Google faces $9 billion in damages after ripping off Java in Android

145679

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 189
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,988member
    bkkcanuck said:
    melgross said:

    bkkcanuck said:
    melgross said:

    melgross said:
    I recently read that the court is expressing extreme skepticism over Oracle’s valuation of Java. It’s very likely that if Google does lose this, the amount of money involved will be far less that what Oracle is demanding.
    I dont think so. Google clearly understood the value of java. That will be proven on court and the damages will be mindblowing. They will be because of willfull infringment. Basically willfull infringers arent supposed to make a good deal out of the infringment (econimical awarding), the question really is would Android had sucseeded with a new language. Probably not. Hence  the economical aspects belong to Oracle.
    Not true. The courts, and those in the business who testified, as well as the experts gathered by the judge, believed that Oracle’s estimations were way too high. It’s not the valuation of Java per se, that’s being decided here, but what Oracle is saying the use of it, unlicensed by Google, is worth. The problem is that often, there must be fairly hard proof that the entity violating the license DIRECTLY benefitted from that violation. Since Google doesn’t sell Android, or the direct derivatives of it, the question is what the damages should be.

    we saw that in that several year long trial between Apple and Samsung, damages came down to what percentage of The Whole was that particular feature, here and there, that Samsung took from Apple. Damages were based on that. It’s a very old idea of how damages are calculated. I don’t think that it’s proper though. If Samsung didn’t copy Apple in those instances, how many phones would Samsung have sold? It’s very difficult to determine that.

    here, the question is that Android is given away for free. Since Google began “making” phones and tablets under its own name, direct benefits may be able to be shown. But if damages are assumed to be from a percentage of the devices value, what part of that that can be ascribed to Android, since it isn’t sold, but rather, it’s Google’s services that ride on Android, that are sold, or licensed. But since many of those services are available on iOS as well, the issue is even murkier.
    If it comes down to only calculating damages, I think a reasonable way to estimate the benefit to Google is to use their contract with Apple (I think in the order of 3 billion a year for iOS users - latest contract) as the basis of what the benefit is to Google (Android tm I believe requires google search engine).  
    Google pays Apple for the privilege of having Apple keep Google as the default search engine. I’m not sure what that would have to do with this case.
    Androids benefit to Google is not in the income they derive but the traffic that they provide to the search engine (and advertising) which is their primary business.  As such the valuation of this traffic can be estimated by using what they pay a 3rd party to provide to them.
    Except that valuations tend not to be calculated that way. Almost always, only the direct benefit is calculated. In this case, there is almost no direct benefit. The reason they do it this way is because those indirect benefits can be obtained other ways, such as it being a fact that almost 50% of Google’s Mobile income comes from iOS devices, which is why they’re willing to pay Apple that assumed $3 billion a year for the Google search placement. Going by that, if Google didn’t have Android, but the Blackberry, Palm and other devices were out instead, making up most of the mobile internet search, Google would get about the same sales and profits they do now.

    because of that, it can’t be assumed that the search that Android directs to them is any more than Google would have derived without Android. So it can’t be used in a judgement, at least, not as a major beneficiary of that income. It’s one major reason Apple never sued Google over Android, and why they prefer to sue companies that violate their copyrights and patents in other areas, or in the same areas, but on devices directly. They know they can’t prove that Google gets much of a direct benefit from Android, and so they can’t get much out of them. There have been some very interesting legal discussions about this in the legal journals over the years.
    jony0
  • Reply 162 of 189
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,988member
    gatorguy said:
    melgross said:

    gatorguy said:
    tmay said:
    melgross said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    auxio said:
    gatorguy said:
    auxio said:
    auxio said:
    bkkcanuck said:
    I disagree with the Federal Court.  

    API is just the interface (e.g. add(operand1, operand2) - i.e. no implementation to that - and implementation is basically 99%+ of the code).

    Being able to use an API for compatibility purposes is no different than for example Open Office being able to implement the file format for Word.  The need for competition outweighs the argument as an API protected IP.   Google's implementation uses the API (common) and then the implementation code which is probably more than 99% of the code base.  As long as Google did not copy the code itself the API itself should be fair use.  Languages and APIs should not be able to be protected as API.  

    The court has already previously ruled that you cannot protect interfaces for hardware for the purposes of locking out the competition on things like printer cartridges etc.  An API is not much different than the software equivalent.  

    However, even if you are diehard Google hater - it's not clear whether copyrighting Apis ist a good idea.
    I don't think it is.  However, I also don't think that someone who knowingly and willingly tries to find a way around a technology licensing agreement for tremendous profit should go unpunished.
    Well if you think they shouldn't be copyrightable then you can't object to Google suing them.

    I think it's also important to put the work that goes into Apis into perspective. Yes they take creativity. But they are not usually created out fo thin air. The Java API is influenced by countless Apis before it such as C and C++. 

    Oracle itself has benefited from standing on the shoulder of Giants. I am not aware that they pay IBM for the SQL syntax (admittedly a language rather than API but clearly groundbreaking and which changed the database industry). All the companies that use Hadoop based their work on the original Google 2005 MapReduce paper that outlines MR and GFS (both of which Hadoop implements).

    Oracle stands out for being incredible litigious and greedy. We will see who will win the next round in this particular fight.
    Forget the world of business and who owns what company.  I just have one simple question: do you think what Andy Rubin and company did with Java is right?

