Aren't user satisfaction numbers the only real measurement here? I can't add a link as they're all biased, or so it seems. Possibly to the user satisfaction rate as well, still, you get what I mean.
Aren't user satisfaction numbers the only real measurement here? I can't add a link as they're all biased, or so it seems. Possibly to the user satisfaction rate as well, still, you get what I mean.
Why is user satisfaction the only real metric?
If they'd only report how many handsets their manufacturers produce it'd be a silly number, pretty useless.
Basically, yes. I am. Google doesn't see Android. They derive no direct income from the sale of Google. There is no income from which to pay damages if Google were to lose a lawsuit for patent infringement.
Then you would be incorrect in your assessment. You don't seem to understand how damages are computed. Damages for patent infringement aren't based solely on the income derived by doing so by the infringing party. There's lost income by the patent holder among other things. You should read up some so as to understand a little about it. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/patent/advanced-patent/patent-infringement-damages/
Thinking that Apple would be wasting their time suing Google directly because they couldn't collect damages is incorrect. They're not suing Google for some reason other than inability to get monetary damages. It could be that Google isn't infringing at all in Apple's view. It could be that Apple doesn't feel they can prove Google is infringing. Perhaps they're cognizant of a counter-suit based on Apple's own infringement of Google IP. Maybe Google knows where Steve Jobs buried the bodies. Who knows. But it's not all about problems getting money out of Google if they're guilty of infringement.
It matters not if Google even loses money every time an Android device is sold, Apple still has damages to collect if they can prove them. Worse, you're implying that if Apple can't get a good chunk'a change from suing then they would decide to allow the infringement to go on. Protecting the IP itself isn't important to Apple by your reasoning. That hardly makes any sense does it?
Then you would be incorrect in your assessment. You don't seem to understand how damages are computed. Damages for patent infringement aren't based solely on the income derived by doing so by the infringing party. There's lost income by the patent holder among other things. You should read up some so as to understand a little about it. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/patent/advanced-patent/patent-infringement-damages/
Thinking that Apple would be wasting their time suing Google directly because they couldn't collect damages is incorrect. They're not suing Google for some reason other than inability to get monetary damages. It could be that Google isn't infringing at all in Apple's view. It could be that Apple doesn't feel they can prove Google is infringing. Perhaps they're cognizant of a counter-suit based on Apple's own infringement of Google IP. Maybe Google knows where Steve Jobs buried the bodies. Who knows. But it's not all about problems getting money out of Google if they're guilty of infringement.
It matters not if Google even loses money every time an Android device is sold, Apple still has damages to collect if they can prove them. Worse, you're implying that if Apple can't get a good chunk'a change from suing then they would decide to allow the infringement to go on. Protecting the IP itself isn't important to Apple by your reasoning. That hardly makes any sense does it?
Think what you want about why they don't. I am simply stating arguments I have read.
For Apple, money is not important and they can ask for an injunction against the infringed IP. If they earn it they can stop ALL Android OEM from using that IP.
You are consistent. Everyone else is wrong if they disagree with you.
You don't need to believe me. All you need to do is a little reading about infringement damages to figure out for yourself if you were right or not. I even offered you a link a couple posts back. Some people really do believe that ignorance is bliss and that's fine, tho it's better not to spread it around.. That's one reason I avoid doctors 8-) (besides the fact they're surrounded by sick people.)
You are going to be in for a surprise on the Java copyright case.
It seems pretty unlikely they will prevail. Copyrighting APIs is unthinkable to anyone who develops software regularly. getTime() eh? Now you owe me millions? I don't think so.
Obviously you didn't listen to the hearing in front of the Appeals Court. The judge's questions and comments give pretty solid indication they will reverse Judge Alsup's ruling, as does a basic understanding of copyright principles. The ruling is expected sometime in the next month or so. Get a grip because for many guys like yourself the internet is about to asplode with the copyrightability of APIs. You might recall that the trial jury _already_ found that Google had _infringed_ Oracle's APIs, but that judge Alsup later ruled that the APIs weren't copyrightable, which let Google off the infringement hook. Soon Google will be back on the Java infringement hook, and then we'll get to the question of whether Google's use was a fair one. There could be a new trial for that since the original jury deadlocked on the fair use issue, but the Appellate Court judges could decide on fair use themselves when they announce their ruling, since it's a judgment of law and arguments for both sides were already made during the trial.
