That's possible about Java, except not really. If Google did that, they would have to release all of their work to the public. Google has already shown they won't do that. One problem for them is the code they already stole from Linux. Why should they want to act differently here?
Steal from Linux? Uhm, isnt that supposed to be free and open source leader supposed to beat Microsoft etc?
In that case, Apple created OS X stealing core from BSD. wikipedia: Darwin is an open source POSIX-compliant computer operating system released by Apple Inc. in 2000. It is composed of code developed by Apple, as well as code derived from NeXTSTEP, BSD, and other free software projects.
Google needs to publish only derivative work, not the apps that are running on top of it. They do it anyway. It will be a problem for Amazon which forked Android and keeps code secret.
OK, maybe I need to review everything I've read about this case, but I thought the problem wasn't using java as a language. I thought the issues were: 1) the Dalvik VM. Google claims that it was created in a clean room environment and Oracle claims that is not true. 2) the terms of the license requires complete compatibility with java which Android is not
Definitely correct me if I'm wrong though
Oh don't quote me on this case. LOL. I didn't analyze it much.
All I know is Java is used in Google's Android, as a very "core" part, and Google got sued. Over what (patents and copyrights) I'm not sure, but the result is they got sued.
No one has ever gotten sued for using C or C++ to my knowledge - none that were big news, with billions of dollars at stake anyway.
One IMO should be very careful when integrating proprietary languages like Java and C# into one's product. You better have every "t" cross and every "i" dotted, as you never know what language related patents/copyrights the language vendor has hidden away.
Here's what I'm thinking: You either have not the slightest idea what you are talking about but have gotten pumped up on BS from Android and open source fan sites and came to spew it here, or, you know it's BS but have some ridiculously mistaken notion that "putting it out there" will somehow make a difference in the outcome.
Sorry, if I upset you. But, I did not write anything here without giving links or references to facts. Bye
Sure. I was pointing at the idea of Android being so good for choice and competition that it would be bad if the legal system determined that it should be removed from use to satisfy The wrong done to Oracle. IF. I think the right thing to do is what the law allows as remedy to Oracle.
Forgive me if I'm not being clear enough. I admire the ability of some of the participants here to state their ideas succinctly and clearly.
It seems to me that if Google just did this one time, we might just write it off as a bunch of guys who are incompetent at this. But they knew they were violating Sun's IP.
They also violated Microsoft's, as we can see by how easy it's been for MS to wrest license fees from so many Android OEM's so far.
They violated Apple's.
They violated the Linux Foundation's code as well.
They helped Canadian companies illegally sell drugs here in the US for a number of years. They just paid the largest fine ever for that, $500 million.
They are under investigation both here, in Europe, and possibly in S. Korea for antitrust violations. Their attempts to put other companies out of business by stealing their business plans, is widespread.
Then we have their hard to believe excuse of "an error by one engineer" in placing software that steals passwords, e-mails, etc. from people's systems while taking photo's of the front of houses. This by the way, is software that Google developed specifically to do just that. They even patented it!
Then you could read all of the funky things Eric Schmitt has said over the years.
Steal from Linux? Uhm, isnt that supposed to be free and open source leader supposed to beat Microsoft etc?
In that case, Apple created OS X stealing core from BSD. wikipedia: Darwin is an open source POSIX-compliant computer operating system released by Apple Inc. in 2000. It is composed of code developed by Apple, as well as code derived from NeXTSTEP, BSD, and other free software projects.
Google needs to publish only derivative work, not the apps that are running on top of it. They do it anyway. It will be a problem for Amazon which forked Android and keeps code secret.
It's free, but covered by the GPL 2 license. That means that the work, or any work derived from it, or any programs that runs on it must be documented, and released for everyone else to use without payment.
What Google did, as I posted a link to some posts above, was to take about 2.5 MBs of Linux code, strip the copyrights out, and claim it as part of their own proprietary software. This is a violation of the license. It's serious stuff. I'll post it again.
I have to admit I am. Here is what I am thinking: At this point Oracle wants more money. Google wants the extra freedom in Apache license. It is very likely this gets settled before trial. That is the only way both can be satisfied. Otherwise, both lose.