    In regard to those cases you state, if there are clear cases of licensing infringement (or clear intentional loophole exploitation) there, then I think Oracle should be made to pay.  The same way I think that Google should pay for what was done with Java.  Regardless of the fact that Java is now open source to anyone, at the time, the intent of Sun was to allow open source usage of Java in educational/non-profit situations, but you had to take a license if it was bundled in a commercial product.  Which was pretty standard for the time -- Qt used this model as well.
    Business decisions are not dependent on morality as a general rule. So yes let's forget who owns the company.

    There's been lots of questionable moves over the years, the highest profile example off the top of my head being Apple's use of Xerox IP and "hard work" design. While it didn't turn out to be found illegal the argument could be made it just wasn't right, that the intent to take it without recompense was there.  Yeah some money changed hands but not for the usage that Apple put it to IIRC.  After all the court filings from Xerox were over with it wasn't actually illegal tho, even if it might not have been "right" in the view of some folks. 
    https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xerox-sues-apple-computer-over-macintosh-copyright.html
    Are there similarities here?
    Opening the doors to your technology company (Xerox), giving someone a demo of the technology you're working on without an agreement in place, and having them go off and invest 5 or 6 years + a lot of money creating their own, fairly different version of it (including designing custom hardware) is pretty different than having someone willfully look for a loophole in your software licensing agreement (and exploit open source projects to do so with minimal investment of time, effort, or ideas).
    So that you're completely OK with. No issue with Android being influenced by Apple design choices then? It's certainly a fairly different version of it, requires years of work and a lot of money, and includes developing custom hardware. 
    You clearly don’t know the history of xerox parc and Apple.  SMH
    <br><br>
    No sir, you don't. Apple paid $1m in Apple shares for the privilege of what it took from PARC Xerox and vastly improved on it to boot.
    You sir are apparently the one not familiar with it, and I've no idea what @radarthekat  is hinting at. Perhaps he'll expand on his lone sentence.  

    f you go back at look at the history that's not what Apple gave them stock options for, not that it ended up mattering, and no Apple did not give Xerox a $million in stock. They gave Xerox the right to BUY 100,000 shares at $10/share which Xerox did,  spending $1M of Xerox money buying those shares. Apple may have received a double benefit too. Besides getting $1M from Xerox they also may have avoided a patent infringement suit from one of the Xerox divisions, Shugart, by making Xerox an investor. So yeah I kinda get the history. 
    https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xerox-sues-apple-computer-over-macintosh-copyright.html
    That’s lawsuit was a bit of nonsense. At the time Apple visited PARC, a number of companies were working on the same concepts. The thing that matters here is that while Apple came out with the Lisa, which failed, they then modified it to become the Macintosh, which succeeded.

    at the same time, Xerox came out with their own version, which they called the Star. That failed, and as a result, Xerox withdrew from the independent computer business.

    this has been a problem for Xeros going back many years. They come up with an idea, and fail to capitalize on it. Apple made major improvements to Xerox’s very primitive UI. When Apple was finished, you could barely see any of Xerox’s work in it. Xerox;s idea for window controls were so,complex they weren’t usable. Other companies working on the concept also had complexity problems. All were eventually abandoned in favor of the much simpler, and intuitive system Apple came up with. So I guess that everyone stole Apple’s ideas. Should they sue everyone else?
    My recollection of that story is that Jef Raskin was already committed to creating a graphical UI, and wanted Steve to visit Xerox to validate what they were already working on.

    Here's an interview that might be of interest;



    Anyone interested should start with a search on Jef Raskin and Macintosh.

    Might be appropriate to search on Bill Atkinson as well.

    Right on Tmay.  I've read the same thing. What Steve was shown at Xerox was apparently far different and more integrated than what those Apple engineer's had in mind. Once Mr. Jobs saw what PARC had developed he reportedly took things in a different direction, inspired by the Xerox efforts to realize how much they could really do with it. And thus the McIntosh interface.
    Now, you are totally BSing. You are just making that up. It was just the opposite. Xerox;s work was useless. It was also not too much different from what other companies were working on at the same time. The reason why Xerox invited Apple to come over, was because they had heard that Apple was working on something like that, and they wanted to see if Apple was interested in what they were doing.

    but what they were doing was so bad, that Apple couldn’t use it. What Apple came up with was far more elegant. What some of you guys simply don’t understand was that Apple wasn’t looking for a complex, yet simplistic up for computer engineers, which is what Xerox had. They were looking for something that didn’t require a couple of weeks to understand.

    its interesting that Xerox made major changes to their U.K. over a few years, still lagging way behind what Apple came up with, and it’s Apple’s vision that succeeded, while that if xerox failed. Even Xerox couldn’t see their computers based on their own system.
    Mel, you need to get out more. Read the link TMay offered and then read the one I added. Then compare either/both to what you just said. Your memory seems to be playing tricks on you. I won't accuse you of "making it up". 
    My memory isn’t playing tricks. I get out plenty, and who,e I occasionally like to read a fantasy novel, I don’t want to live in the fantasy world you live in.
  • Reply 163 of 189
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,790member
    Rayz2016 said:

    adm1 said:
    If they're on the hook for anything financial, it would be the standard licensing fee that they avoided paying initially. I can't see the 9B profit argument holding up in court.
    To get 9B, Oracle would have prove that they’d lost a significant chunk of revenue due to theft. Whether this is the case or not depends on how Java is licensed. If it’s a flat fee then no problem. If the charge as a percentage of the product that uses it, then yes, it could run into billions. The only problem is how does one quantify that. Android is free. What percentage of user data sales are attributed to it? What about Android searches? You can’t count those if they went through the Google search engine. 

