Oracle seeking an injunction against Android as an "incompatible clone of Java"

1356711

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 203
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post


    Are you people crackers or something?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post


    I believe Google has the money to just buy Oracle.







    Oracle's market cap is in the order of 143 billion dollars. Google has around 25 billion in cash reserves. They're really not in a position to buy Oracle in an hostile acquisition. On the other hand, they would have no trouble ponying up the billion or so that Oracle is asking for allegedly infringing on patents they own.
  • Reply 42 of 203
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by scotty321 View Post


    YES!!! You go, Oracle!!! Time to finally fight back against the thieves!!!



    Those bastards at Google need to be taught a huge lesson. This certainly isn't the first thing Google has stolen & raped & pillaged:



    http://brianshall.com/content/google-are-pussies



    I used to really like apple when they were only a search business. they had a very creative and great work environment and treated their employees well. Then they went all high and mighty
  • Reply 43 of 203
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DrGoon View Post






    Oracle's market cap is in the order of 143 billion dollars. Google has around 25 billion in cash reserves. They're really not in a position to buy Oracle in an hostile acquisition. On the other hand, they would have no trouble ponying up the billion or so that Oracle is asking for allegedly infringing on patents they own.



    To buy a company doesn't mean you have to own them in their entirety. You simply have to own enough, or controlling interest. Bill Gates has controlling interest in MS and his ownership is something in the league of 30%. Many times, controlling interest is much less than that, depending on other factors, such as Ford's former stake in Mazda, where much of Mazda's parts and platforms were derived from Ford's worldwide operations. With that in mind, Google would simply need to purchase "enough" of Oracle to nullify this mess. What number would you think that could be? 15%? 20%? Some of that could even be borrowed money... Then that would also allow Google to benefit from Oracle's operations, as well.
  • Reply 44 of 203
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post


    That's some seriously misguided freetard-speak there, buddy.



    Patents protect innovators against blatant copying. Just as Samsung.



    Here. Let me Bing that for you: http://binged.it/rt7h91



    No let me point you to why it's a mess and needs fixed or wiped out completely:



    http://www.tomsguide.com/us/patent-i...ews-12603.html
  • Reply 45 of 203
    Way to go Larry Ellison! Oracle is doing phenomenally, he has called the HP board boneheads, and he's a good Apple ally. Now this? Take that cheap nerdy knockoff android OS back where it belongs... The trash can!
  • Reply 46 of 203
    cameronjcameronj Posts: 2,357member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dragon View Post


    The intrigue I have with these legal patent battles is equal to that of reading a Robert Ludlum book.



    Um.... except you only get to read the first chapter and the final page of the book...
  • Reply 47 of 203
    recrec Posts: 217member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post


    Are you people crackers or something? Us iPhone users WANT Android to succeed and be better and better. Competition fules innovation. If iOS had no competition, it wouldn't move ahead so far so quickly. As a user, you WANT the competition to be successful just enough to fuel the manufacturer of your product to constantly strive to release a better product.



    I believe Google has the money to just buy Oracle. Don't tempt them... Honestly, this software patent crap is so far out of hand it's ridiculous. It used to not be this way and we had lots of innovation. Software patents block innovation.



    Rules are rules. They stole software in order to get onto the market faster, they need to pay a price. We should all be fine with what the law says on this issue, whether its a fine or being blocked in the market.



    I don't think Android has done much of anything to drive iOS, more like the other way around. Now if Apple went out of business, that would really hurt Android is what you mean.



    You might've had an argument until your last line there. That's some pretty insane talk.
  • Reply 48 of 203
    Oracle is contradicting its own license - a clone of Java is perfectly valid under GPL v2. The source for Java rumtime and libraries are published in internet at openjdk.net with GPL V2 and GPL V2 with class path exception (Google can convert Android into GPL v2, problem solved).



    GPL v2 published at www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html:



    2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:



    a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

    b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

    c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
  • Reply 49 of 203
    cameronjcameronj Posts: 2,357member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by boby_k View Post


    Oracle is contradicting its own license - a clone of Java is perfectly valid under GPL v2. The source for Java rumtime and libraries are published in internet at openjdk.net with GPL V2 and GPL V2 with class path exception (Google can convert Android into GPL v2, problem solved).



    Don't you think it's weird that all of Oracle's and Google's high priced lawyers couldn't find and interpret that legalese as well as you did?



    Ever wonder if that means you're missing something important?



    Also - fantacy has an S.
  • Reply 50 of 203
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by boby_k View Post


    Oracle is contradicting its own license - a clone of Java is perfectly valid under GPL v2. The source for Java rumtime and libraries are published in internet at openjdk.net with GPL V2 and GPL V2 with class path exception (Google can convert Android into GPL v2, problem solved).



    GPL v2 published at www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html:



    2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:



    a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

    b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

    c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)



    Apart from J2ME, which is what is involved here.
  • Reply 51 of 203
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post


    See, I agree with this. I think that Google should be sued for all of its infringements and pay up dearly. But take it off the market? Come on!



