Because it's well written, well regarded and disagrees with the freetard religion. Fosspatents IS biased but less rabidly so than Groklaw. The problem freetards have with it is that it's decently researched and doesn't come off sounding like loon zealotry...which means it gets quite a bit of traffic and reprint.
The other reason is that freetards realize that Google is in the wrong here on several different levels and that's causing significant cognitive dissonance.
This is the key point. Seems the article and most of the commenters take this for granted, that Google is stealing Oracle's IP and "destroying" Java.
The first claim is very debatable : Java is open-souce and Google just found the loophole in the license and exploited it.
Well, given that they've taken GPL code and made it Apache they don't have a license for it. So they didn't exploit it so much as steal it.
Quote:
There is nothing that violates the Java open-source license in Android.
Except the GPL part. Without said license they are violating both copyright and patents (assuming that you accept the implicit grant in GPL 2 is sufficient)
Forcing Google to GPL Android would take a whole heap of wind out of it's sales (heh).
Quote:
The other claim is downward ridiculous : How is Android "destroying" Java ? This is very different from the Microsoft case many years ago. Microsoft was Sun's licensee and violated the terms of this license. Google is not licensing the Java or the Java TCK, because they don't have to. They never claim the applications on Android are running in Java VM. They just use Java language, and Java compiler, because the open source license allows them to do so.
Google has managed to embrace, extend and extinguish Java ME. That's the primary difference between MS and Google. Everything else is a relatively minor detail.
Quote:
Java owes a lots of it popularity to the fact that it is open source technology, that is free to use except few limited cases, where you need a license (to distribute Java VM). If anyone is undermining Java, its Oracle. You can't have the same thing open and closed at the same time.
Java owes lots of popularity to the fact that as a language it sucks a lot less than C++, the other major OO language when it was popularized. The open source part is simply something that happened under My Little Pony because, well, he's an idiot.
Frankly, Oracle should fork Android once ICS is open sourced with a J2ME compliant stack and all the Google stuff ripped out under a proprietary license and offer it for sale. Of course, they'd have to partner with MS for search...and that's just not gonna happen.
So Oracle kills Android, and Apple rules the field?
Come on, I like Apple as much as the next guy, but having a market dominated by Apple is in no means a good thing for consumers. Most customers like choice.
It doesn't have to be All Apple or Nothing.
Hell, I like BMWs, but I wouldn't wish BMW ownership on everyone either. I'm happy with my 2011 Hyundai (a company that is always accused of ripping off other companies' designs).
You're right, bro! Just look at what happened to iPods after ~2006: as soon as Apple dominated the market, the following models turned out pretty shitty, right?
This is the key point. Seems the article and most of the commenters take this for granted, that Google is stealing Oracle's IP and "destroying" Java.
The first claim is very debatable : Java is open-souce and Google just found the loophole in the license and exploited it. They are just using a popular programming language. The Android platform, Dalvik VM, all the other components are original work, which even Apple blatantly copy sometimes (notifications in iOS 5, I am talking to you). There is nothing that violates the Java open-source license in Android. Most of Oracle's claims has already been dismissed. I wouldn't say that Oracle is in any great shape to win this legal war. Quite opposite.
The other claim is downward ridiculous : How is Android "destroying" Java ? This is very different from the Microsoft case many years ago. Microsoft was Sun's licensee and violated the terms of this license. Google is not licensing the Java or the Java TCK, because they don't have to. They never claim the applications on Android are running in Java VM. They just use Java language, and Java compiler, because the open source license allows them to do so.
Java owes a lots of it popularity to the fact that it is open source technology, that is free to use except few limited cases, where you need a license (to distribute Java VM). If anyone is undermining Java, its Oracle. You can't have the same thing open and closed at the same time.
You would be wrong. Haven't you read what's been said here? Look, even the judge has told Google they would lose this in a court. Google seems to have given up denying infringement and is fighting the amount. If it does go to trial, which it will if they don't agree, they could be in very bad shape. Those two memo's are very damning, which is why Google fought so hard to get them excluded. They lost those battles.
Most of Oracle's points have been accepted. I don't see how you can believe what you said here, unless you haven't been following this at all.
