Not one of them has been replaced, and not one of them can be replaced without rewriting Android from scratch to replace those 37 Java API packages.
Google can afford to pay the couple billion for past damages that Oracle wants. However, Google can't can't afford the loss of face and credibility if Oracle gets the injunction they want, and all Android development at Google and among Android developers comes screeching to a halt.
I believe Google's case for fair use is quite weak.
How do you know those APIs have not been restructured or removed. Any links?
Actually Sun didn't have a problem with it. It was only after Sun was acquired by Oracle that Oracle decided to pursue this. It also only concerns about 3% of the total code and only API's so to say to Google just cloned everything is off the mark.
If it's "only" 3%, why'd they steal it in the first place.
ART eliminates the API with the Dalvik bytecode interpreter but doesn't change the Java language API.
Yes, the reverse ruling is all about copyright. Fair use will next be determined with instructions from an appropriately informed jurist.
Android is going somewhere alright!
All this hangs in if its fair use or not. Last jury was hung and couldn't come up with a decision. If this ends up being fair us it adds more complication to the apeal rulling. APIs are copyright protected, yet can be used freely under fair use. Something had got to give.
I see APIs as chapters of book. Or an adjective. Shouldn't be copyright. The whole U.S patent and copyright system needs to be rewritten. Although these trials are annoying they do offer an opportunity to discuss these issues.
How do you know those APIs have not been restructured or removed. Any links?
Because if Google rewrote those APIs, even a tiny little bit, every Android developer in the world would be squawking about it because the Java code they wrote for their apps wouldn't work anymore.
[quote name="Peterbob" url="/t/179350/oracle-wins-key-reversal-in-java-copyright-case-against-googles-android# You rabid fanboys need to except that[/quote]
We are "excepting" that. Hence our celebratory mood.
Giggle wanted to take some of the code off of the table
you know open like.
Giggle. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" /> What a great typo….if it really was one! Not going to assume since the keys are next to each other.
Not correct. Google didn't take the license that Sun offered. They can also appeal to the Supremes, doesn't mean the Supremes will take the case.
You're just playing with words. Sun refused to give Google the license that Google wanted. Sun refused anyone a license who wouldn't commit to Java compatibility. That was always their dealbreaker. Google wanted to destroy Sun's write-once, run-anywhere strategy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy
Maybe, but neither were there accusations and certainly no litigation from Sun until the Oracle acquisition.
That's true, being heavily steeped in open-source culture, Sun didn't want to use its IP offensively or aggressively. However copyrights aren't like trademarks. You can choose not to defend a copyright, it'll still be 100% valid if you ever change your mind, or want to deal with someone else differently.
Cat's out of the bag .. sadly.. This may impact some of what El'Goog does in the states.. but it's firmly used outside in the east in many countries by many 3rd parties that really don't care if Google continues..
They have the OS / java base code now.. Only positive out of this is future devices will be 64bit and thats not going to happen with current Android.. Which is one of the reasons Google is leaning more toward Chrome OS.. thats based on Linux, which can be 64bit on ARM easy.
Not correct. Google didn't take the license that Sun offered. In hindsight probably pound foolish since it would have been only $100M.
And right there is the whole of Google's modus operandi. They just refuse to pay for a license to others' work - in most jurisdictions & most fields of endeavour, that is recognised & dealt with as stealing. The technology/software/computer-generated code industry should not treat this differently.
Your comment defines the nature of Google's contribution to the industry, & they will be remembered as such (by those few of us who care about this stuff). The sad thing is that they really could have much to contribute, but their corporate culture obviously is morally bankrupt.
Because if Google rewrote those APIs, even a tiny little bit, every Android developer in the world would be squawking about it because the Java code they wrote for their apps wouldn't work anymore.
All this hangs in if its fair use or not. Last jury was hung and couldn't come up with a decision. If this ends up being fair us it adds more complication to the apeal rulling. APIs are copyright protected, yet can be used freely under fair use. Something had got to give.
I see APIs as chapters of book. Or an adjective. Shouldn't be copyright. The whole U.S patent and copyright system needs to be rewritten. Although these trials are annoying they do offer an opportunity to discuss these issues.