One exception is Oracle's claim of 5 patents or so. Two of them got invalidated by patent office currently. So, there is this 3 patents in question. Not sure about the timings, but Google bought 2000+ patents from IBM plus 17000 + 7500(pending) will be added via Motorola. Some of the patents from IBM target parallel database features in Oracle databases. Maybe, Google is preparing to strike against Oracle's patent claims.
Whoa, total flashback! I could have sworn you copied half of that text from your own post above!
Steal from Linux? Uhm, isnt that supposed to be free and open source leader supposed to beat Microsoft etc?
In that case, Apple created OS X stealing core from BSD. wikipedia: Darwin is an open source POSIX-compliant computer operating system released by Apple Inc. in 2000. It is composed of code developed by Apple, as well as code derived from NeXTSTEP, BSD, and other free software projects.
I wonder what would happen if you walked into a courtroom and tried to cite wikipedia as a reference. Wait... I wonder what would happen if you walked into a CLASSROOM and tried to cite wikipedia as a reference.
They also violated Microsoft's, as we can see by how easy it's been for MS to wrest license fees from so many Android OEM's so far.
A: name one true invention from Microsoft?
They violated Apple's.
A: Uhm, in that case, Apple violated Nokia's and 100 other companies that are using Apple.
They violated the Linux Foundation's code as well.
A: Linux is free
They helped Canadian companies illegally sell drugs here in the US for a number of years. They just paid the largest fine ever for that, $500 million.
A: How many Canadian's die taking those drugs? Canada can offer free healthcare to all its citizens. 60 million is US has no heath coverage. Healthcare costs will US destroy US economy over time. It bothers me - what is legally right is not always morally right? - maybe, some in Google made a mistake of ignoring the law to save some lives.
They are under investigation both here, in Europe, and possibly in S. Korea for antitrust violations. Their attempts to put other companies out of business by stealing their business plans, is widespread.
A: Did they find anything bad so far?
Then we have their hard to believe excuse of "an error by one engineer" in placing software that steals passwords, e-mails, etc. from people's systems while taking photo's of the front of houses. This by the way, is software that Google developed specifically to do just that. They even patented it!
A: You seem to be very concerned about Google capturing wifi information. Why would you not ask FCC to ban selling wifi devices with WEB encryption? All congressmen are concerned, they do nothing other than go after Google, while hackers make harvests.
Then you could read all of the funky things Eric Schmitt has said over the years.
They also violated Microsoft's, as we can see by how easy it's been for MS to wrest license fees from so many Android OEM's so far.
A: name one true invention from Microsoft?
They violated Apple's.
A: Uhm, in that case, Apple violated Nokia's and 100 other companies that are using Apple.
They violated the Linux Foundation's code as well.
A: Linux is free
They helped Canadian companies illegally sell drugs here in the US for a number of years. They just paid the largest fine ever for that, $500 million.
A: How many Canadian's die taking those drugs? Canada can offer free healthcare to all its citizens. 60 million is US has no heath coverage. Healthcare costs will US destroy US economy over time. It bothers me - what is legally right is not always morally right? - maybe, some in Google made a mistake of ignoring the law to save some lives.
They are under investigation both here, in Europe, and possibly in S. Korea for antitrust violations. Their attempts to put other companies out of business by stealing their business plans, is widespread.
A: Did they find anything bad so far?
Then we have their hard to believe excuse of "an error by one engineer" in placing software that steals passwords, e-mails, etc. from people's systems while taking photo's of the front of houses. This by the way, is software that Google developed specifically to do just that. They even patented it!
A: You seem to be very concerned about Google capturing wifi information. Why would you not ask FCC to ban selling wifi devices with WEB encryption? All congressmen are concerned, they do nothing other than go after Google, while hackers make harvests.
Then you could read all of the funky things Eric Schmitt has said over the years.
I don't trust these guys at all.
You haven't said anything here that disproves anything I stated. You haven't actually said anything!
Sorry, if I upset you. But, I did not write anything here without giving links or references to facts. Bye
The problem with all your, Google just has to release code under GPL V2 talk and they are home free talk is that Google has not done that.
If Google wanted to claim the GPL defense they could not keep Andriod 3.0 and 3.1 as CLOSED SOURCE software, as they are doing.