I think the Free Software Foundation is going to get involved in this and we'll see... Sometimes high priced lawyers aren't what they're cracked up to be. Usually, they have a team of law clerks doing the real work. Those lawyers just show up for court and press appearances armed with information lesser lawyers have worked on with the team of law clerks. I've been involved in a suit that hired a big name lawyer before, and that's how it worked. He was there for the press interviews and a couple of meetings with all of us, but a lesser attorney, that wasn't even a partner, did the bulk of the work.
If the FSF gets involved, it may be to sue Google over stolen Linux code. You better hope they stay away.
Why innovate when you'll just be sued into bankruptcy by patent trolls and companies like Microsoft that patent things that preexisted? Seems like this just keeps the small developer from even entering the market.
It never used to be like this. You could write a competing application as long as you didn't use the competition's code. This is how Visicalc lost out to Lotus, which also lost out to Excel in the marketplace. That's competition. There has never been a lack of innovation and development as a result.
That's not exactly correct. While it's true that Lotus won because it was better, Excel, whatever its merits, won because MS held back Windows API's from third parties that competed with it, illegally. They lost a major case against the Feds over this in the early '90's. This was the first instance where MS had oversight. they also killed Wordperfect Corporation and, I forgot the name of the company right now, but they made DBase.
Be careful though about accusations about patenting things that preexisted. That does happen, but it really is very rare, even though it may be popular to think so.
If what you meant was that after the majority of patent assertions were tossed, what was left was largely permitted to proceed, that would be correct. One of those remaining was denied a couple weeks back, but otherwise the case is still on track for either October or sometime next year, depending on another case.
FWIW Florian is one of the few and by far the loudest voice pronouncing that all is lost and Google is in dire straits, as far as I can find. Some real attorneys have questioned his projections and motivations. That both Microsoft and Apple are clients wouldn't be any surprise to many. That doesn't mean he wrong, but I prefer to read several sources before forming any strong opinions.
And yes I include FOSSPatents in the mix. He's got some good info in his blogs that sometimes isn't mentioned in other articles.
If the FSF gets involved, it may be to sue Google over stolen Linux code. You better hope they stay away.
No way in hell FSF sues Google.
Hint: Who could the FSF be afraid of enough to not make the Affero clause mandatory in GPL 3.0 and close the SaS loophole? There's all sorts of ways Google can be nasty to FSF's objectives.
Besides, the FSF doesn't have standing to sue Google over the violation of the GPL license for Java or Linux. Oracle is the only one who does for Java and kernel devs are the only ones who can for Linux. Doesn't seem likely any of the major kernel contributors will but I guess you never know.
For Java at most you'll see SFLC file some kind of amicus brief to promote some position or other. I doubt the SFLC will want to touch the linux issue with a 1000 ft pole.
They all may have agendas, which is the best reason of all to source several different writers.
Anyway, Groklaw, PatentlyO (a particular favorite) and ArsTechnica are some of my most often-used sources for patent/legal news and opinion. Network World is another that has insightful articles on the industry, and throw EWeek in as well, with articles and news before most others in some cases.
EDIT: I can't forget my favorite little known source, SEOByTheSea.
I'm sorry, but as an Engineer minoring in business this is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
It took me a while to look through my bookmarks for the article from which this is a part, but it certainly is interesting. This guy is pretty famous and respected. You can't do much better to find someone to quote:
Quote:
"I'm not sure Apple even thinks about the competition," Yamashita says. "They're uniquely themselves without worrying about anyone else. When I worked for Steve there was little discussion about the competition. The aim was for us to be the most extreme version of ourselves. When you adopt that approach, it causes you to think about things in a different way."
The full article. Well worth the several page read:
I find it interesting that some people, designer or not, that seem to think that adding a button, or changing its use, or dropping a page down from the only usable place is copying. Apple was asked, for some time, for the use of that button. They finally decided to acquiesce.
As far as the notifications go, if you bothered to find out about it, you would see that the drop down is the only thing that's the same. Apple can't pull from the left, because of Spotlight. They can't pull from the right because of more screens. Pulling from the bottom is considered a UI faux pas. So what should they have they done? Apple's new notifications is so far ahead of the primitive system Android has that comparing the two is embarrassing.