Google's "fair use" argument hinged upon the idea that it was fair for Google to use Java's API in order to maintain compatibility. But Google didn't maintain compatibility. It did to Java what Microsoft did to Java in the 1990s: attempt to appropriate the value from Sun's platform while breaking compatibility in order to destroy the value of anything but its own proprietary Java variant.
Google didn't make an open OS. It took an existing open OS (Java Mobile), created an incompatible variant (Android) and then worked to tie Android to its own services, creating contracts with its Android partners that enforced their exclusive use of Google apps and services. That's not open, it's not openly collaborative, it's not openly competitive.
At this point, trying to argue that it took Sun's API in order to foster compatibility and openness is quite obviously a lie. Even the court pointed this out in clear detail: Google wasn't interested in fair use, it just wanted to steal what Sun had created and take all the value for itself, leaving Sun screwed.
You'd have to be earning all your money from Google to have the opinion that there is anything fair about Google's use of Java Mobile.
You're just playing spin doctor. Sun refused to give Google the license that Google wanted. Sun refused anyone a license who wouldn't commit to Java compatibility. That was always the dealbreaker. Google wanted to destroy Sun's write-once, run-anywhere strategy.
Sun wanted to protect their business - Google wanted to protect their's. So Google doesn't have the moral high ground, they're both trying to do the same thing. The difference is, Google hadn't done any work to deserve a say - but they wanted Java and they wanted it their way. They also wanted to use Apple's design language. Neither one if them said ok, but they did it anyway. I don't personally see how Google is in the right.
I wish Google didn't have to pay for the use of many other people's work, I wish they could just make lots of money for intriguing new ideas and medical devices and autonomous cars.. But it's not right. Just like Google likes to make money from people for the wrk they're doing, Sun and Apple want to make money for the work they've done - R&D, ingenuity, a reward for taking a risk. In the end, this is protection for you and me - because you can create an awesome app or website and not have to worry about some huge corporation like Google seeing it and recreating it, promoting it in their search engine, and eclipsing your idea into oblivion.
I personally think write once, run anywhere seems like a positive - why is Sun in the wrong for that? Not sure why it is that Google says they're open, while angling for a proprietary approach, all the while gaining open source loyalists. Lots of people dislike Apple for charging more than others, but at least the money you spend goes to the creatives, not the opportunists.
Comments
How do you know those APIs have not been restructured or removed. Any links?
Not correct. Google didn't take the license that Sun offered. In hindsight probably pound foolish since it would have been only $100M.
If that were true, why didn't Sun ever grant Google a license? They negotiated and negotiated, and Sun refused to give Google a license.
Maybe, but neither were there accusations and certainly no litigation from Sun until the Oracle acquisition.
This reverse ruling has everything to do with copyright of APIs not fair use.
Dalvik is being replaced by ART in the next version of android.
Android is not going anywhere.
ART eliminates the API with the Dalvik bytecode interpreter but doesn't change the Java language API.
Yes, the reverse ruling is all about copyright. Fair use will next be determined with instructions from an appropriately informed jurist.
Android is going somewhere alright!
If it's "only" 3%, why'd they steal it in the first place.
All this hangs in if its fair use or not. Last jury was hung and couldn't come up with a decision. If this ends up being fair us it adds more complication to the apeal rulling. APIs are copyright protected, yet can be used freely under fair use. Something had got to give.
I see APIs as chapters of book. Or an adjective. Shouldn't be copyright. The whole U.S patent and copyright system needs to be rewritten. Although these trials are annoying they do offer an opportunity to discuss these issues.
If it's "only" 3%, why'd they steal it in the first place.
Well the original reason probably would be compatibility, although that is something that is contested at this moment in time.
They believe the APIs shouldn't be protected under copyright and if they are it should be fair use. Next trial will decide. It's a wait and see.
I believe it was not the cost
but the license terms.
Giggle wanted to take some of the code off of the table
you know open like.
How do you know those APIs have not been restructured or removed. Any links?
Because if Google rewrote those APIs, even a tiny little bit, every Android developer in the world would be squawking about it because the Java code they wrote for their apps wouldn't work anymore.
We are "excepting" that. Hence our celebratory mood.
I believe it was not the cost
but the license terms.