    I dont think  you can really put a figure on this because the user data extraction, the massaging and the selling on – none of that is done by Java. That’s all Google’s code. So while  I think they’re as guilty as hell, I think $9B is stretching it. 


    I think it's irrelevant if the data extraction is done by Java. A significant chunk of their data comes from Android devices, which one could argue wouldn't exist at all in their current form without Java. Would Android have even taken off if they didn't have a user base of developers already familiar with Java to make it easy for them to start coding for Android?

    If Android devices are responsible for 10% of the data Google gets for their targeted ad business, then I think the value is easy to determine (Android contributes 10% of their ad revenue). I don't think Oracle is entitled to ALL of this, just a percentage. So if Oracle is awarded 5% of Android revenue, then they get 0.5% of Googles entire ad revenue. Which would have been a few billion over the last 8 years, but less than the $9 billion suggested in this article.

    Fair point.

    Google was capable of developing its own programming language, but they needed Java to attract developers straight off the bat. 
  • Reply 164 of 189
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,790member
    melgross said:

    gatorguy said:
    tmay said:
    melgross said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    auxio said:
    gatorguy said:
    auxio said:
    auxio said:
    bkkcanuck said:
    I disagree with the Federal Court.  

    API is just the interface (e.g. add(operand1, operand2) - i.e. no implementation to that - and implementation is basically 99%+ of the code).

    Being able to use an API for compatibility purposes is no different than for example Open Office being able to implement the file format for Word.  The need for competition outweighs the argument as an API protected IP.   Google's implementation uses the API (common) and then the implementation code which is probably more than 99% of the code base.  As long as Google did not copy the code itself the API itself should be fair use.  Languages and APIs should not be able to be protected as API.  

    The court has already previously ruled that you cannot protect interfaces for hardware for the purposes of locking out the competition on things like printer cartridges etc.  An API is not much different than the software equivalent.  

    However, even if you are diehard Google hater - it's not clear whether copyrighting Apis ist a good idea.
    I don't think it is.  However, I also don't think that someone who knowingly and willingly tries to find a way around a technology licensing agreement for tremendous profit should go unpunished.
    Well if you think they shouldn't be copyrightable then you can't object to Google suing them.

    I think it's also important to put the work that goes into Apis into perspective. Yes they take creativity. But they are not usually created out fo thin air. The Java API is influenced by countless Apis before it such as C and C++. 

    Oracle itself has benefited from standing on the shoulder of Giants. I am not aware that they pay IBM for the SQL syntax (admittedly a language rather than API but clearly groundbreaking and which changed the database industry). All the companies that use Hadoop based their work on the original Google 2005 MapReduce paper that outlines MR and GFS (both of which Hadoop implements).

    Oracle stands out for being incredible litigious and greedy. We will see who will win the next round in this particular fight.
    Forget the world of business and who owns what company.  I just have one simple question: do you think what Andy Rubin and company did with Java is right?

    In regard to those cases you state, if there are clear cases of licensing infringement (or clear intentional loophole exploitation) there, then I think Oracle should be made to pay.  The same way I think that Google should pay for what was done with Java.  Regardless of the fact that Java is now open source to anyone, at the time, the intent of Sun was to allow open source usage of Java in educational/non-profit situations, but you had to take a license if it was bundled in a commercial product.  Which was pretty standard for the time -- Qt used this model as well.
    Business decisions are not dependent on morality as a general rule. So yes let's forget who owns the company.

    There's been lots of questionable moves over the years, the highest profile example off the top of my head being Apple's use of Xerox IP and "hard work" design. While it didn't turn out to be found illegal the argument could be made it just wasn't right, that the intent to take it without recompense was there.  Yeah some money changed hands but not for the usage that Apple put it to IIRC.  After all the court filings from Xerox were over with it wasn't actually illegal tho, even if it might not have been "right" in the view of some folks. 
    https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xerox-sues-apple-computer-over-macintosh-copyright.html
    Are there similarities here?
    Opening the doors to your technology company (Xerox), giving someone a demo of the technology you're working on without an agreement in place, and having them go off and invest 5 or 6 years + a lot of money creating their own, fairly different version of it (including designing custom hardware) is pretty different than having someone willfully look for a loophole in your software licensing agreement (and exploit open source projects to do so with minimal investment of time, effort, or ideas).
    So that you're completely OK with. No issue with Android being influenced by Apple design choices then? It's certainly a fairly different version of it, requires years of work and a lot of money, and includes developing custom hardware. 
    You clearly don’t know the history of xerox parc and Apple.  SMH
    <br><br>
    No sir, you don't. Apple paid $1m in Apple shares for the privilege of what it took from PARC Xerox and vastly improved on it to boot.
    You sir are apparently the one not familiar with it, and I've no idea what @radarthekat  is hinting at. Perhaps he'll expand on his lone sentence.  