And how do you know that Apple hasn't been planning over the air upgrades, backups, and iCloud, for years? You don't. Quite a few people in the industry say that Apple plans ten years in advance. It seems pretty clear that Apple has plans that go well beyond its competitors. This is all part of the post PC vision Jobs stated a while ago.
But, we do know that Android is a copy of iOS, because Schmitt himself said so. He said that they first were targeting the BB, but when the iPhone looked as though it would be popular, they copied that instead. Ok, he actually said "targeted", but as it looks so similar, we know that he really meant copy.
It took me a while to look through my bookmarks for the article from which this is a part, but it certainly is interesting. This guy is pretty famous and respected. You can't do much better to find someone to quote:
The full article. Well worth the several page read:
I find it interesting that some people, designer or not, that seem to think that adding a button, or changing its use, or dropping a page down from the only usable place is copying. Apple was asked, for some time, for the use of that button. They finally decided to acquiesce.
As far as the notifications go, if you bothered to find out about it, you would see that the drop down is the only thing that's the same. Apple can't pull from the left, because of Spotlight. They can't pull from the right because of more screens. Pulling from the bottom is considered a UI faux pas. So what should they have they done? Apple's new notifications is so far ahead of the primitive system Android has that comparing the two is embarrassing.
As for Apple not being concerned with the competition, that might have been true once upon a time. Pretty obvious to me and probably most others that they've given HTC, Moto, & Samsung a lot of attention the past 18 months, ever since they became competition.
Because it's well written, well regarded and disagrees with the freetard religion. Fosspatents IS biased but less rabidly so than Groklaw. The problem freetards have with it is that it's decently researched and doesn't come off sounding like loon zealotry...which means it gets quite a bit of traffic and reprint.
The other reason is that freetards realize that Google is in the wrong here on several different levels and that's causing significant cognitive dissonance.
If anything, he's biased against software patents. We know, from his own admission, that he was an activist against software patents. But he does a very good, and fair analysis of these matters.
He's even stated that while he isn't always happy with what he finds, the law is the law.
FWIW, Mr Mueller is not as universally trusted as some might write, with claims of his working with Microsoft on a FUD campaign against IBM, and more recently working with Microsoft again in a new campaign against Motorola. Of course he's welcome to make an income from anyone he chooses. The man has to make a living. If he's attempting to set himself up as offering fair analysis of patent matters tho, a little transparency might be in order. It's not as if he hasn't been asked what his association is. He would just rather not answer apparently.
As I said earlier, he's a good source for details that might not post at other sites, but to say he offers a fair and balanced analysis of patent suits, particularly if Apple or Microsoft is involved, doesn't hold water IMO. He may not be any more biased, nor have any greater hidden agendas than some other sources, even some I mentioned. Read from more than one and form your own opinions. Depending on FOSSPatents alone isn't going to give you an honest analysis in my view.
If what you meant was that after the majority of patent assertions were tossed, what was left was largely permitted to proceed, that would be correct. One of those remaining was denied a couple weeks back, but otherwise the case is still on track for either October or sometime next year, depending on another case.
FWIW Florian is one of the few and by far the loudest voice pronouncing that all is lost and Google is in dire straits, as far as I can find. Some real attorneys have questioned his projections and motivations. That both Microsoft and Apple are clients wouldn't be any surprise to many. That doesn't mean he wrong, but I prefer to read several sources before forming any strong opinions.
And yes I include FOSSPatents in the mix. He's got some good info in his blogs that sometimes isn't mentioned in other articles.
Actually, patent attorneys have agreed with him. With Oracle's case, as with all of these, patents are often asserted over the specific ones involved. You'll notice this in all suits. But of the important areas, Oracle did very well. Oracle was asked to cut down their assertions because it was thought it would confuse the jury.
It's hard to find exact quotes, but this article has a couple that relate to this:
In connection with the theories Google presented, the judge refers to one (even in a headline) as "Google's Soviet-style negotiation", defined as "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable". In that context, the judge suspects the following attitude:
"Google may have simply been brazen, preferring to roll the dice on possible litigation rather than to pay a fair price."
