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.
Give an example, please of what this will ****. You mean the cheap ass people that want everything that others have created for free, yeah I hope it does. Being an artist, when others steal you stuff, its a sign of them being uncreative, not original and insincere.
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.
Java - GNU GPL licence
Dalvik - Apache licence
Google will have to release Dalvik as GNU along with all their proprietary code, Samsung's Touchwiz all the other proprietary skins, all will become truly open, free for anyone to use.
Won't that be a fantastic opportunity for developers?
Finally Android will become totally free, all thanks to Oracle.
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.
Java - GNU GPL licence
Dalvik - Apache licence
Google will have to release Dalvik as GNU along with all their proprietary code, Samsung's Touchwiz all the other proprietary skins, all will become truly open, free for anyone to use.
Won't that be a fantastic opportunity for developers?
Finally Android will become totally free, all thanks to Oracle.
You should be grateful.
You don't really believe the nonsense you write. The negative implications of this judgement are huge and will destroy much of the software industry. Let me give you a simple example: Take a copyrighted API to a library. This would prevent a functionally compatible library with, for example security or performance advantages from being made available for about 70 years.
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.
Give an example, please of what this will ****. You mean the cheap ass people that want everything that others have created for free, yeah I hope it does. Being an artist, when others steal you stuff, its a sign of them being uncreative, not original and insincere.
Do your own thinking kiddo ! The rest of your comment shows that you are not interested in rational discussion. A software API is not "art".
in the sense that the copyright concept perceives. An API is a functional description designed to allow interoperability.
You do KNOW that copyright is not tested for originality, prior art or any of the (mostly very low-bar) requirements for a patent, and that the period of copyright protection extends for something around 70 years ? Protecting software by patents is bad, protecting it by creating a bizzarre copyright concept is simply insane. So if this one sticks, the software industry is dead in the water.
The good side is that when the american courts finally see the devastation this judgement will cause, then there will be some changes to the laws.
Do your own thinking kiddo ! The rest of your comment shows that you are not interested in rational discussion. A software API is not "art".
in the sense that the copyright concept perceives. An API is a functional description designed to allow interoperability.
You do KNOW that copyright is not tested for originality, prior art or any of the (mostly very low-bar) requirements for a patent, and that the period of copyright protection extends for something around 70 years ? Protecting software by patents is bad, protecting it by creating a bizzarre copyright concept is simply insane. So if this one sticks, the software industry is dead in the water.
The good side is that when the american courts finally see the devastation this judgement will cause, then there will be some changes to the laws.
Actually, I've read many people who have criticized software patents saying that they should be eliminated and copyright law protections should apply instead. Get your stories straight.
...
After losing its initial bid for a preliminary injunction against Franklin, Apple successfully argued to an appeals court that software was a protected "literary work," and also presented evidence that software compatibility could be achieved by Franklin without infringement of Apple's copyright. It further presented evidence that Franklin simply stole its ROM code, finding unchanged references to "Applesoft" within Franklin's infringing systems.
Excellent points made by Apple.
Software is all about copyright.
So a fair use trial is next up, and back in Alsup's courtroom. And it will be a jury trial which is what Google wants, as they have a better chance convincing a jury than a judge. But when you look at the 4-pronged Fair Use test, it's hard to see how Google can win even one of them.
Do your own thinking kiddo ! The rest of your comment shows that you are not interested in rational discussion. A software API is not "art".
in the sense that the copyright concept perceives. An API is a functional description designed to allow interoperability.
You do KNOW that copyright is not tested for originality, prior art or any of the (mostly very low-bar) requirements for a patent, and that the period of copyright protection extends for something around 70 years ? Protecting software by patents is bad, protecting it by creating a bizzarre copyright concept is simply insane. So if this one sticks, the software industry is dead in the water.
The good side is that when the american courts finally see the devastation this judgement will cause, then there will be some changes to the laws.
Actually, I've read many people who have criticized software patents saying that they should be eliminated and copyright law protections should apply instead. Get your stories straight.
It doesn't interest me particularly what the "many people" you may have read or talk to say.
Sorry, don't feel offended but its a non-argument you're making. It may surprise you that a lot of people say/write a lot of really dumb things. Ever considered that ??
