Most industry people thought Oracle would win on copyright. It was considered a slam dunk, such that nobody thought it was even necessary to put their support behind Oracle. When Aslup made his ridiculous decision they all woke up and went "WTF just happened". After the trial and when Oracle filed their appeal is when all the big industry players started submitting their amicus briefs in support or Oracle.
Industry players like Microsoft, who is implementing the iOS system frameworks (https://github.com/Microsoft/WinObjC) and engaging in the very practice that they argued against? One of Oracle's own products (https://www.oracle.com/linux/) was created that way, as a drop-in replacement for proprietary Unix. Reimplementing interfaces is a standard practice as old as the software industry. Oracle is the one suddenly trying to change the rules.
With Microsoft, arguing against something and then using it when you lose the argument isn't exactly anything new ... they all do it including Apple.
As far as Oracle Linux goes, as much as I am so much not a fan of Oracle for a bunch of reasons that I will not get into - let's just say that their CEO infamously predicted that the cloud and services based business model would fail - Red Hat made the base version of their Linux open source. So you are free to take their open source Linux code, fork it and commercialize it, just as you can do with AOSP Android. Oracle is merely one of several companies and organizations that have done so, though they are by far the biggest that is trying to commercialize it. It is the same with Debian: it is open source and Ubuntu is a commercial fork of it. And yes, the same exists with Java: OpenJDK. Had Google used OpenJDK's APIs instead of Sun Java's APIs, they wouldn't be in this mess. The problem: OpenJDK came available too late for Google to use at the time, as its initial release was 2007, and as a decidedly inferior version of Java its APIs weren't suitable anyway. Another reason: using OpenJDK would have required using the General Public License, the terms of which mean that Google would have been required to publish their proprietary code whenever it deviated from the existing OpenJDK. Of course, Google can respond to this by simply forking OpenJDK, and if Oracle keeps trying to extract money out of them or tries to assert ownership or control of Android, that is exactly what they will do.
Industry players like Microsoft, who is implementing the iOS system frameworks (https://github.com/Microsoft/WinObjC) and engaging in the very practice that they argued against? One of Oracle's own products (https://www.oracle.com/linux/) was created that way, as a drop-in replacement for proprietary Unix. Reimplementing interfaces is a standard practice as old as the software industry. Oracle is the one suddenly trying to change the rules.
With Microsoft, arguing against something and then using it when you lose the argument isn't exactly anything new ... they all do it including Apple.
As far as Oracle Linux goes, as much as I am so much not a fan of Oracle for a bunch of reasons that I will not get into - let's just say that their CEO infamously predicted that the cloud and services based business model would fail - Red Hat made the base version of their Linux open source. So you are free to take their open source Linux code, fork it and commercialize it, just as you can do with AOSP Android. Oracle is merely one of several companies and organizations that have done so, though they are by far the biggest that is trying to commercialize it. It is the same with Debian: it is open source and Ubuntu is a commercial fork of it. And yes, the same exists with Java: OpenJDK. Had Google used OpenJDK's APIs instead of Sun Java's APIs, they wouldn't be in this mess. The problem: OpenJDK came available too late for Google to use at the time, as its initial release was 2007, and as a decidedly inferior version of Java its APIs weren't suitable anyway. Another reason: using OpenJDK would have required using the General Public License, the terms of which mean that Google would have been required to publish their proprietary code whenever it deviated from the existing OpenJDK. Of course, Google can respond to this by simply forking OpenJDK, and if Oracle keeps trying to extract money out of them or tries to assert ownership or control of Android, that is exactly what they will do.
There remain issues with Google's Java Android implementation.
It seems that Google is going to have a rough go in moving Android forward and their best hope is that the courts minimize their financial impact and that they can continue to use the infringing code.
The fact that they are looking to implement their own version of a JDK suggests that they believe there might still be a stiff financial penalty awarded by the courts.