Listen to the hearing for yourself, there isn't the slightest chance any one of those 3 judges is going to uphold that the 37 Java API packages aren't original expression protected by copyright. The statutes and the Supreme Court precedents are far too clear. This has been evident to many all along and just a matter of time and process to get through. Alsup did his very best to find a rationale to exclude them, but it was ultimately a lame theory. The more interesting issue now is the question of fair use, I doubt it will fly but at least there's a chance there. And if it's not fair use then the most interesting question is what happens to Android once Oracle gets their injunction. Lost copyright infringement cases invariably result in an injunction as the remedy going forward, as well as there having to be another trial to determine the remedy for past damages. Oracle will allow Google a Java license, but they'll have to make Android truly Java compatible. What other choice will Google have?
Buckle your seatbelt!
Quote:
Copyrighting APIs is unthinkable to anyone who develops software regularly. getTime() eh? Now you owe me millions? I don't think so
Non sequitur. One wonders if you're being deliberately obtuse or facetious. Since when is a developer calling "getTime()" anything like what Google did in cherry picking 37 Java API packages and copying thousands of lines of code verbatim to create Dalvik?
Obviously you didn't listen to the hearing in front of the appeals court, or have much understanding of basic copyright principles.
I know that no serious developer I have ever met has held that APIs are copyrightable, even less so the SSO of APIs. It's nonsense and I speak as a professional developer.
Quote:
Non sequitur. One wonders if you're being deliberately obtuse or facetious. Since when is a developer calling "getTime()" anything like Google copying the Java APIs to create Dalvik?
Oracle claims that their API structure itself is copyrightable. By duplicating my getTime function with identical arguments and return values, you have infringed on the structure of my API despite not copying any code (if APIs were copyrightable)
Not exactly. In this case what's being argued is that just the names and arrangement of them (and the parameters they pass/return) are sufficient for copyright protection.
This excludes the actual code that implements those methods because in total Oracle agreed on $0 of damages for a single function that Google copied (it was actually written by the same person who wrote the Oracle code, how's that for a weird arrangement).
The implementation code certainly is copyrightable, but in this case Oracle is no longer claiming Google copied any of that as far as I am aware.
Not exactly. In this case what's being argued is that just the names and arrangement of them (and the parameters they pass/return) are sufficient for copyright protection.
This excludes the actual code that implements those methods because in total Oracle agreed on $0 of damages for a single function that Google copied (it was actually written by the same person who wrote the Oracle code, how's that for a weird arrangement).
The implementation code certainly is copyrightable, but in this case Oracle is no longer claiming Google copied any of that as far as I am aware.
Comments
I wasn't worried. It was just a silly comment that sometimes sparks more of the same.
Aren't user satisfaction numbers the only real measurement here? I can't add a link as they're all biased, or so it seems. Possibly to the user satisfaction rate as well, still, you get what I mean.
Why is user satisfaction the only real metric?
Are you a paid Google shill? You want him to cut and paste a copyrighted article from the WSJ with no regard for IP? Really?
I ask only because this sounds like the kind of thing that Google might do.
One can quote without copyright infringement. But you're probably pretending otherwise because you want to get snarky with him. How cute.
If they'd only report how many handsets their manufacturers produce it'd be a silly number, pretty useless.
Then you would be incorrect in your assessment. You don't seem to understand how damages are computed. Damages for patent infringement aren't based solely on the income derived by doing so by the infringing party. There's lost income by the patent holder among other things. You should read up some so as to understand a little about it.
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/patent/advanced-patent/patent-infringement-damages/
Thinking that Apple would be wasting their time suing Google directly because they couldn't collect damages is incorrect. They're not suing Google for some reason other than inability to get monetary damages. It could be that Google isn't infringing at all in Apple's view. It could be that Apple doesn't feel they can prove Google is infringing. Perhaps they're cognizant of a counter-suit based on Apple's own infringement of Google IP. Maybe Google knows where Steve Jobs buried the bodies. Who knows. But it's not all about problems getting money out of Google if they're guilty of infringement.
It matters not if Google even loses money every time an Android device is sold, Apple still has damages to collect if they can prove them. Worse, you're implying that if Apple can't get a good chunk'a change from suing then they would decide to allow the infringement to go on. Protecting the IP itself isn't important to Apple by your reasoning. That hardly makes any sense does it?