    f you go back at look at the history that's not what Apple gave them stock options for, not that it ended up mattering, and no Apple did not give Xerox a $million in stock. They gave Xerox the right to BUY 100,000 shares at $10/share which Xerox did,  spending $1M of Xerox money buying those shares. Apple may have received a double benefit too. Besides getting $1M from Xerox they also may have avoided a patent infringement suit from one of the Xerox divisions, Shugart, by making Xerox an investor. So yeah I kinda get the history. 
    https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xerox-sues-apple-computer-over-macintosh-copyright.html
    That’s lawsuit was a bit of nonsense. At the time Apple visited PARC, a number of companies were working on the same concepts. The thing that matters here is that while Apple came out with the Lisa, which failed, they then modified it to become the Macintosh, which succeeded.

    at the same time, Xerox came out with their own version, which they called the Star. That failed, and as a result, Xerox withdrew from the independent computer business.

    this has been a problem for Xeros going back many years. They come up with an idea, and fail to capitalize on it. Apple made major improvements to Xerox’s very primitive UI. When Apple was finished, you could barely see any of Xerox’s work in it. Xerox;s idea for window controls were so,complex they weren’t usable. Other companies working on the concept also had complexity problems. All were eventually abandoned in favor of the much simpler, and intuitive system Apple came up with. So I guess that everyone stole Apple’s ideas. Should they sue everyone else?
    My recollection of that story is that Jef Raskin was already committed to creating a graphical UI, and wanted Steve to visit Xerox to validate what they were already working on.

    Here's an interview that might be of interest;



    Anyone interested should start with a search on Jef Raskin and Macintosh.

    Might be appropriate to search on Bill Atkinson as well.

    Right on Tmay.  I've read the same thing. What Steve was shown at Xerox was apparently far different and more integrated than what those Apple engineer's had in mind. Once Mr. Jobs saw what PARC had developed he reportedly took things in a different direction, inspired by the Xerox efforts to realize how much they could really do with it. And thus the McIntosh interface.
    Now, you are totally BSing. You are just making that up. It was just the opposite. Xerox;s work was useless. It was also not too much different from what other companies were working on at the same time. The reason why Xerox invited Apple to come over, was because they had heard that Apple was working on something like that, and they wanted to see if Apple was interested in what they were doing.

    but what they were doing was so bad, that Apple couldn’t use it. What Apple came up with was far more elegant. What some of you guys simply don’t understand was that Apple wasn’t looking for a complex, yet simplistic up for computer engineers, which is what Xerox had. They were looking for something that didn’t require a couple of weeks to understand.

    its interesting that Xerox made major changes to their U.K. over a few years, still lagging way behind what Apple came up with, and it’s Apple’s vision that succeeded, while that if xerox failed. Even Xerox couldn’t see their computers based on their own system.

    GoogleGuy is just trying to come up with a false equivalence to deflect away from Google's theft. So let's steer things back.

    What Google did (is doing) amounts to theft. They have taken something and not paid for it. They have already been found guilty of this, so all that needs to be decided is the level of compensation.

    Apple went to Xerox Park, and had a look at the work being done there. They were already working on their own GUI at the time, and Jobs wanted to see what they were doing and if it could prove useful to him. For one thing, the Xerox system needed three mouse buttons. Jobs was a stickler for simplicity; he wanted a system that could be used with only one.

    Now, I don't know how much they used and how much they did not; I'm not sure anyone can answer that, but that's not really the point.

    The point is that in return for a demonstration of the technology, Jobs offered them 100,000 shares in the pre-IPO Apple company at $10 per share. Now today, that's looking like a pretty sweet deal.

    Now according to the Google fans here, Apple walking off after just a demo would be okay and implementing their own version for the Mac is okay. After all, it's fine to copy an idea, as long as you implement the code yourself. Jobs saw this differently. The value in the Xerox interface was the design, the interaction, the fluidity – not just what it happened to look like face on. It's the same with the Java APIs. They have been designed and improved over ten iterations; they have work together in a way that is cohesive, easy for beginners to understand, and powerful enough for seasoned developers to work with. Off the top of my head, the JVM has about ten languages that work with it, and the one thing they have in common is that they are all compatible with the Java standard APIs.

    If you want to use them to build a commercial product then you have to buy a license. They cost money to design (or perhaps GoogleGuy thinks that once you've had a look at the architectural drawings for a new skyscraper, then you can send the architect packing without paying for them).

    So there's the difference:

    Jobs paid to have a look at Xerox work.
    Google stole the designs for Java.

    This is not the massive disaster the open sourcers think it is either. Most OS licenses say you're free to use the design under certain conditions. You can build your own Java for non-commercial use. Google's use is commercial and they know it.

    https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/05/14/xerox-says-old-apple-legend-misses-the-point.aspx
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/10/steve-jobs-xerox-parc.html
    http://obamapacman.com/2010/03/myth-copyright-theft-apple-stole-gui-from-xerox-parc-alto/
    edited March 2018
  • Reply 165 of 189
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,306member
    Rayz2016 said:
    melgross said:

    gatorguy said:
    tmay said:
    melgross said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    auxio said:
    gatorguy said:
    auxio said:
    auxio said:
    bkkcanuck said:
    I disagree with the Federal Court.  

    API is just the interface (e.g. add(operand1, operand2) - i.e. no implementation to that - and implementation is basically 99%+ of the code).