However, it would seem that forking openJDK may be a poor substitute and potentially may alienate a host of Android developers. Hence Schmidt's response which reminds me of a slimey lawyer trying to use doublespeak to pull a fast one on the court. If he happens to "get lucky," Google can just use the infringing APIs, ensuring full Java compatibity while paying a paltry monetary fine.
Oracle does not "need" to play nice with Google. It is much different from the relationship between Samsung and Apple. Especially with Samsung providing critical components for Apple and Samsung also needing Apple's business. Google has some serious issues and it all stems from Schmidt assuming he can simply take and appropriate another company's intellectual property in any way he sees fit. Well, it doesn't work that way.
Google pays huge amounts to lobbyists, but it won't matter this time. The entire tech. community is against them on this one.
Reverse the shoe for a moment. How would Google feel if someone took their proprietary search code and used it in a competing product? Perhaps in Bing or Yahoo?
Google wouldn't be quite so understanding of that one. And for them to take the stand that they are now taking is more than a little hypocritical, especially for a company whose motto is "Don't be evil."
Industry players like Microsoft, who is implementing the iOS system frameworks (https://github.com/Microsoft/WinObjC) and engaging in the very practice that they argued against? One of Oracle's own products (https://www.oracle.com/linux/) was created that way, as a drop-in replacement for proprietary Unix. Reimplementing interfaces is a standard practice as old as the software industry. Oracle is the one suddenly trying to change the rules.
With Microsoft, arguing against something and then using it when you lose the argument isn't exactly anything new ... they all do it including Apple.There remain issues with Google's Java Android implementation.
It seems that Google is going to have a rough go in moving Android forward and their best hope is that the courts minimize their financial impact and that they can continue to use the infringing code.
Google pays huge amounts to lobbyists, but it won't matter this time. The entire tech. community is against them on this one.
BS. Apparently you didn't even bother to look before stating it as fact, unless you think HP, RedHat, Yahoo , and Mozilla are examples of companies that AREN'T part of the tech community along with an association of computer scientists and the open-source community in general.
Under additional questioning from Oracle attorney Peter Bicks, Schmidt went on to deny that Google requires developers or other interested third parties to obtain such licenses for use of its own APIs.
"I'm not aware of one that we treat as proprietary in the way you're asking your question," he told Bicks, nodding toward Google's assertion that Oracle's demands are unusual and unreasonable.
Amazon, for one, independently implements some of Google's APIs:
Under additional questioning from Oracle attorney Peter Bicks, Schmidt went on to deny that Google requires developers or other interested third parties to obtain such licenses for use of its own APIs.
"I'm not aware of one that we treat as proprietary in the way you're asking your question," he told Bicks, nodding toward Google's assertion that Oracle's demands are unusual and unreasonable.
Amazon, for one, independently implements some of Google's APIs:
Didn't they sue companies for mimicking their search algorithm?
Nope, don't think so. What makes you think they did? I'm fairly certain from the reading I've done that Google has filed only one single lawsuit over their patents in the history of the company and that one was against British Telecom a couple years back to demonstrate a point. I can't find any instance of Google suing over "search patents". They just don't do it.
With Microsoft, arguing against something and then using it when you lose the argument isn't exactly anything new ... they all do it including Apple.
As far as Oracle Linux goes, as much as I am so much not a fan of Oracle for a bunch of reasons that I will not get into - let's just say that their CEO infamously predicted that the cloud and services based business model would fail - Red Hat made the base version of their Linux open source. So you are free to take their open source Linux code, fork it and commercialize it, just as you can do with AOSP Android. Oracle is merely one of several companies and organizations that have done so, though they are by far the biggest that is trying to commercialize it. It is the same with Debian: it is open source and Ubuntu is a commercial fork of it. And yes, the same exists with Java: OpenJDK. Had Google used OpenJDK's APIs instead of Sun Java's APIs, they wouldn't be in this mess. The problem: OpenJDK came available too late for Google to use at the time, as its initial release was 2007, and as a decidedly inferior version of Java its APIs weren't suitable anyway. Another reason: using OpenJDK would have required using the General Public License, the terms of which mean that Google would have been required to publish their proprietary code whenever it deviated from the existing OpenJDK. Of course, Google can respond to this by simply forking OpenJDK, and if Oracle keeps trying to extract money out of them or tries to assert ownership or control of Android, that is exactly what they will do.
