Oracle wins key reversal in Java copyright case against Google's Android

1234689

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 176
    peterbobpeterbob Posts: 60member
    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 mean vast majority if experts and programmers who agree with Google that APIs shouldn't be copyright protected are getting paid by Google. A quick search or twitter search will show you the vast majority believe this rulling is horrible for the software community. Your a rabid apple shill so anything that harms apple competitors seems right to you.

    Another point ded. Android is open. ASOP is alive and thriving. Reach harder.
  • Reply 102 of 176
    peterbobpeterbob Posts: 60member
    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, which is what they've been doing.

    Apples design language?
  • Reply 103 of 176
    peterbobpeterbob Posts: 60member
    We will see where this will go, the specific appeal court us known to be very conservative and always decide in favor of protection. We have a few more years before this is settled. Its a wait and see.

    Meanwhile the two great mobile platforms will continue to improve and battle it out. A few years from now we might have Google Android. Amazon android. Microsoft android. And x Chinese company android. The beast of android has been release. Can't place it back in a box.

    To think oracle has more leverage with this rulling over android than apple has had with its failed patent suits. Shocking.
  • Reply 104 of 176
    ruddyruddy Posts: 94member
    Quote:



    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    AFAIK I'm not at all mistaken. That's exactly the reason the case was remanded, to determine if the claimed code was actually protected code. Being copyright-eligible is not the same thing at all and answers only a part of the question. Before it even gets to that tho expect a Google request for an En Banc hearing which also isn't out of the question.

     

    You are completely mistaken and completely in denial. Here's what the appellate judges ruled:

     

    Quoted from today's ruling:

     Because we conclude that the declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization of the API packages are entitled to copyright protection, we reverse the district court’s copyrightability determination with instructions to reinstate the jury’s infringement finding as to the 37 Java packages. Because the jury deadlocked on fair use, we remand for further consideration of Google’s fair use defense in light of this decision. 

  • Reply 105 of 176
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,285member
    ruddy wrote: »
    You are completely mistaken and completely in denial. Here's what the appellate judges ruled:
    I read the same thing you did. You apparently don't completely understand what you read if you believe the Appeals Court found Google to be using protected code. If they had there would be no need for a fair use hearing, they could go straight for damages..

    What the Appeals Court actually did was rule that Oracle can pursue copyright damage claims for protectable expression. In essence the Court today didn't actually rule that the Java APIs Oracle is claiming are in fact protected from Google's use but instead said that they could be copyrighted, making Judge Alsup incorrect on his view they were not copyrightable expression. A new jury and new trial has to determine if they were factually protected from being used by Google. That is unless one of several other possibilities happens between here and there.
  • Reply 106 of 176
    peterbob wrote: »
    If its fair use its not stealing.
    Do you even understand what "fair use" is? If so, please explain how it applied.
  • Reply 107 of 176
    tastowetastowe Posts: 108member
    You guys google fanboys need to shut up your mouth. So you guys google fanboys do not belong in the appleinsider to complaints about oracle
  • Reply 108 of 176
    punkndrublicpunkndrublic Posts: 215member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    I read the same thing you did. You apparently don't completely understand what you read if you believe the Appeals Court found Google to be using protected code. If they had there would be no need for a fair use hearing, they could go straight for damages.. What the Appeals Court actually did was rule that Oracle can pursue copyright damage claims for protectable expression and not that the way Google used it in Android was protected by Oracle.

    You sure do hold a lot of conviction to your obtuse opinions.  Its always interesting seeing what you'll say next, as you interpret the links you cite or the what you quote.   Anyways, carry on full speed ahead as always, just keep running into that brick wall. One day you'll figure it out. 

  • Reply 110 of 176
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,385member
    I think it would be great if part of the settlement was that Google had to can Android altogether and come out with a totally re-written version of Android which would push them back at least 3 to 4 years.
  • Reply 111 of 176
    ruddyruddy Posts: 94member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    I read the same thing you did. You apparently don't completely understand what you read if you believe the Appeals Court found Google to be using protected code. 

     

    They say so right here: 

    Quote:



    For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization of the 37 Java API packages at issue are entitled to copyright protection.  





     

    But stay in denial about it all you like. 

    Quote:

     What the Appeals Court actually did was rule that Oracle can pursue copyright damage claims for protectable expression.


     

    Cite where they say that then, don't just prechew your baloney and expect everyone to swallow it.

  • Reply 112 of 176
    ericthehalfbeeericthehalfbee Posts: 4,487member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post





    You mean vast majority if experts and programmers who agree with Google that APIs shouldn't be copyright protected are getting paid by Google. A quick search or twitter search will show you the vast majority believe this rulling is horrible for the software community. Your a rabid apple shill so anything that harms apple competitors seems right to you.



    Another point ded. Android is open. ASOP is alive and thriving. Reach harder.

     

    You're an outright liar. The vast majority? You mean the vast majority of the most vocal  people who don't represent the entire community of developers. I code. I think this is a great ruling. And all my fellow developers who I asked about this also think it's a great ruling. So, sorry, not going to believe anymore of your BS.

     

    AOSP is dead. Google Play Services is now Android and AOSP is frozen in an older version that's becoming more and more useless by the day. Nobody will use AOSP in the future since it's going to represent an outdated (and not updated) version of Android when it USED to be open.

  • Reply 113 of 176
    ericthehalfbeeericthehalfbee Posts: 4,487member

    With all the toilet flushing going on, I hate to see AI's water bill.

     

    Same old turds that were claiming some time ago that Oracle would NEVER win on appeal. Now they need to regroup and find a way to spin this decision.

  • Reply 114 of 176
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    peterbob wrote: »
    If its fair use its not stealing.

    It's for commercial purposes, it's not fair use.

    Why do you think Google fought so hard to avoid it?
  • Reply 115 of 176
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    LOL. There's a reason why the original ruling has been reversed, Peterbob.

    He must be worried about losing his shill money….:lol:

    The email will bounce, it's linked to my deleted Google account.
  • Reply 116 of 176
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    Oh, God.

    Gatorguy is here seeking his daily dose of attention and a justification for his existence AGAIN.

    If you had a wife and family, would YOU spend this much time arguing a company's point of view on a competitor's fan website?

    What a complete and utter waste of time.

    His son's fishing must have got cancelled. Again.
  • Reply 118 of 176
    [QUOTE] Remeber google, don't be evil.[/QUOTE][IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/42965/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
    Ah... That explains it.
  • Reply 119 of 176
    iqatedoiqatedo Posts: 1,824member

    Perhaps Larry Ellison can complete the task that his friend Steven Jobs didn't have time to finish...

  • Reply 120 of 176
    taniwhataniwha Posts: 347member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ruddy View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post





    If its fair use its not stealing.

     

    If it's not fair use, then Android is fucked.




    Be careful what you wish for .. this will **** more than android, much much more and if you think where this road leads to I'm not sure you really want to go there.

Sign In or Register to comment.