    Being able to use an API for compatibility purposes is no different than for example Open Office being able to implement the file format for Word.  The need for competition outweighs the argument as an API protected IP.   Google's implementation uses the API (common) and then the implementation code which is probably more than 99% of the code base.  As long as Google did not copy the code itself the API itself should be fair use.  Languages and APIs should not be able to be protected as API.  

    The court has already previously ruled that you cannot protect interfaces for hardware for the purposes of locking out the competition on things like printer cartridges etc.  An API is not much different than the software equivalent.  

    However, even if you are diehard Google hater - it's not clear whether copyrighting Apis ist a good idea.
    I don't think it is.  However, I also don't think that someone who knowingly and willingly tries to find a way around a technology licensing agreement for tremendous profit should go unpunished.
    Well if you think they shouldn't be copyrightable then you can't object to Google suing them.

    I think it's also important to put the work that goes into Apis into perspective. Yes they take creativity. But they are not usually created out fo thin air. The Java API is influenced by countless Apis before it such as C and C++. 

    Oracle itself has benefited from standing on the shoulder of Giants. I am not aware that they pay IBM for the SQL syntax (admittedly a language rather than API but clearly groundbreaking and which changed the database industry). All the companies that use Hadoop based their work on the original Google 2005 MapReduce paper that outlines MR and GFS (both of which Hadoop implements).

    Oracle stands out for being incredible litigious and greedy. We will see who will win the next round in this particular fight.
    Forget the world of business and who owns what company.  I just have one simple question: do you think what Andy Rubin and company did with Java is right?

    In regard to those cases you state, if there are clear cases of licensing infringement (or clear intentional loophole exploitation) there, then I think Oracle should be made to pay.  The same way I think that Google should pay for what was done with Java.  Regardless of the fact that Java is now open source to anyone, at the time, the intent of Sun was to allow open source usage of Java in educational/non-profit situations, but you had to take a license if it was bundled in a commercial product.  Which was pretty standard for the time -- Qt used this model as well.
    Business decisions are not dependent on morality as a general rule. So yes let's forget who owns the company.

    There's been lots of questionable moves over the years, the highest profile example off the top of my head being Apple's use of Xerox IP and "hard work" design. While it didn't turn out to be found illegal the argument could be made it just wasn't right, that the intent to take it without recompense was there.  Yeah some money changed hands but not for the usage that Apple put it to IIRC.  After all the court filings from Xerox were over with it wasn't actually illegal tho, even if it might not have been "right" in the view of some folks. 
    https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xerox-sues-apple-computer-over-macintosh-copyright.html
    Are there similarities here?
    Opening the doors to your technology company (Xerox), giving someone a demo of the technology you're working on without an agreement in place, and having them go off and invest 5 or 6 years + a lot of money creating their own, fairly different version of it (including designing custom hardware) is pretty different than having someone willfully look for a loophole in your software licensing agreement (and exploit open source projects to do so with minimal investment of time, effort, or ideas).
    So that you're completely OK with. No issue with Android being influenced by Apple design choices then? It's certainly a fairly different version of it, requires years of work and a lot of money, and includes developing custom hardware. 
    You clearly don’t know the history of xerox parc and Apple.  SMH
    <br><br>
    No sir, you don't. Apple paid $1m in Apple shares for the privilege of what it took from PARC Xerox and vastly improved on it to boot.
    You sir are apparently the one not familiar with it, and I've no idea what @radarthekat  is hinting at. Perhaps he'll expand on his lone sentence.  

    f you go back at look at the history that's not what Apple gave them stock options for, not that it ended up mattering, and no Apple did not give Xerox a $million in stock. They gave Xerox the right to BUY 100,000 shares at $10/share which Xerox did,  spending $1M of Xerox money buying those shares. Apple may have received a double benefit too. Besides getting $1M from Xerox they also may have avoided a patent infringement suit from one of the Xerox divisions, Shugart, by making Xerox an investor. So yeah I kinda get the history. 
    https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xerox-sues-apple-computer-over-macintosh-copyright.html
    That’s lawsuit was a bit of nonsense. At the time Apple visited PARC, a number of companies were working on the same concepts. The thing that matters here is that while Apple came out with the Lisa, which failed, they then modified it to become the Macintosh, which succeeded.

    at the same time, Xerox came out with their own version, which they called the Star. That failed, and as a result, Xerox withdrew from the independent computer business.

    this has been a problem for Xeros going back many years. They come up with an idea, and fail to capitalize on it. Apple made major improvements to Xerox’s very primitive UI. When Apple was finished, you could barely see any of Xerox’s work in it. Xerox;s idea for window controls were so,complex they weren’t usable. Other companies working on the concept also had complexity problems. All were eventually abandoned in favor of the much simpler, and intuitive system Apple came up with. So I guess that everyone stole Apple’s ideas. Should they sue everyone else?
    My recollection of that story is that Jef Raskin was already committed to creating a graphical UI, and wanted Steve to visit Xerox to validate what they were already working on.

    Here's an interview that might be of interest;



    Anyone interested should start with a search on Jef Raskin and Macintosh.

    Might be appropriate to search on Bill Atkinson as well.