    I just die a little inside when it's assumed that Apple makes the best solutions for everyone. Killing Android will not be a good thing for consumers.



    In the short run, you may be correct. In the long run, however, consumers benefit when INNOVATORS exist. Copyists do not really benefit consumers in the long run.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post


    If Google is in the wrong, they should pay whatever damages that are due to other companies. But to suggest that another OS simply be wiped off the market just because it benefits AAPL? Who are we kidding here



    No one is suggesting that Android should be killed because it benefits Apple. Oracle is suggesting (if the article is correct) that Google should be enjoined from blatantly stealing technology that they do not have a right to.



    Let's say I steal your car and make a business out of using it as a taxi service. Is it wrong for my taxi service to be put out of business solely so you can get your car back? Of course not.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rp2011 View Post


    Agree 100% We need hungry companies like Google. They push the envelope.



    No, we don't. We need REAL competitors, not thieves. And Google has never pushed the envelope in technology - unless you consider "how much more stuff can we steal?" to be pushing the envelope.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post


    Are you people crackers or something? Us iPhone users WANT Android to succeed and be better and better. Competition fules innovation.



    And Google is simply copying, not innovating.



    Notice how WebOS and Windows 8 haven't gotten anywhere near the bitterness of Android. At least they tried to innovate.
  • Reply 52 of 203
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    Apart from J2ME, which is what is involved here.



    Sorry, this has nothing to do with J2ME. You can check yourself "PolicyNodeImpl.java" yourself. That is one file in question.
  • Reply 53 of 203
    No J2ME is involved.
  • Reply 54 of 203
    rybryb Posts: 56member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    If Google really did infringe on Oracle's Java, and Oracle is able to win in court, then sure, Google should be punished if you ask me. I see it as a simple case of right and wrong.



    Well said.
  • Reply 55 of 203
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cameronj View Post


    Don't you think it's weird that all of Oracle's and Google's high priced lawyers couldn't find and interpret that legalese as well as you did?



    Ever wonder if that means you're missing something important?



    Also - fantacy has an S.



    We have not got there yet. Right now, Google's objective is reduce the amount for any past infringement if at all ****for mixing GPL v2 with Apache*****.



    And..... this case is about 12 files (already deleted from android) and 37 specifications (class & method names). That is .0001% of android. Oracle can ask for $1
  • Reply 56 of 203
    mazda 3smazda 3s Posts: 1,612member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    In the short run, you may be correct. In the long run, however, consumers benefit when INNOVATORS exist. Copyists do not really benefit consumers in the long run.



    Currently, if I want an iPhone, I have to choose from either Verizon or AT&T. Want a slide-out keyboard? Sorry, screw you. Want LTE? Sorry, screw you. Want WiMAX? Sorry, screw you. Want a screen size larger than 3.5 inches? Sorry, screw you. Want a dual-core processor, removable battery, removable storage (microSD), HDMI-out? Sorry, screw... oh well, you get the point.



    I'm not going to sit here and lie and say that Google is a saint when it comes to patent laws on the SOFTWARE side. But to say that consumers don't benefit from having the variety that Android HARDWARE brings? I think that's being a bit disingenuous.



    The problem with many in this community is that we've been taught that if Apple says that "It should be done this way", then we just go along with it. If Apple says no to LTE, it must because they have a good reason. If Apple says no to removable storage, then they know better than everyone else. If Apple says keyboards suck, well so be it.



    Not all consumers want to be told what they can and can't have when it comes to a device that's on them 24-7-365. For me, my iPhone 4 is perfect. But I'm glad that Android manufacturers give consumers the choice that Apple doesn't.



    Quote:

    No one is suggesting that Android should be killed because it benefits Apple. Oracle is suggesting (if the article is correct) that Google should be enjoined from blatantly stealing technology that they do not have a right to.



    I don't have a problem with this. If Google f**ked up, then by all means punish them. But Android is "Too big to fail"
  • Reply 57 of 203
    Litigations between these tech firms just seems to be getting more & more murky. I've got a headache just reading this article.
  • Reply 58 of 203
    rybryb Posts: 56member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post


    See, I agree with this. I think that Google should be sued for all of its infringements and pay up dearly. But take it off the market? Come on!



    I just die a little inside when it's assumed that Apple makes the best solutions for everyone. Killing Android will not be a good thing for consumers.



    The point you might be missing is that other creative companies would come in and fill that void. The need for competion in the market does not make it ok for Google to steal and lie. Justice would not be served if Oracle were not allowed to insist that their stolen property be returned to them.
  • Reply 59 of 203
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ryb View Post


    The point you might be missing is that other creative companies would come in and fill that void. The need for competion in the market does not make it ok for Google to steal and lie. Justice would not be served if Oracle were not allowed to insist that their stolen property be returned to them.



    If you pick up something offered free on the street, will you call it steal? The entire source code for java run time and libraries are offered free at openjdk.net by none other than Oracle itself. Under GPL v2, you are free to create a clone of Java. In Faq, Oracle says "Go hack yourself".
  • Reply 60 of 203
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
Sign In or Register to comment.