Google DOES NOT want to GPL Andriod. The reason for this is simple, the WHOLE POINT of Andriod is for Google to be able to control OEMs and ensure that Google's customers (advertisers) can gain access to Google product (Andrioid users).
By releasing Andriod under GPL they can not control search and advertising channels to their customers (advertisers) through their product (Andriod users).
For Google multi-billion investment in Andriod to be financially viable they need a product to sell to their customers. They need Andriod users to sell eye balls to the advertisers.
If ever Andrioid was made truly "FREE" software they lose control and no longer have a product to sell to their customers.
The problem with all your, Google just has to release code under GPL V2 talk and they are home free talk is that Google has not done that.
If Google wanted to claim the GPL defense they could not keep Andriod 3.0 and 3.1 as CLOSED SOURCE software, as they are doing.
Google DOES NOT want to GPL Andriod. The reason for this is simple, the WHOLE POINT of Andriod is for Google to be able to control OEMs and ensure that Google's customers (advertisers) can gain access to Google product (Andrioid users).
By releasing Andriod under GPL they can not control search and advertising channels to their customers (advertisers) through their product (Andriod users).
For Google multi-billion investment in Andriod to be financially viable they need a product to sell to their customers. They need Andriod users to sell eye balls to the advertisers.
If ever Andrioid was made truly "FREE" software they lose control and no longer have a product to sell to their customers.
I agree with you that Apache license will be better for Google, but not for the same reasons.
I was referring to previous and quite famous Java suit against MS which was back pre Sun purchase. Sorry I thought it was well know. MS was forced to give up its Java knock off. Or outdated incompatible version to be more accurate.
Comments
That's possible about Java, except not really. If Google did that, they would have to release all of their work to the public. Google has already shown they won't do that. One problem for them is the code they already stole from Linux. Why should they want to act differently here?
Steal from Linux? Uhm, isnt that supposed to be free and open source leader supposed to beat Microsoft etc?
In that case, Apple created OS X stealing core from BSD. wikipedia: Darwin is an open source POSIX-compliant computer operating system released by Apple Inc. in 2000. It is composed of code developed by Apple, as well as code derived from NeXTSTEP, BSD, and other free software projects.
Google needs to publish only derivative work, not the apps that are running on top of it. They do it anyway. It will be a problem for Amazon which forked Android and keeps code secret.
OK, maybe I need to review everything I've read about this case, but I thought the problem wasn't using java as a language. I thought the issues were: 1) the Dalvik VM. Google claims that it was created in a clean room environment and Oracle claims that is not true. 2) the terms of the license requires complete compatibility with java which Android is not
Definitely correct me if I'm wrong though
Oh don't quote me on this case. LOL. I didn't analyze it much.
All I know is Java is used in Google's Android, as a very "core" part, and Google got sued. Over what (patents and copyrights) I'm not sure, but the result is they got sued.
No one has ever gotten sued for using C or C++ to my knowledge - none that were big news, with billions of dollars at stake anyway.
One IMO should be very careful when integrating proprietary languages like Java and C# into one's product. You better have every "t" cross and every "i" dotted, as you never know what language related patents/copyrights the language vendor has hidden away.
Here's what I'm thinking: You either have not the slightest idea what you are talking about but have gotten pumped up on BS from Android and open source fan sites and came to spew it here, or, you know it's BS but have some ridiculously mistaken notion that "putting it out there" will somehow make a difference in the outcome.
Sorry, if I upset you. But, I did not write anything here without giving links or references to facts. Bye
Sure. I was pointing at the idea of Android being so good for choice and competition that it would be bad if the legal system determined that it should be removed from use to satisfy The wrong done to Oracle. IF. I think the right thing to do is what the law allows as remedy to Oracle.
Forgive me if I'm not being clear enough. I admire the ability of some of the participants here to state their ideas succinctly and clearly.
It seems to me that if Google just did this one time, we might just write it off as a bunch of guys who are incompetent at this. But they knew they were violating Sun's IP.
They also violated Microsoft's, as we can see by how easy it's been for MS to wrest license fees from so many Android OEM's so far.
They violated Apple's.
They violated the Linux Foundation's code as well.
They helped Canadian companies illegally sell drugs here in the US for a number of years. They just paid the largest fine ever for that, $500 million.
