
Person A writes a book and owns the copyright on the book.
Person B scans the book and owns a derived copyright on the scan documents.
Person B's copyright doesn't allow him to distribute his scans fully without respect to Person A's copyright. Consent from person A isn't sufficient to allow person C the right to copy person B's files. The question as to whether person B was legally entitled to take the scan is a different one entirely. Should person A's copyright lapse, person B's copyright may still remain.
In the case of the old master, yes the original is public domain, but since the museum who owns it won't let you scan it yourself you'll never have a public domain digital representation because of the copyright on the derived scan. The scan is itself a reproduction, and has a derived copyright.
I replied to what you wrote.
To reply to your latest, if I write a book, it is mine. It is copyrighted material. (If I register the copyright, my rights to collect damages are expanded.) If you scan that work, and publish and file for a copyright on that book, you are only able to copyright that which is not owned by someone else.
1. What you scan and reproduce is not a derivative work. Period. To be a derivative work, you have to substantively change the original. A scan does not do that. So, what you scanned is not included in your copyright.
2. By reproducing my work without permission, you are liable for damages to me, the copyright holder. No one, not you or anyone else has the right to scan and reproduce my work, or that of any copyright holder without permission of the copyright owner. If they do so, they are also financially liable to the copyright owner.
3. The rules for reproducing copyrighted material without permission include fair use (e.g. news report or book review), academic use (by student or professor), etc. Under no circumstances do those rules allow for someone else to subtantively copy another's work on a wholesale basis or for profit by another without the permission of the copyright owner.
If you don't believe me, copy a book by oh, say James Patterson, change the cover and typeface and title and publish it. Claim it is a derivative work. See how far that gets you. Or, better yet, scan it onto your computer, and sell the scans as an ebook and claim it is a derivative work. See where that gets you.
My bet is you will end up on the rather nasty side of a law suit and a cease and desist order.
The only way you could legitimately argue that you have a right to scan/copy a copyrighted work is if you only make a single copy and claim that you did so to preserve it as a backup copy of the original work. You might win that law suit, or might not, depending on the jurisdiction. However, no one will ever agree that you own a copyright of a derivative work based on the original simply because you scanned it -- which is what you wrote.
Something I have been wondering about.
If Google is found guilty of wilfully infringing Oracle's patents and proceeding to market this [Android] to 3rd-parties: manufacturers, carriers, resellers, developers, accessory makers, consumers, etc...
Is Google subject to recourse, regardless of the terms of the Android license.
Has Google committed fraud?
What about liability to GOOG shareholders?
Google's liability to the manufacturer's that licensened Android depends completely on the language of the license between the manufacturer and Google. So does the issue of fraud. If sold "as is," there may be no recourse at all.
Before you chaps return to battle read this article on the subject of theft - if only for the Helicopter joke. I think you will both recognize your own and the other's viewpoints and realize it's not such a clear cut case as 'theft is theft', or ' infringement cannot be theft'.
Commenting on my own post because I forgot to include the link: http://www.copyhype.com/2010/09/is-c...ngement-theft/
Oracle certainly must have factored any potential future Java licensing revenue into the purchase price of Sun Microsystems. Java was probably THE most valuable asset Oracle acquired. Heck, even James Gosling the father of Java left shortly after the acquisition.
Good thing Google is sitting on a pile of cash. They will need it
Infringing a patent isn't theft. Not legally, not morally, not factually, not in any way.
If it was theft then you would be sent to prison for it and the state would handle the prosecution. The fact that theft is immoral is completely irrelevant.
Google WILLFULLY Infringed on patents. THEY KNEW THIS 5 years ago, they knew this a few months ago.
Just because the punishment for willful infringement is not imprisonment, does NOT MEAN it's not THEFT.
You can spin this however you want but what Google did/doing to Sun/Oracle, Apple, MS, etc. is THEFT if proven (which based on this emails from that Retard Rubin and the other engr. , looks like it's a slam dunk).
Beware the Google Thief
Google is screwed and will dole out in the end.
The whole concept of "infringement as theft" is one popularised by big media who are seeking to be victims in whatever forum they can.
It is not theft. When you infringe IP you do not deprive that person of the thing you've thieved. You may deprive them of the revenue from that thing, but that is different. You might call that 'infringement of IP'.
You may not be depriving them of the IP itself, but you are definitely depriving them of some of the benefits resulting from the (originally) exclusive exploitation of said IP. Ask the RIAA if you don't believe me
Giving something away for free does not exonerate you from stealing it in the first place, just as giving your billions to charity does not exonerate you from the nefarious business practices that got you those billions in the first place (**cough** Bill Gates **cough**)
This thread is still growing?