Do your own thinking kiddo ! The rest of your comment shows that you are not interested in rational discussion. A software API is not "art".
in the sense that the copyright concept perceives. An API is a functional description designed to allow interoperability.
You do KNOW that copyright is not tested for originality, prior art or any of the (mostly very low-bar) requirements for a patent, and that the period of copyright protection extends for something around 70 years ? Protecting software by patents is bad, protecting it by creating a bizzarre copyright concept is simply insane. So if this one sticks, the software industry is dead in the water.
The good side is that when the american courts finally see the devastation this judgement will cause, then there will be some changes to the laws.
To each their own old timer. I think you're being overly dramatic over the situation. As for Dumb things, thanks for setting precedent.
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.
That's not how copyright law works. First you get a trial to determine if infringement occurred. In this case it did, The first jury found that Google infringed 7000+ lines of declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization of the 37 API packages. But for awhile it did not matter because the judge said those things Google infringed were not copyrightable. Now the Circuit Court has overruled him, and have re-instated the 1st Jury's finding of infringement.
Fair Use is an affirmative defense. It says "yes we infringed, but we claim to be an exception." And either a judge or a jury has to determine if that exception is one of the ones allowed under the fair use test. A new jury trial will have to take place now because the first jury couldn't come up with a unanimous decision on fair use. That is the part the Circuit Court has "remanded" back to the District Court.
A Fair Use defense only comes AFTER you've first been found liable for infringement. With the Circuit Court reversing Judge Alsup's ruling on copyrightability, Google is now liable for infringement again. Next we'll hear Google's arguments for why the court should make an exception for what they did, and we'll also hear Oracle's arguments for why the use wasn't fair.
Do your own thinking kiddo ! The rest of your comment shows that you are not interested in rational discussion. A software API is not "art".
in the sense that the copyright concept perceives. An API is a functional description designed to allow interoperability.
You do KNOW that copyright is not tested for originality, prior art or any of the (mostly very low-bar) requirements for a patent, and that the period of copyright protection extends for something around 70 years ? Protecting software by patents is bad, protecting it by creating a bizzarre copyright concept is simply insane. So if this one sticks, the software industry is dead in the water.
The good side is that when the american courts finally see the devastation this judgement will cause, then there will be some changes to the laws.
To each their own old timer. I think you're being overly dramatic over the situation. As for Dumb things, thanks for setting precedent.
Hey Kiddie, get your hands of mom's pc, drink your milk and go back to bed. The internet's for grown ups :-)
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.
Yeah-aren't we supposed to share 97 % of our DNA with chimps? 3% difference-what's the big deal, eh?
"given the record evidence that Google designed Android so that it would not be compatible with the Java platform, or the JVM specifically, we find Google's interoperability argument confusing."
To translate this from lawyer-speak, replace the last word with "bullshit". Of course, judges can't literally say BS in their rulings, so they are more polite. But this is how they convey the opinion that the argument is beyond reason.
Of course, judges can't literally say BS in their rulings, so they are more polite.
“And in the matter of the bovem de stercore regarding Google’s lack of interoperability and wholesale theft of code, I hereby ban the sale of all devices using the software known as Android, its code base, and all derivatives, from sale in the United States until such time as the software no longer infringes in this regard.”
You don't really believe the nonsense you write. The negative implications of this judgement are huge and will destroy much of the software industry. Let me give you a simple example: Take a copyrighted API to a library. This would prevent a functionally compatible library with, for example security or performance advantages from being made available for about 70 years.
The copyright already exists, you are dead wrong.
No new laws have been created, no old laws have been destroyed.
Replacing Java's GPL licence is probably the biggest single reason Google did this.
I'll bite. So few lines shows that Google was policing the inclusion of stolen code quite aggressively. With the number of developers involved, and the ease of finding code on the internet, providing any of those developers a bit of time saving, finding just a few dozen lines of borrowed code out of several million is a pretty major triumph for the Google's policies and procedures.
As to whether use of copyrighted APIs is considered fair use, that's a separate issue. I would argue that in this case it probably is fair use, though I could be convinced otherwise by an argument that wasn't as full of invectives as most of what I see in this comments list. Sun probably wouldn't have bothered suing over it, since they were a very open source friendly company, and probably didn't excessively mind a from-scratch Java fork as long as they didn't use the name. Oracle? Not so much. Oracle's history with open source has proven quite hostile, which is forcing a lot of development companies to search for alternatives to a lot of the great stuff that Sun had built up over its history.