They are under investigation both here, in Europe, and possibly in S. Korea for antitrust violations. Their attempts to put other companies out of business by stealing their business plans, is widespread.
Then we have their hard to believe excuse of "an error by one engineer" in placing software that steals passwords, e-mails, etc. from people's systems while taking photo's of the front of houses. This by the way, is software that Google developed specifically to do just that. They even patented it!
Then you could read all of the funky things Eric Schmitt has said over the years.
I don't trust these guys at all.
Steal from Linux? Uhm, isnt that supposed to be free and open source leader supposed to beat Microsoft etc?
In that case, Apple created OS X stealing core from BSD. wikipedia: Darwin is an open source POSIX-compliant computer operating system released by Apple Inc. in 2000. It is composed of code developed by Apple, as well as code derived from NeXTSTEP, BSD, and other free software projects.
Google needs to publish only derivative work, not the apps that are running on top of it. They do it anyway. It will be a problem for Amazon which forked Android and keeps code secret.
It's free, but covered by the GPL 2 license. That means that the work, or any work derived from it, or any programs that runs on it must be documented, and released for everyone else to use without payment.
What Google did, as I posted a link to some posts above, was to take about 2.5 MBs of Linux code, strip the copyrights out, and claim it as part of their own proprietary software. This is a violation of the license. It's serious stuff. I'll post it again.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...ous-linux.html
I have to admit I am. Here is what I am thinking: At this point Oracle wants more money. Google wants the extra freedom in Apache license. It is very likely this gets settled before trial. That is the only way both can be satisfied. Otherwise, both lose.
One exception is Oracle's claim of 5 patents or so. Two of them got invalidated by patent office currently. So, there is this 3 patents in question. Not sure about the timings, but Google bought 2000+ patents from IBM plus 17000 + 7500(pending) will be added via Motorola. Some of the patents from IBM target parallel database features in Oracle databases. Maybe, Google is preparing to strike against Oracle's patent claims.
Whoa, total flashback! I could have sworn you copied half of that text from your own post above!
LAME!
Steal from Linux? Uhm, isnt that supposed to be free and open source leader supposed to beat Microsoft etc?
In that case, Apple created OS X stealing core from BSD. wikipedia: Darwin is an open source POSIX-compliant computer operating system released by Apple Inc. in 2000. It is composed of code developed by Apple, as well as code derived from NeXTSTEP, BSD, and other free software projects.
I wonder what would happen if you walked into a courtroom and tried to cite wikipedia as a reference. Wait... I wonder what would happen if you walked into a CLASSROOM and tried to cite wikipedia as a reference.
Sorry, if I upset you. But, I did not write anything here without giving links or references to facts. Bye
And just like that.... poof
They also violated Microsoft's, as we can see by how easy it's been for MS to wrest license fees from so many Android OEM's so far.
A: name one true invention from Microsoft?
They violated Apple's.
A: Uhm, in that case, Apple violated Nokia's and 100 other companies that are using Apple.
They violated the Linux Foundation's code as well.
A: Linux is free
They helped Canadian companies illegally sell drugs here in the US for a number of years. They just paid the largest fine ever for that, $500 million.
A: How many Canadian's die taking those drugs? Canada can offer free healthcare to all its citizens. 60 million is US has no heath coverage. Healthcare costs will US destroy US economy over time. It bothers me - what is legally right is not always morally right? - maybe, some in Google made a mistake of ignoring the law to save some lives.
They are under investigation both here, in Europe, and possibly in S. Korea for antitrust violations. Their attempts to put other companies out of business by stealing their business plans, is widespread.
A: Did they find anything bad so far?
Then we have their hard to believe excuse of "an error by one engineer" in placing software that steals passwords, e-mails, etc. from people's systems while taking photo's of the front of houses. This by the way, is software that Google developed specifically to do just that. They even patented it!
A: You seem to be very concerned about Google capturing wifi information. Why would you not ask FCC to ban selling wifi devices with WEB encryption? All congressmen are concerned, they do nothing other than go after Google, while hackers make harvests.
Then you could read all of the funky things Eric Schmitt has said over the years.
I don't trust these guys at all.
That is a blind accusation on Google.
They also violated Microsoft's, as we can see by how easy it's been for MS to wrest license fees from so many Android OEM's so far.
A: name one true invention from Microsoft?