That kind of statement reflects extremely unfavorably on Google. It's exactly the kind of basis on which the judge might consider an injunction a highly appropriate remedy, and a tripling of the base damages amount, too.
Another:
Quote:
Judge Alsup -- the federal judge presiding over this litigation -- attaches a great deal of importance to that particular document. At a recent hearing, he essentially said that a good trial lawyer would just need that document "and the Magna Carta" (arguably the origin of common law) to win this case on Oracle's behalf and have Google found to infringe Oracle's rights willfully. The judge told Google that "you are going to be on the losing end of this document" with "profound implications for a permanent injunction".
I've always liked this though. Kind of ironic:
Quote:
A joint letter by the two parties to the court also shows that one of eight candidates they analyzed together fell through because Google objected to a computer scientist:
"Google objects to one additional potential expert proposed by Oracle, Candidate H, on the ground that he is a technical (computer science) rather than a marketing expert."
This is Oracle's take:
"Oracle is not submitting a declaration, but notes that it disagrees with Google's position as to the advisability of a marketing expert as compared to a technical expert on the issue of whether the claims to be tried to the jury constitute the basis for demand for Android."
Usually one would expect these preferences to be just the other way round
Comments
Why so?
Because it's well written, well regarded and disagrees with the freetard religion. Fosspatents IS biased but less rabidly so than Groklaw. The problem freetards have with it is that it's decently researched and doesn't come off sounding like loon zealotry...which means it gets quite a bit of traffic and reprint.
The other reason is that freetards realize that Google is in the wrong here on several different levels and that's causing significant cognitive dissonance.
This is the key point. Seems the article and most of the commenters take this for granted, that Google is stealing Oracle's IP and "destroying" Java.
The first claim is very debatable : Java is open-souce and Google just found the loophole in the license and exploited it.
Well, given that they've taken GPL code and made it Apache they don't have a license for it. So they didn't exploit it so much as steal it.
There is nothing that violates the Java open-source license in Android.
Except the GPL part. Without said license they are violating both copyright and patents (assuming that you accept the implicit grant in GPL 2 is sufficient)
Forcing Google to GPL Android would take a whole heap of wind out of it's sales (heh).
The other claim is downward ridiculous : How is Android "destroying" Java ? This is very different from the Microsoft case many years ago. Microsoft was Sun's licensee and violated the terms of this license. Google is not licensing the Java or the Java TCK, because they don't have to. They never claim the applications on Android are running in Java VM. They just use Java language, and Java compiler, because the open source license allows them to do so.
Google has managed to embrace, extend and extinguish Java ME. That's the primary difference between MS and Google. Everything else is a relatively minor detail.
Java owes a lots of it popularity to the fact that it is open source technology, that is free to use except few limited cases, where you need a license (to distribute Java VM). If anyone is undermining Java, its Oracle. You can't have the same thing open and closed at the same time.
Java owes lots of popularity to the fact that as a language it sucks a lot less than C++, the other major OO language when it was popularized. The open source part is simply something that happened under My Little Pony because, well, he's an idiot.
Frankly, Oracle should fork Android once ICS is open sourced with a J2ME compliant stack and all the Google stuff ripped out under a proprietary license and offer it for sale. Of course, they'd have to partner with MS for search...and that's just not gonna happen.
"thinnest" phone yet? Notice the suffix "est."
I think you'll find the actual quote is "thinnest iPhone yet".
At this point I gave up on your rant.
So Oracle kills Android, and Apple rules the field?
Come on, I like Apple as much as the next guy, but having a market dominated by Apple is in no means a good thing for consumers. Most customers like choice.
It doesn't have to be All Apple or Nothing.
Hell, I like BMWs, but I wouldn't wish BMW ownership on everyone either. I'm happy with my 2011 Hyundai (a company that is always accused of ripping off other companies' designs).
You're right, bro! Just look at what happened to iPods after ~2006: as soon as Apple dominated the market, the following models turned out pretty shitty, right?
Right?
Get away with what?
Excuse me? What are we talking about? Google's taking of other's IP.