Comments
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.
Give an example, please of what this will ****. You mean the cheap ass people that want everything that others have created for free, yeah I hope it does. Being an artist, when others steal you stuff, its a sign of them being uncreative, not original and insincere.
Java - GNU GPL licence
Dalvik - Apache licence
Google will have to release Dalvik as GNU along with all their proprietary code, Samsung's Touchwiz all the other proprietary skins, all will become truly open, free for anyone to use.
Won't that be a fantastic opportunity for developers?
Finally Android will become totally free, all thanks to Oracle.
You should be grateful.
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.
Java - GNU GPL licence
Dalvik - Apache licence
Google will have to release Dalvik as GNU along with all their proprietary code, Samsung's Touchwiz all the other proprietary skins, all will become truly open, free for anyone to use.
Won't that be a fantastic opportunity for developers?
Finally Android will become totally free, all thanks to Oracle.
You should be grateful.
You don't really believe the nonsense you write. The negative implications of this judgement are huge and will destroy much of the software industry. Let me give you a simple example: Take a copyrighted API to a library. This would prevent a functionally compatible library with, for example security or performance advantages from being made available for about 70 years.
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.
Give an example, please of what this will ****. You mean the cheap ass people that want everything that others have created for free, yeah I hope it does. Being an artist, when others steal you stuff, its a sign of them being uncreative, not original and insincere.
Do your own thinking kiddo ! The rest of your comment shows that you are not interested in rational discussion. A software API is not "art".
in the sense that the copyright concept perceives. An API is a functional description designed to allow interoperability.
You do KNOW that copyright is not tested for originality, prior art or any of the (mostly very low-bar) requirements for a patent, and that the period of copyright protection extends for something around 70 years ? Protecting software by patents is bad, protecting it by creating a bizzarre copyright concept is simply insane. So if this one sticks, the software industry is dead in the water.
The good side is that when the american courts finally see the devastation this judgement will cause, then there will be some changes to the laws.
Well, I might "accept" that, but then you would have to except my acceptation.
Actually, I've read many people who have criticized software patents saying that they should be eliminated and copyright law protections should apply instead. Get your stories straight.
Excellent points made by Apple.
Software is all about copyright.
So a fair use trial is next up, and back in Alsup's courtroom. And it will be a jury trial which is what Google wants, as they have a better chance convincing a jury than a judge. But when you look at the 4-pronged Fair Use test, it's hard to see how Google can win even one of them.
Do your own thinking kiddo ! The rest of your comment shows that you are not interested in rational discussion. A software API is not "art".
in the sense that the copyright concept perceives. An API is a functional description designed to allow interoperability.
You do KNOW that copyright is not tested for originality, prior art or any of the (mostly very low-bar) requirements for a patent, and that the period of copyright protection extends for something around 70 years ? Protecting software by patents is bad, protecting it by creating a bizzarre copyright concept is simply insane. So if this one sticks, the software industry is dead in the water.
The good side is that when the american courts finally see the devastation this judgement will cause, then there will be some changes to the laws.
Actually, I've read many people who have criticized software patents saying that they should be eliminated and copyright law protections should apply instead. Get your stories straight.
It doesn't interest me particularly what the "many people" you may have read or talk to say.
Sorry, don't feel offended but its a non-argument you're making. It may surprise you that a lot of people say/write a lot of really dumb things. Ever considered that ??
Do your own thinking kiddo ! The rest of your comment shows that you are not interested in rational discussion. A software API is not "art".
in the sense that the copyright concept perceives. An API is a functional description designed to allow interoperability.
You do KNOW that copyright is not tested for originality, prior art or any of the (mostly very low-bar) requirements for a patent, and that the period of copyright protection extends for something around 70 years ? Protecting software by patents is bad, protecting it by creating a bizzarre copyright concept is simply insane. So if this one sticks, the software industry is dead in the water.
The good side is that when the american courts finally see the devastation this judgement will cause, then there will be some changes to the laws.