Google is screwed and will dole out in the end.
This is by far not the first infringement/theft thread on the internet and, undoubtedly, will not be the last.
I'm also quite sure this is not the longest thread on the subject.
... and, yes, I'm sure Google will pay before the trial starts in October... unless Oracle decides that a delay in proceedings is needed to reassess damages.
Get out the popcorn...
Oh... almost forgot... Go Ogle is Evil!
PS - C'mon people... let's get this thread past 300!!
PS - C'mon people... let's get this thread past 300!!
Lol, ok. I've got a bit of insomnia so I'll throw this question out to hopefully get a response. Cloudgazer is stating that Oracle's patents are definitely still up in the air which technically is true, BUT the judge (who most likely has a background in IP law and maybe even experience on either/both jobs of counsel) is clearly telling Google that they most likely will lose one or more points in their case and should try to settle for a reasonable amount. Wouldn't the judge have reviewed the patents in question? And would that judge's informed opinion give a really good hint on who is on the "wrong" side of the fence?
http://robdelaney.tumblr.com/post/8382618996
If we can't agree that Google is evil, can we at least agree this is?
http://robdelaney.tumblr.com/post/8382618996
Hope I don't get banned for replying to this but I totally just spit out gulp of beer.
@cloudgazer you seem to feel that you, and you only, understand all the legal and patent issues involved -- better than the lawyers, USPTO professionals, judges, public record, bloggers with bona fides, legal training, principals involved -- and anyone with the ability to read, reason and differentiate.
In truth, you have become your sig.
BTW, when do you find time for your, obviously vast, legal practice?
/sarcasm
I think what he is saying is that violations of patent law, willfull or not, can never be criminal acts but can only be civil acts. His detractors are saying the opposite. It's hard to see why one side gets to sneer about the other's "vast legal practice", which is an ad Hominen.
In any case I have never heard of patent violations being criminal matters. Provide proof, if you have any.
EDIT: guardian article about inventor trying to crminalise patent infringements. In the UK but similar laws apply to the US and worldwide. Patents are civil matters, cases are never brought by Police or Public Prosecutors.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8232130.stm
I think what he is saying is that violations of patent law, willfull or not, can never be criminal acts but can only be civil acts. His detractors are saying the opposite. It's hard to see why one side gets to sneer about the other's "vast legal practice", which is an ad Hominen.
In ant case I have never heard of patent violations being criminal matters. Provide proof, if you have any.
I definitely agree with this. Nobody's getting carried out in handcuffs for this.
You need to correct your signature - Steve in 2012: iCloud, not our finest hour - He was referring to mobileme not icloud. You don't want to googlize reality do you?
Tongue in cheek humor. Although I am still looking forward to iCloud, just wished they didn't kill, or keep quit on, the seamless integration of Aperture and Galleries. To me, there's simply no alternative. Flickr & Facepalm is not for me, missing the elegance I believe Galleries has. I am currently trying out the various plugins that are available for Aperture.
Android's free ride will certainly come to an end next year. but an extra $50 license cost per phone is not going to make that big a difference in the market. and they'll find workarounds for Apple's stuff.
so where does this lead?
Well wouldn't think it would be $50... and $50 would be deadly in the phone market... look up the BOM on phones sometime. It's a competitive market and they'll to great lengths to shave $0.50 let alone $50
Lol, ok. I've got a bit of insomnia so I'll throw this question out to hopefully get a response. Cloudgazer is stating that Oracle's patents are definitely still up in the air which technically is true, BUT the judge (who most likely has a background in IP law and maybe even experience on either/both jobs of counsel) is clearly telling Google that they most likely will lose one or more points in their case and should try to settle for a reasonable amount. Wouldn't the judge have reviewed the patents in question? And would that judge's informed opinion give a really good hint on who is on the "wrong" side of the fence?
The judge could order a stay until the invalidation process was complete, but there's no requirement to do so. Google has said they would prefer a stay but they have left it to the judge's discretion. Oracle is firmly opposed to a stay. This may be a tactical ploy - from foss-patents (http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...emorandum.html)
'This way, Google tries to build pressure on Oracle to narrow its claims if it wants a swift resolution of the case, but Google knows that a stay would very much be in the discretion of the judge, which is why Google defers to him.'
The judge's tentative case plan also pointed out that Oracle would have to take the risk of possibly getting a decision based on claims that might be narrowed or invalidated later as a result of reexamination.
It's not that the judge is unaware of the invalidation process, but the decision of this case is based on the patents as they currently stand. Subsequent invalidation, as the judge himself says could render the decision irrelevant.