This is the key point. Seems the article and most of the commenters take this for granted, that Google is stealing Oracle's IP and "destroying" Java.
The first claim is very debatable : Java is open-souce and Google just found the loophole in the license and exploited it. They are just using a popular programming language. The Android platform, Dalvik VM, all the other components are original work, which even Apple blatantly copy sometimes (notifications in iOS 5, I am talking to you). There is nothing that violates the Java open-source license in Android. Most of Oracle's claims has already been dismissed. I wouldn't say that Oracle is in any great shape to win this legal war. Quite opposite.
The other claim is downward ridiculous : How is Android "destroying" Java ? This is very different from the Microsoft case many years ago. Microsoft was Sun's licensee and violated the terms of this license. Google is not licensing the Java or the Java TCK, because they don't have to. They never claim the applications on Android are running in Java VM. They just use Java language, and Java compiler, because the open source license allows them to do so.
Java owes a lots of it popularity to the fact that it is open source technology, that is free to use except few limited cases, where you need a license (to distribute Java VM). If anyone is undermining Java, its Oracle. You can't have the same thing open and closed at the same time.
You would be wrong. Haven't you read what's been said here? Look, even the judge has told Google they would lose this in a court. Google seems to have given up denying infringement and is fighting the amount. If it does go to trial, which it will if they don't agree, they could be in very bad shape. Those two memo's are very damning, which is why Google fought so hard to get them excluded. They lost those battles.
Most of Oracle's points have been accepted. I don't see how you can believe what you said here, unless you haven't been following this at all.
I think the Free Software Foundation is going to get involved in this and we'll see... Sometimes high priced lawyers aren't what they're cracked up to be. Usually, they have a team of law clerks doing the real work. Those lawyers just show up for court and press appearances armed with information lesser lawyers have worked on with the team of law clerks. I've been involved in a suit that hired a big name lawyer before, and that's how it worked. He was there for the press interviews and a couple of meetings with all of us, but a lesser attorney, that wasn't even a partner, did the bulk of the work.
If the FSF gets involved, it may be to sue Google over stolen Linux code. You better hope they stay away.
Why innovate when you'll just be sued into bankruptcy by patent trolls and companies like Microsoft that patent things that preexisted? Seems like this just keeps the small developer from even entering the market.
It never used to be like this. You could write a competing application as long as you didn't use the competition's code. This is how Visicalc lost out to Lotus, which also lost out to Excel in the marketplace. That's competition. There has never been a lack of innovation and development as a result.
That's not exactly correct. While it's true that Lotus won because it was better, Excel, whatever its merits, won because MS held back Windows API's from third parties that competed with it, illegally. They lost a major case against the Feds over this in the early '90's. This was the first instance where MS had oversight. they also killed Wordperfect Corporation and, I forgot the name of the company right now, but they made DBase.
Be careful though about accusations about patenting things that preexisted. That does happen, but it really is very rare, even though it may be popular to think so.
Look, even the judge has told Google they would lose this in a court.
Most of Oracle's points have been accepted. I don't see how you can believe what you said here, unless you haven't been following this at all.
I know you have a lot of faith in all that Florian says, but I missed the part where the Judge tells Google they're going to lose at trial. Link?
And far from "most of Oracle's claims have been accepted", 17 of the original 21 patent claims were tossed.
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/j...kes-a-hit.html
If what you meant was that after the majority of patent assertions were tossed, what was left was largely permitted to proceed, that would be correct. One of those remaining was denied a couple weeks back, but otherwise the case is still on track for either October or sometime next year, depending on another case.
FWIW Florian is one of the few and by far the loudest voice pronouncing that all is lost and Google is in dire straits, as far as I can find. Some real attorneys have questioned his projections and motivations. That both Microsoft and Apple are clients wouldn't be any surprise to many. That doesn't mean he wrong, but I prefer to read several sources before forming any strong opinions.
And yes I include FOSSPatents in the mix. He's got some good info in his blogs that sometimes isn't mentioned in other articles.
If the FSF gets involved, it may be to sue Google over stolen Linux code. You better hope they stay away.
No way in hell FSF sues Google.