There remain issues with Google's Java Android implementation.
It seems that Google is going to have a rough go in moving Android forward and their best hope is that the courts minimize their financial impact and that they can continue to use the infringing code.
The fact that they are looking to implement their own version of a JDK suggests that they believe there might still be a stiff financial penalty awarded by the courts.
However, it would seem that forking openJDK may be a poor substitute and potentially may alienate a host of Android developers. Hence Schmidt's response which reminds me of a slimey lawyer trying to use doublespeak to pull a fast one on the court. If he happens to "get lucky," Google can just use the infringing APIs, ensuring full Java compatibity while paying a paltry monetary fine.
Oracle does not "need" to play nice with Google. It is much different from the relationship between Samsung and Apple. Especially with Samsung providing critical components for Apple and Samsung also needing Apple's business. Google has some serious issues and it all stems from Schmidt assuming he can simply take and appropriate another company's intellectual property in any way he sees fit. Well, it doesn't work that way.
Google pays huge amounts to lobbyists, but it won't matter this time. The entire tech. community is against them on this one.
Reverse the shoe for a moment. How would Google feel if someone took their proprietary search code and used it in a competing product? Perhaps in Bing or Yahoo?
Google wouldn't be quite so understanding of that one. And for them to take the stand that they are now taking is more than a little hypocritical, especially for a company whose motto is "Don't be evil."
Hmmm. Looks like you are one of those guys whose real issue is that Google decided to enter the mobile operating system business in the first place. My first reply to you: the people who developed Java and owned the IP at the time, Sun, were fine with Google using their APIs. The former CEO of Sun testified on behalf of Google in the first trial to that effect, and will testify on behalf of Google in the second one. Of course, you knew that already but you do not care, as you simply wish for this action - or any action - to result in Google and Android exiting the mobile arena and Apple getting a monopoly. Because we all learned from Microsoft and before them AT&T that monopolies are totally in the best interests of consumers and innovation.
As for the readwrite.com article; looks like wishful thinking from a bunch of people who either dislike Google or like Apple as much as you do. What the article failed to point out:
A) Google removed the infringing APIs from Android years ago, began the process of migrating to OpenJDK as far back as 2013 and completed it in 2015. So Marshmallow is already entirely OpenJDK and there are no app compatibility issues at all. Google can fork OpenJDK into their own version of Java and go forward with it tomorrow. Not only that, they could open-source it, which would lead to a mass migration from Oracle Java - which everyone has hated ever since they took it over from Sun - to Google Java. (Your claims that "everyone hates Google" is ... so not true. The only Google haters are a small subset of Apple and Microsoft fans, plus some Edward Snowden types.)
Google has been working on porting everything that is vital about Android - the apps and the design language standard - to ChromeOS for years, and they are just about finished. They are widely expected to announce that Google Play Store apps are going to be generally available on ChromeOS at Google I/O in a few days. And they also own the Android name (for operating system purposes). Long before this court case is finished, they will be able to walk away from Android and AOSP as they currently exist, rename the new mobile platform Android, and distributing that to Samsung and their other partners and making it the basis of AOSP and letting Oracle have Android as it currently exists (which is Oracle's actual goal, which is why they chose suing Google over simply trying to work out a licensing agreement).
So if you are hoping that Oracle's patent troll actions kills off Android and gives Apple a monopoly, the opposite is far more likely to happen: Google replacing Android as it currently exists with a version of the software that is more secure, offers better performance and they will have far more control over updating.
The circumstances under which Android was created - very rushed as they were trying to keep Microsoft from gaining market share in mobile and using it to lock Google out - were less than ideal, and yes they should have signed a licensing agreement with Sun rather than relying on being on good personal terms with Sun's CEO. Still, there is no scenario where this patent trollish lawsuit will cause any real harm to Google other than the few bucks they are going to shell out. Indeed, lots of Google fans already wanted Google to merge the two operating systems before this lawsuit.