    Right on Tmay.  I've read the same thing. What Steve was shown at Xerox was apparently far different and more integrated than what those Apple engineer's had in mind. Once Mr. Jobs saw what PARC had developed he reportedly took things in a different direction, inspired by the Xerox efforts to realize how much they could really do with it. And thus the McIntosh interface.
    Now, you are totally BSing. You are just making that up. It was just the opposite. Xerox;s work was useless. It was also not too much different from what other companies were working on at the same time. The reason why Xerox invited Apple to come over, was because they had heard that Apple was working on something like that, and they wanted to see if Apple was interested in what they were doing.

    but what they were doing was so bad, that Apple couldn’t use it. What Apple came up with was far more elegant. What some of you guys simply don’t understand was that Apple wasn’t looking for a complex, yet simplistic up for computer engineers, which is what Xerox had. They were looking for something that didn’t require a couple of weeks to understand.

    its interesting that Xerox made major changes to their U.K. over a few years, still lagging way behind what Apple came up with, and it’s Apple’s vision that succeeded, while that if xerox failed. Even Xerox couldn’t see their computers based on their own system.

    GoogleGuy is just trying to come up with a false equivalence to deflect away from Google's theft. So let's steer things back.

    What Google did (is doing) amounts to theft. They have taken something and not paid for it. They have already been found guilty of this, so all that needs to be decided is the level of compensation.

    Apple went to Xerox Park, and had a look at the work being done there. They were already working on their own GUI at the time, and Jobs wanted to see what they were doing and if it could prove useful to him. For one thing, the Xerox system needed three mouse buttons. Jobs was a stickler for simplicity; he wanted a system that could be used with only one.

    Now, I don't know how much they used and how much they did not; I'm not sure anyone can answer that, but that's not really the point.

    The point is that in return for a demonstration of the technology, Jobs offered them 100,000 shares in the pre-IPO Apple company at $10 per share. Now today, that's looking like a pretty sweet deal.

    Now according to the Google fans here, Apple walking off after just a demo would be okay and implementing their own version for the Mac is okay. After all, it's fine to copy an idea, as long as you implement the code yourself. Jobs saw this differently. The value in the Xerox interface was the design, the interaction, the fluidity – not just what it happened to look like face on. It's the same with the Java APIs. They have been designed and improved over ten iterations; they have work together in a way that is cohesive, easy for beginners to understand, and powerful enough for seasoned developers to work with. Off the top of my head, the JVM has about ten languages that work with it, and the one thing they have in common is that they are all compatible with the Java standard APIs.

    If you want to use them to build a commercial product then you have to buy a license. They cost money to design (or perhaps GoogleGuy thinks that once you've had a look at the architectural drawings for a new skyscraper, then you can send the architect packing without paying for them).

    So there's the difference:

    Jobs paid to have a look at Xerox work.
    Google stole the designs for Java.

    This is not the massive disaster the open sourcers think it is either. Most OS licenses say you're free to use the design under certain conditions. You can build your own Java for non-commercial use. Google's use is commercial and they know it.

    https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/05/14/xerox-says-old-apple-legend-misses-the-point.aspx
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/10/steve-jobs-xerox-parc.html
    http://obamapacman.com/2010/03/myth-copyright-theft-apple-stole-gui-from-xerox-parc-alto/
    And gosh look at that, we pretty much agree, except for that it was Xerox ponying up the cash. Jobs just gave them an opportunity to give it to him pre-IPO.
    Google stole something according to the courts. I said so myself. Fact. Apple according to the the courts at that time did not even if Xerox says they did. I said so myself, fact. There are ethical questions about both beyond the legal considerations. You too admit there are some ethical considerations since you forming arguments that might explain it away.  Huh, same thing I said. The two are not equivalent situations. Also a fact which I too claimed. More than once. 

    The reason I think  it seems to have bothered you so much is you missed the reason I raised Xerox/Apple to begin with. Go to the first mention and see that it's in response to a point Auxio was making about always doing the right thing even if it's not against the law. Google could easily have been legally absolved of IP theft altogether, and for most of the Oracle claims they were. But Google would still have done the wrong thing. And did. 
    edited March 2018
  • Reply 166 of 189
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member

    gatorguy said:
    auxio said:
    auxio said:
    bkkcanuck said:
    I disagree with the Federal Court.  

    API is just the interface (e.g. add(operand1, operand2) - i.e. no implementation to that - and implementation is basically 99%+ of the code).

    Being able to use an API for compatibility purposes is no different than for example Open Office being able to implement the file format for Word.  The need for competition outweighs the argument as an API protected IP.   Google's implementation uses the API (common) and then the implementation code which is probably more than 99% of the code base.  As long as Google did not copy the code itself the API itself should be fair use.  Languages and APIs should not be able to be protected as API.  

    The court has already previously ruled that you cannot protect interfaces for hardware for the purposes of locking out the competition on things like printer cartridges etc.  An API is not much different than the software equivalent.  

    However, even if you are diehard Google hater - it's not clear whether copyrighting Apis ist a good idea.
    I don't think it is.  However, I also don't think that someone who knowingly and willingly tries to find a way around a technology licensing agreement for tremendous profit should go unpunished.
    Well if you think they shouldn't be copyrightable then you can't object to Google suing them.

    I think it's also important to put the work that goes into Apis into perspective. Yes they take creativity. But they are not usually created out fo thin air. The Java API is influenced by countless Apis before it such as C and C++. 

    Oracle itself has benefited from standing on the shoulder of Giants. I am not aware that they pay IBM for the SQL syntax (admittedly a language rather than API but clearly groundbreaking and which changed the database industry). All the companies that use Hadoop based their work on the original Google 2005 MapReduce paper that outlines MR and GFS (both of which Hadoop implements).