They violated Apple's.
A: Uhm, in that case, Apple violated Nokia's and 100 other companies that are using Apple.
They violated the Linux Foundation's code as well.
A: Linux is free
They helped Canadian companies illegally sell drugs here in the US for a number of years. They just paid the largest fine ever for that, $500 million.
A: How many Canadian's die taking those drugs? Canada can offer free healthcare to all its citizens. 60 million is US has no heath coverage. Healthcare costs will US destroy US economy over time. It bothers me - what is legally right is not always morally right? - maybe, some in Google made a mistake of ignoring the law to save some lives.
They are under investigation both here, in Europe, and possibly in S. Korea for antitrust violations. Their attempts to put other companies out of business by stealing their business plans, is widespread.
A: Did they find anything bad so far?
Then we have their hard to believe excuse of "an error by one engineer" in placing software that steals passwords, e-mails, etc. from people's systems while taking photo's of the front of houses. This by the way, is software that Google developed specifically to do just that. They even patented it!
A: You seem to be very concerned about Google capturing wifi information. Why would you not ask FCC to ban selling wifi devices with WEB encryption? All congressmen are concerned, they do nothing other than go after Google, while hackers make harvests.
Then you could read all of the funky things Eric Schmitt has said over the years.
I don't trust these guys at all.
You haven't said anything here that disproves anything I stated. You haven't actually said anything!
Sorry, if I upset you. But, I did not write anything here without giving links or references to facts. Bye
The problem with all your, Google just has to release code under GPL V2 talk and they are home free talk is that Google has not done that.
If Google wanted to claim the GPL defense they could not keep Andriod 3.0 and 3.1 as CLOSED SOURCE software, as they are doing.
Google DOES NOT want to GPL Andriod. The reason for this is simple, the WHOLE POINT of Andriod is for Google to be able to control OEMs and ensure that Google's customers (advertisers) can gain access to Google product (Andrioid users).
By releasing Andriod under GPL they can not control search and advertising channels to their customers (advertisers) through their product (Andriod users).
For Google multi-billion investment in Andriod to be financially viable they need a product to sell to their customers. They need Andriod users to sell eye balls to the advertisers.
If ever Andrioid was made truly "FREE" software they lose control and no longer have a product to sell to their customers.
The problem with all your, Google just has to release code under GPL V2 talk and they are home free talk is that Google has not done that.
If Google wanted to claim the GPL defense they could not keep Andriod 3.0 and 3.1 as CLOSED SOURCE software, as they are doing.
Google DOES NOT want to GPL Andriod. The reason for this is simple, the WHOLE POINT of Andriod is for Google to be able to control OEMs and ensure that Google's customers (advertisers) can gain access to Google product (Andrioid users).
By releasing Andriod under GPL they can not control search and advertising channels to their customers (advertisers) through their product (Andriod users).
For Google multi-billion investment in Andriod to be financially viable they need a product to sell to their customers. They need Andriod users to sell eye balls to the advertisers.
If ever Andrioid was made truly "FREE" software they lose control and no longer have a product to sell to their customers.
I agree with you that Apache license will be better for Google, but not for the same reasons.
It's free, but covered by the GPL 2 license. That mean....
What Google did, as I posted a link to some posts above, was to take about 2.5 MBs of Linux code, strip the copyrights out, and claim....
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...ous-linux.html
Thanks, that was kind of my understanding, but with all the white noise going on here, I wasn't sure.
I agree with you that Apache license will be better for Google, but not for the same reasons.
All of you guys really should read the analysis of this at Fosspatents. This is a very complex situation, and isn't subject to a simple resolution.
When did Oracle sue Microsoft?
Sun sued them. And won.
All of you guys really should read the analysis of this at Fosspatents. This is a very complex situation, and isn't subject to a simple resolution.
I suggest never read Fosspatents. It is biased useless material. Take a look at it yourself.
When did Oracle sue Microsoft?
I was referring to previous and quite famous Java suit against MS which was back pre Sun purchase. Sorry I thought it was well know. MS was forced to give up its Java knock off. Or outdated incompatible version to be more accurate.
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news...+Over+Java.htm
You must be a youngster.
I suggest never read Fosspatents. It is biased useless material. Take a look at it yourself.
Why so?