Think what you want about why they don't. I am simply stating arguments I have read.
Then those writers were wrong too, so the misunderstanding may not be entirely your fault.
For Apple, money is not important and they can ask for an injunction against the infringed IP. If they earn it they can stop ALL Android OEM from using that IP.
You don't need to believe me. All you need to do is a little reading about infringement damages to figure out for yourself if you were right or not. I even offered you a link a couple posts back. Some people really do believe that ignorance is bliss and that's fine, tho it's better not to spread it around.. That's one reason I avoid doctors 8-) (besides the fact they're surrounded by sick people.)
Posted again for your convenience should you have any interest in understanding infringement damages and why it doesn't really matter if Google makes money from Android.
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/patent/advanced-patent/patent-infringement-damages/
Not everything written is to be believed. There are also valid conflicting opinions on many issues.
I'll leave it at that.
I think the biggest threat to Android was the Oracle lawsuit over Java against Google but that was dismissed.
You are going to be in for a surprise on the Java copyright case.
You are going to be in for a surprise on the Java copyright case.
It seems pretty unlikely they will prevail. Copyrighting APIs is unthinkable to anyone who develops software regularly. getTime() eh? Now you owe me millions? I don't think so.
It seems pretty unlikely they will prevail.
Obviously you didn't listen to the hearing in front of the Appeals Court. The judge's questions and comments give pretty solid indication they will reverse Judge Alsup's ruling, as does a basic understanding of copyright principles. The ruling is expected sometime in the next month or so. Get a grip because for many guys like yourself the internet is about to asplode with the copyrightability of APIs. You might recall that the trial jury _already_ found that Google had _infringed_ Oracle's APIs, but that judge Alsup later ruled that the APIs weren't copyrightable, which let Google off the infringement hook. Soon Google will be back on the Java infringement hook, and then we'll get to the question of whether Google's use was a fair one. There could be a new trial for that since the original jury deadlocked on the fair use issue, but the Appellate Court judges could decide on fair use themselves when they announce their ruling, since it's a judgment of law and arguments for both sides were already made during the trial.
Listen to the hearing for yourself, there isn't the slightest chance any one of those 3 judges is going to uphold that the 37 Java API packages aren't original expression protected by copyright. The statutes and the Supreme Court precedents are far too clear. This has been evident to many all along and just a matter of time and process to get through. Alsup did his very best to find a rationale to exclude them, but it was ultimately a lame theory. The more interesting issue now is the question of fair use, I doubt it will fly but at least there's a chance there. And if it's not fair use then the most interesting question is what happens to Android once Oracle gets their injunction. Lost copyright infringement cases invariably result in an injunction as the remedy going forward, as well as there having to be another trial to determine the remedy for past damages. Oracle will allow Google a Java license, but they'll have to make Android truly Java compatible. What other choice will Google have?
Buckle your seatbelt!
Non sequitur. One wonders if you're being deliberately obtuse or facetious. Since when is a developer calling "getTime()" anything like what Google did in cherry picking 37 Java API packages and copying thousands of lines of code verbatim to create Dalvik?
Obviously you didn't listen to the hearing in front of the appeals court, or have much understanding of basic copyright principles.
I know that no serious developer I have ever met has held that APIs are copyrightable, even less so the SSO of APIs. It's nonsense and I speak as a professional developer.
Oracle claims that their API structure itself is copyrightable. By duplicating my getTime function with identical arguments and return values, you have infringed on the structure of my API despite not copying any code (if APIs were copyrightable)
Are APIs not made up of code?
Implementation is made of code, not structure
Are APIs not made up of code?
Not exactly. In this case what's being argued is that just the names and arrangement of them (and the parameters they pass/return) are sufficient for copyright protection.
This excludes the actual code that implements those methods because in total Oracle agreed on $0 of damages for a single function that Google copied (it was actually written by the same person who wrote the Oracle code, how's that for a weird arrangement).
The implementation code certainly is copyrightable, but in this case Oracle is no longer claiming Google copied any of that as far as I am aware.
Aren't algorithms copyrightable?
Aren't algorithms copyrightable?
That depends on where you live. An algorithm can describe anything from a+b to an incredibly complex ten million loc function.