    Oracle stands out for being incredible litigious and greedy. We will see who will win the next round in this particular fight.
    Forget the world of business and who owns what company.  I just have one simple question: do you think what Andy Rubin and company did with Java is right?

    In regard to those cases you state, if there are clear cases of licensing infringement (or clear intentional loophole exploitation) there, then I think Oracle should be made to pay.  The same way I think that Google should pay for what was done with Java.  Regardless of the fact that Java is now open source to anyone, at the time, the intent of Sun was to allow open source usage of Java in educational/non-profit situations, but you had to take a license if it was bundled in a commercial product.  Which was pretty standard for the time -- Qt used this model as well.
    Business decisions are not dependent on morality as a general rule. So yes let's forget who owns the company.

    There's been lots of questionable moves over the years, the highest profile example off the top of my head being Apple's use of Xerox IP and "hard work" design. While it didn't turn out to be found illegal the argument could be made it just wasn't right, that the intent to take it without recompense was there.  Yeah some money changed hands but not for the usage that Apple put it to IIRC.  After all the court filings from Xerox were over with it wasn't actually illegal tho, even if it might not have been "right" in the view of some folks. 
    https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xerox-sues-apple-computer-over-macintosh-copyright.html
    Are there similarities here?

    Must be so upsetting for you to find your employer steals IP and now has to pay for it. Why else would you be trying to drag Apple into this mess to somehow imply they do similar things?
    Ah I knew you couldn't resist and come along with an ad-hom or three. Seeing as you ran away from our last try at an intelligent discussion I don't expect this one to turn out any differently if I were to try to have another now. 
     https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/comment/3044608/#Comment_3044608
    You do realize that you constant whataboutism ("But Apple! But Oracle!") is also a form of ad hominem fallacy, right? How many times must we post this link....here ya go:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
    Like he's the only one guilty of it. 
  • Reply 168 of 189
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,306member
    bkkcanuck said:
    IMO it still doesn't mean they were right in not giving Sun Micro at least something, even if it might have been legal not to. If nothing else it would have saved a whole lotta time in the courtroom now, not that they probably anticipated a Larry Ellison buying the company and going after them years later.
  • Reply 169 of 189
    bkkcanuckbkkcanuck Posts: 854member
    gatorguy said:
    bkkcanuck said:
    IMO it still doesn't mean they were right in not giving Sun Micro at least something, even if it might have been legal not to. If nothing else it would have saved a whole lotta time in the courtroom now, not that they probably anticipated a Larry Ellison buying the company and going after them years later.
    Morality (being right) and being legal are not the same -- you have to look no farther than the way Oracle treats it's database customers -- with what is often called aggressive - but I would call bordering on a version of entrapping (not in the legal definition - as a criminal offense) and extortion to drive up license revenues.  Oracle buying Sun was a sad day -- but then it has not been a great acquisition for Oracle either -- so I guess they figure they have to try and make back their entire acquisition cost (and more) in one lawsuit... sort of like a patent troll would :open_mouth: 

    I am more worried about the precedent this sets - than Google having to dig up some change out of their sofa seat cushions.  
  • Reply 170 of 189
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,988member
    davidw said:
    melgross said:
    I recently read that the court is expressing extreme skepticism over Oracle’s valuation of Java. It’s very likely that if Google does lose this, the amount of money involved will be far less that what Oracle is demanding.
    Yes, to GatorGuy’s credit he stated early in this thread, damages are, well, damages.  The courts attempt to ascertain how, and by how much, the defendant damaged the plaintive.  

    Let’s make up an example.  I keep a leased backhoe for a few extra weeks and upon retiring it late refuse to pay the extra time on the lease.  In addition, I clogged the thing up with sand causing $50k of damage to it.  You, the construction company who leased it to me, sue me and win the case.  What do I owe you?  Wait, before answering, just know that during those few extra weeks I had your backhoe I dug up an old wreck down at the beach and recovered $700 million in gold.  
    Not quite the correct analogy. In your case, the backhoe did not add any value to the gold you dug up with it. The gold would still be worth $700M if you had used someone else backhoe or a shovel. Therefore, the person you leased the backhoe from would not be entitled to any of the $700M. They would only be entitled for the repair cost and lost of use. Unless there was a contract that you would share a percentage of any treasure you find with it, in exchange for a lower lease fee.

    With Java and Android, using Java added immense value to Android. Android would not be as valuable today, if Google didn't use Java from the beginning. There was licensing requirements in place, depending on how Java is to be used and Google knew it but chose to ignore paying for one. One can argue that maybe if Google had started from scratch when developing Android, Android might still be where it is today and therefore Java did not add as much value to Android as some are thinking. But that is just conjecture and not up for consideration when determining damages.

    The damages Google should have to pay should be large enough to punish them so that they'll think twice before doing something like this again, as the fine will outweigh the profits. But it should not be so small that Google would have no problem doing this again, as the profit would outweigh the fine.     