Hint: Who could the FSF be afraid of enough to not make the Affero clause mandatory in GPL 3.0 and close the SaS loophole? There's all sorts of ways Google can be nasty to FSF's objectives.
Besides, the FSF doesn't have standing to sue Google over the violation of the GPL license for Java or Linux. Oracle is the only one who does for Java and kernel devs are the only ones who can for Linux. Doesn't seem likely any of the major kernel contributors will but I guess you never know.
For Java at most you'll see SFLC file some kind of amicus brief to promote some position or other. I doubt the SFLC will want to touch the linux issue with a 1000 ft pole.
ruel24 is more enthusiastic than really informed.
And yes I include FOSSPatents in the mix. He's got some good info in his blogs that sometimes isn't mentioned in other articles.
Who are the others? Few seem non-partisan.
Who are the others? Few seem non-partisan.
They all may have agendas, which is the best reason of all to source several different writers.
Anyway, Groklaw, PatentlyO (a particular favorite) and ArsTechnica are some of my most often-used sources for patent/legal news and opinion. Network World is another that has insightful articles on the industry, and throw EWeek in as well, with articles and news before most others in some cases.
EDIT: I can't forget my favorite little known source, SEOByTheSea.
Now you know most of my secrets.
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011...n-apple-1.html
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/n...redibility.ars
These have good information and opinions that help add balance to Florian's views IMO.
Add this one too if you're interested in how IBM figures into all of this.
http://www.seobythesea.com/2011/09/g...ust/#more-6675
I'm sorry, but as an Engineer minoring in business this is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
It took me a while to look through my bookmarks for the article from which this is a part, but it certainly is interesting. This guy is pretty famous and respected. You can't do much better to find someone to quote:
"I'm not sure Apple even thinks about the competition," Yamashita says. "They're uniquely themselves without worrying about anyone else. When I worked for Steve there was little discussion about the competition. The aim was for us to be the most extreme version of ourselves. When you adopt that approach, it causes you to think about things in a different way."
The full article. Well worth the several page read:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/20...over-the-world
I find it interesting that some people, designer or not, that seem to think that adding a button, or changing its use, or dropping a page down from the only usable place is copying. Apple was asked, for some time, for the use of that button. They finally decided to acquiesce.
As far as the notifications go, if you bothered to find out about it, you would see that the drop down is the only thing that's the same. Apple can't pull from the left, because of Spotlight. They can't pull from the right because of more screens. Pulling from the bottom is considered a UI faux pas. So what should they have they done? Apple's new notifications is so far ahead of the primitive system Android has that comparing the two is embarrassing.
http://gadgetbox.msnbc.msn.com/_news...-ios-right-now
And how do you know that Apple hasn't been planning over the air upgrades, backups, and iCloud, for years? You don't. Quite a few people in the industry say that Apple plans ten years in advance. It seems pretty clear that Apple has plans that go well beyond its competitors. This is all part of the post PC vision Jobs stated a while ago.
But, we do know that Android is a copy of iOS, because Schmitt himself said so. He said that they first were targeting the BB, but when the iPhone looked as though it would be popular, they copied that instead. Ok, he actually said "targeted", but as it looks so similar, we know that he really meant copy.
So who is copying who?
I hate to admit this, but I'm not sure what you're referring to.
Sorry a typo and not very clear, I was referring to the Java case by Sun against MS. Seems similar to me.
It took me a while to look through my bookmarks for the article from which this is a part, but it certainly is interesting. This guy is pretty famous and respected. You can't do much better to find someone to quote:
The full article. Well worth the several page read:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/20...over-the-world
I find it interesting that some people, designer or not, that seem to think that adding a button, or changing its use, or dropping a page down from the only usable place is copying. Apple was asked, for some time, for the use of that button. They finally decided to acquiesce.
As far as the notifications go, if you bothered to find out about it, you would see that the drop down is the only thing that's the same. Apple can't pull from the left, because of Spotlight. They can't pull from the right because of more screens. Pulling from the bottom is considered a UI faux pas. So what should they have they done? Apple's new notifications is so far ahead of the primitive system Android has that comparing the two is embarrassing.
http://gadgetbox.msnbc.msn.com/_news...-ios-right-now
That's a good Gadgetbox link. Thanks.