To each their own old timer. I think you're being overly dramatic over the situation. As for Dumb things, thanks for setting precedent.
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.
That's not how copyright law works. First you get a trial to determine if infringement occurred. In this case it did, The first jury found that Google infringed 7000+ lines of declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization of the 37 API packages. But for awhile it did not matter because the judge said those things Google infringed were not copyrightable. Now the Circuit Court has overruled him, and have re-instated the 1st Jury's finding of infringement.
Fair Use is an affirmative defense. It says "yes we infringed, but we claim to be an exception." And either a judge or a jury has to determine if that exception is one of the ones allowed under the fair use test. A new jury trial will have to take place now because the first jury couldn't come up with a unanimous decision on fair use. That is the part the Circuit Court has "remanded" back to the District Court.
A Fair Use defense only comes AFTER you've first been found liable for infringement. With the Circuit Court reversing Judge Alsup's ruling on copyrightability, Google is now liable for infringement again. Next we'll hear Google's arguments for why the court should make an exception for what they did, and we'll also hear Oracle's arguments for why the use wasn't fair.
Do your own thinking kiddo ! The rest of your comment shows that you are not interested in rational discussion. A software API is not "art".
in the sense that the copyright concept perceives. An API is a functional description designed to allow interoperability.
You do KNOW that copyright is not tested for originality, prior art or any of the (mostly very low-bar) requirements for a patent, and that the period of copyright protection extends for something around 70 years ? Protecting software by patents is bad, protecting it by creating a bizzarre copyright concept is simply insane. So if this one sticks, the software industry is dead in the water.
The good side is that when the american courts finally see the devastation this judgement will cause, then there will be some changes to the laws.
To each their own old timer. I think you're being overly dramatic over the situation. As for Dumb things, thanks for setting precedent.
Hey Kiddie, get your hands of mom's pc, drink your milk and go back to bed. The internet's for grown ups :-)
Hey Kiddie, get your hands of mom's pc, drink your milk and go back to bed. The internet's for grown ups :-)
You mean "off"? Maybe you needed a better education grandpa?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Told you.
“Who?”
You, I dunno.
Why Gatorguy, of course.
Isn't it still a little early on for the Schadenfreude?
No.
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.
Yeah-aren't we supposed to share 97 % of our DNA with chimps? 3% difference-what's the big deal, eh?
"given the record evidence that Google designed Android so that it would not be compatible with the Java platform, or the JVM specifically, we find Google's interoperability argument confusing."
To translate this from lawyer-speak, replace the last word with "bullshit". Of course, judges can't literally say BS in their rulings, so they are more polite. But this is how they convey the opinion that the argument is beyond reason.
Of course, judges can't literally say BS in their rulings, so they are more polite.
“And in the matter of the bovem de stercore regarding Google’s lack of interoperability and wholesale theft of code, I hereby ban the sale of all devices using the software known as Android, its code base, and all derivatives, from sale in the United States until such time as the software no longer infringes in this regard.”
You don't really believe the nonsense you write. The negative implications of this judgement are huge and will destroy much of the software industry. Let me give you a simple example: Take a copyrighted API to a library. This would prevent a functionally compatible library with, for example security or performance advantages from being made available for about 70 years.
The copyright already exists, you are dead wrong.
No new laws have been created, no old laws have been destroyed.
Replacing Java's GPL licence is probably the biggest single reason Google did this.
I'll bite. So few lines shows that Google was policing the inclusion of stolen code quite aggressively. With the number of developers involved, and the ease of finding code on the internet, providing any of those developers a bit of time saving, finding just a few dozen lines of borrowed code out of several million is a pretty major triumph for the Google's policies and procedures.
As to whether use of copyrighted APIs is considered fair use, that's a separate issue. I would argue that in this case it probably is fair use, though I could be convinced otherwise by an argument that wasn't as full of invectives as most of what I see in this comments list. Sun probably wouldn't have bothered suing over it, since they were a very open source friendly company, and probably didn't excessively mind a from-scratch Java fork as long as they didn't use the name. Oracle? Not so much. Oracle's history with open source has proven quite hostile, which is forcing a lot of development companies to search for alternatives to a lot of the great stuff that Sun had built up over its history.