Comments
As far as Oracle Linux goes, as much as I am so much not a fan of Oracle for a bunch of reasons that I will not get into - let's just say that their CEO infamously predicted that the cloud and services based business model would fail - Red Hat made the base version of their Linux open source. So you are free to take their open source Linux code, fork it and commercialize it, just as you can do with AOSP Android. Oracle is merely one of several companies and organizations that have done so, though they are by far the biggest that is trying to commercialize it. It is the same with Debian: it is open source and Ubuntu is a commercial fork of it. And yes, the same exists with Java: OpenJDK. Had Google used OpenJDK's APIs instead of Sun Java's APIs, they wouldn't be in this mess. The problem: OpenJDK came available too late for Google to use at the time, as its initial release was 2007, and as a decidedly inferior version of Java its APIs weren't suitable anyway. Another reason: using OpenJDK would have required using the General Public License, the terms of which mean that Google would have been required to publish their proprietary code whenever it deviated from the existing OpenJDK. Of course, Google can respond to this by simply forking OpenJDK, and if Oracle keeps trying to extract money out of them or tries to assert ownership or control of Android, that is exactly what they will do.
http://readwrite.com/2015/12/30/openjdk-java-android-n/
It seems that Google is going to have a rough go in moving Android forward and their best hope is that the courts minimize their financial impact and that they can continue to use the infringing code.
The fact that they are looking to implement their own version of a JDK suggests that they believe there might still be a stiff financial penalty awarded by the courts.
However, it would seem that forking openJDK may be a poor substitute and potentially may alienate a host of Android developers. Hence Schmidt's response which reminds me of a slimey lawyer trying to use doublespeak to pull a fast one on the court. If he happens to "get lucky," Google can just use the infringing APIs, ensuring full Java compatibity while paying a paltry monetary fine.
Oracle does not "need" to play nice with Google. It is much different from the relationship between Samsung and Apple. Especially with Samsung providing critical components for Apple and Samsung also needing Apple's business. Google has some serious issues and it all stems from Schmidt assuming he can simply take and appropriate another company's intellectual property in any way he sees fit. Well, it doesn't work that way.
Google pays huge amounts to lobbyists, but it won't matter this time. The entire tech. community is against them on this one.
Reverse the shoe for a moment. How would Google feel if someone took their proprietary search code and used it in a competing product? Perhaps in Bing or Yahoo?
Google wouldn't be quite so understanding of that one. And for them to take the stand that they are now taking is more than a little hypocritical, especially for a company whose motto is "Don't be evil."
As for the readwrite.com article; looks like wishful thinking from a bunch of people who either dislike Google or like Apple as much as you do. What the article failed to point out:
A) Google removed the infringing APIs from Android years ago, began the process of migrating to OpenJDK as far back as 2013 and completed it in 2015. So Marshmallow is already entirely OpenJDK and there are no app compatibility issues at all. Google can fork OpenJDK into their own version of Java and go forward with it tomorrow. Not only that, they could open-source it, which would lead to a mass migration from Oracle Java - which everyone has hated ever since they took it over from Sun - to Google Java. (Your claims that "everyone hates Google" is ... so not true. The only Google haters are a small subset of Apple and Microsoft fans, plus some Edward Snowden types.)
So if you are hoping that Oracle's patent troll actions kills off Android and gives Apple a monopoly, the opposite is far more likely to happen: Google replacing Android as it currently exists with a version of the software that is more secure, offers better performance and they will have far more control over updating.
The circumstances under which Android was created - very rushed as they were trying to keep Microsoft from gaining market share in mobile and using it to lock Google out - were less than ideal, and yes they should have signed a licensing agreement with Sun rather than relying on being on good personal terms with Sun's CEO. Still, there is no scenario where this patent trollish lawsuit will cause any real harm to Google other than the few bucks they are going to shell out. Indeed, lots of Google fans already wanted Google to merge the two operating systems before this lawsuit.