As for Apple not being concerned with the competition, that might have been true once upon a time. Pretty obvious to me and probably most others that they've given HTC, Moto, & Samsung a lot of attention the past 18 months, ever since they became competition.
Because it's well written, well regarded and disagrees with the freetard religion. Fosspatents IS biased but less rabidly so than Groklaw. The problem freetards have with it is that it's decently researched and doesn't come off sounding like loon zealotry...which means it gets quite a bit of traffic and reprint.
The other reason is that freetards realize that Google is in the wrong here on several different levels and that's causing significant cognitive dissonance.
If anything, he's biased against software patents. We know, from his own admission, that he was an activist against software patents. But he does a very good, and fair analysis of these matters.
He's even stated that while he isn't always happy with what he finds, the law is the law.
http://techrights.org/2010/04/11/flo...nd-erika-mann/
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....10605163439627
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-sourc...ck-in-ibm/6202
As I said earlier, he's a good source for details that might not post at other sites, but to say he offers a fair and balanced analysis of patent suits, particularly if Apple or Microsoft is involved, doesn't hold water IMO. He may not be any more biased, nor have any greater hidden agendas than some other sources, even some I mentioned. Read from more than one and form your own opinions. Depending on FOSSPatents alone isn't going to give you an honest analysis in my view.
Anyway, 'nuff said about it.
I know you have a lot of faith in all that Florian says, but I missed the part where the Judge tells Google they're going to lose at trial. Link?
And far from "most of Oracle's claims have been accepted", 17 of the original 21 patent claims were tossed.
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/j...kes-a-hit.html
If what you meant was that after the majority of patent assertions were tossed, what was left was largely permitted to proceed, that would be correct. One of those remaining was denied a couple weeks back, but otherwise the case is still on track for either October or sometime next year, depending on another case.
FWIW Florian is one of the few and by far the loudest voice pronouncing that all is lost and Google is in dire straits, as far as I can find. Some real attorneys have questioned his projections and motivations. That both Microsoft and Apple are clients wouldn't be any surprise to many. That doesn't mean he wrong, but I prefer to read several sources before forming any strong opinions.
And yes I include FOSSPatents in the mix. He's got some good info in his blogs that sometimes isn't mentioned in other articles.
Actually, patent attorneys have agreed with him. With Oracle's case, as with all of these, patents are often asserted over the specific ones involved. You'll notice this in all suits. But of the important areas, Oracle did very well. Oracle was asked to cut down their assertions because it was thought it would confuse the jury.
It's hard to find exact quotes, but this article has a couple that relate to this:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...acle-case.html
Another quote, from the FOSS site:
In connection with the theories Google presented, the judge refers to one (even in a headline) as "Google's Soviet-style negotiation", defined as "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable". In that context, the judge suspects the following attitude:
"Google may have simply been brazen, preferring to roll the dice on possible litigation rather than to pay a fair price."
That kind of statement reflects extremely unfavorably on Google. It's exactly the kind of basis on which the judge might consider an injunction a highly appropriate remedy, and a tripling of the base damages amount, too.
Another:
Judge Alsup -- the federal judge presiding over this litigation -- attaches a great deal of importance to that particular document. At a recent hearing, he essentially said that a good trial lawyer would just need that document "and the Magna Carta" (arguably the origin of common law) to win this case on Oracle's behalf and have Google found to infringe Oracle's rights willfully. The judge told Google that "you are going to be on the losing end of this document" with "profound implications for a permanent injunction".
I've always liked this though. Kind of ironic:
A joint letter by the two parties to the court also shows that one of eight candidates they analyzed together fell through because Google objected to a computer scientist:
"Google objects to one additional potential expert proposed by Oracle, Candidate H, on the ground that he is a technical (computer science) rather than a marketing expert."
This is Oracle's take:
"Oracle is not submitting a declaration, but notes that it disagrees with Google's position as to the advisability of a marketing expert as compared to a technical expert on the issue of whether the claims to be tried to the jury constitute the basis for demand for Android."
Usually one would expect these preferences to be just the other way round
Can you supply links to these attorneys?