Giggle wanted to take some of the code off of the table
you know open like.
Giggle.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" /> What a great typo….if it really was one! Not going to assume since the keys are next to each other.
Not correct. Google didn't take the license that Sun offered. They can also appeal to the Supremes, doesn't mean the Supremes will take the case.
You're just playing with words. Sun refused to give Google the license that Google wanted. Sun refused anyone a license who wouldn't commit to Java compatibility. That was always their dealbreaker. Google wanted to destroy Sun's write-once, run-anywhere strategy.
Maybe, but neither were there accusations and certainly no litigation from Sun until the Oracle acquisition.
That's true, being heavily steeped in open-source culture, Sun didn't want to use its IP offensively or aggressively. However copyrights aren't like trademarks. You can choose not to defend a copyright, it'll still be 100% valid if you ever change your mind, or want to deal with someone else differently.
They have the OS / java base code now.. Only positive out of this is future devices will be 64bit and thats not going to happen with current Android.. Which is one of the reasons Google is leaning more toward Chrome OS.. thats based on Linux, which can be 64bit on ARM easy.
Not correct. Google didn't take the license that Sun offered. In hindsight probably pound foolish since it would have been only $100M.
And right there is the whole of Google's modus operandi. They just refuse to pay for a license to others' work - in most jurisdictions & most fields of endeavour, that is recognised & dealt with as stealing. The technology/software/computer-generated code industry should not treat this differently.
Your comment defines the nature of Google's contribution to the industry, & they will be remembered as such (by those few of us who care about this stuff). The sad thing is that they really could have much to contribute, but their corporate culture obviously is morally bankrupt.
To run on their "java" phones, right ; )
Those must be hard to get!
All this hangs in if its fair use or not. Last jury was hung and couldn't come up with a decision. If this ends up being fair us it adds more complication to the apeal rulling. APIs are copyright protected, yet can be used freely under fair use. Something had got to give.
I see APIs as chapters of book. Or an adjective. Shouldn't be copyright. The whole U.S patent and copyright system needs to be rewritten. Although these trials are annoying they do offer an opportunity to discuss these issues.
Google's "fair use" argument hinged upon the idea that it was fair for Google to use Java's API in order to maintain compatibility. But Google didn't maintain compatibility. It did to Java what Microsoft did to Java in the 1990s: attempt to appropriate the value from Sun's platform while breaking compatibility in order to destroy the value of anything but its own proprietary Java variant.
Google didn't make an open OS. It took an existing open OS (Java Mobile), created an incompatible variant (Android) and then worked to tie Android to its own services, creating contracts with its Android partners that enforced their exclusive use of Google apps and services. That's not open, it's not openly collaborative, it's not openly competitive.
At this point, trying to argue that it took Sun's API in order to foster compatibility and openness is quite obviously a lie. Even the court pointed this out in clear detail: Google wasn't interested in fair use, it just wanted to steal what Sun had created and take all the value for itself, leaving Sun screwed.
You'd have to be earning all your money from Google to have the opinion that there is anything fair about Google's use of Java Mobile.
Sun wanted to protect their business - Google wanted to protect their's. So Google doesn't have the moral high ground, they're both trying to do the same thing. The difference is, Google hadn't done any work to deserve a say - but they wanted Java and they wanted it their way. They also wanted to use Apple's design language. Neither one if them said ok, but they did it anyway. I don't personally see how Google is in the right.
I wish Google didn't have to pay for the use of many other people's work, I wish they could just make lots of money for intriguing new ideas and medical devices and autonomous cars.. But it's not right. Just like Google likes to make money from people for the wrk they're doing, Sun and Apple want to make money for the work they've done - R&D, ingenuity, a reward for taking a risk. In the end, this is protection for you and me - because you can create an awesome app or website and not have to worry about some huge corporation like Google seeing it and recreating it, promoting it in their search engine, and eclipsing your idea into oblivion.
I personally think write once, run anywhere seems like a positive - why is Sun in the wrong for that? Not sure why it is that Google says they're open, while angling for a proprietary approach, all the while gaining open source loyalists. Lots of people dislike Apple for charging more than others, but at least the money you spend goes to the creatives, not the opportunists.