    This remind me of the intermittent windshield wiper patent case where the inventor approached the Big 3 Auto about licensing his invention and the Big 3 Auto refuse to pay for one but used the patent anyways.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns

    Fines are not for the purpose of teaching a company a lesson, or an attempt to show them they shouldn’t do this again. Fines are based on value. Period. What was the wale to Google if Java in Android? That the question. It’s the only question when estimating damages. It’s also a very difficult question.
  • Reply 171 of 189
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,988member

    bkkcanuck said:
    The fact that the EFF says something is not enough reason to believe it. The EFF can be extremist in their views. Sometimes I agree with them, and sometimes I don’t. The EFF is mainly composed of programmers who think that everything should be open to all of them all of the time. Many people don’t agree with that.
    jony0habi000
  • Reply 172 of 189
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,988member

    gatorguy said:
    bkkcanuck said:
    IMO it still doesn't mean they were right in not giving Sun Micro at least something, even if it might have been legal not to. If nothing else it would have saved a whole lotta time in the courtroom now, not that they probably anticipated a Larry Ellison buying the company and going after them years later.
    The guys running Google have always had the attitude about others IP which is that it should always be available to Google for free, no matter what. It’s a very predatory attitude.
    jony0
  • Reply 173 of 189
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,988member

    bkkcanuck said:
    gatorguy said:
    bkkcanuck said:
    IMO it still doesn't mean they were right in not giving Sun Micro at least something, even if it might have been legal not to. If nothing else it would have saved a whole lotta time in the courtroom now, not that they probably anticipated a Larry Ellison buying the company and going after them years later.
    Morality (being right) and being legal are not the same -- you have to look no farther than the way Oracle treats it's database customers -- with what is often called aggressive - but I would call bordering on a version of entrapping (not in the legal definition - as a criminal offense) and extortion to drive up license revenues.  Oracle buying Sun was a sad day -- but then it has not been a great acquisition for Oracle either -- so I guess they figure they have to try and make back their entire acquisition cost (and more) in one lawsuit... sort of like a patent troll would :open_mouth: 

    I am more worried about the precedent this sets - than Google having to dig up some change out of their sofa seat cushions.  
    Sun was about to go under, so it was a good deal for them. Oracle is aggrssive. so what? Lots of companies are aggressive. But as is being said here, there is legality, morality, and I’ll add ethics to that. But what matters is the legal aspects. Morality is slippery. Ethics is somewhat slippery too. But the law is the law.

    as far as I’m concerned, Google is all three - illegal, immoral and unethical in many of their actions. They mirror their. Most successful OEM, Samsung.
    jony0
  • Reply 174 of 189
    melgross said:

    I dont think so. Google clearly understood the value of java. That will be proven on court and the damages will be mindblowing. They will be because of willfull infringment. Basically willfull infringers arent supposed to make a good deal out of the infringment (econimical awarding), the question really is would Android had sucseeded with a new language. Probably not. Hence  the economical aspects belong to Oracle.
    Not true. The courts, and those in the business who testified, as well as the experts gathered by the judge, believed that Oracle’s estimations were way too high. It’s not the valuation of Java per se, that’s being decided here, but what Oracle is saying the use of it, unlicensed by Google, is worth. The problem is that often, there must be fairly hard proof that the entity violating the license DIRECTLY benefitted from that violation. Since Google doesn’t sell Android, or the direct derivatives of it, the question is what the damages should be.

    we saw that in that several year long trial between Apple and Samsung, damages came down to what percentage of The Whole was that particular feature, here and there, that Samsung took from Apple. Damages were based on that. It’s a very old idea of how damages are calculated. I don’t think that it’s proper though. If Samsung didn’t copy Apple in those instances, how many phones would Samsung have sold? It’s very difficult to determine that.

    here, the question is that Android is given away for free. Since Google began “making” phones and tablets under its own name, direct benefits may be able to be shown. But if damages are assumed to be from a percentage of the devices value, what part of that that can be ascribed to Android, since it isn’t sold, but rather, it’s Google’s services that ride on Android, that are sold, or licensed. But since many of those services are available on iOS as well, the issue is even murkier.
    Au contraire. Its more than clear What androids and Googles business model is and how its value should be evaluated. But please stop that Android is free BS. It is not. The value is clear and even if the money Exchangen path is not traditional What is still clear is that the Exchange is information that is used for profiling and advertising. The payer is the same phone user But he just pays this via the other products and Services he buys. And that revenue then ultimately goes to google/Android to pay for the costs and the expected revenue on top of that.

    So the only waynto look at this is to look at how much money is generated via Android advertising. And since phones and tablets are a pretty big thing nowadays it part of total revenue could be quite big. Google has to know this secret to be able to judge how cost and investments are going along.
    edited April 2018
  • Reply 175 of 189
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,988member
    melgross said:

    I dont think so. Google clearly understood the value of java. That will be proven on court and the damages will be mindblowing. They will be because of willfull infringment. Basically willfull infringers arent supposed to make a good deal out of the infringment (econimical awarding), the question really is would Android had sucseeded with a new language. Probably not. Hence  the economical aspects belong to Oracle.
    Not true. The courts, and those in the business who testified, as well as the experts gathered by the judge, believed that Oracle’s estimations were way too high. It’s not the valuation of Java per se, that’s being decided here, but what Oracle is saying the use of it, unlicensed by Google, is worth. The problem is that often, there must be fairly hard proof that the entity violating the license DIRECTLY benefitted from that violation. Since Google doesn’t sell Android, or the direct derivatives of it, the question is what the damages should be.

    we saw that in that several year long trial between Apple and Samsung, damages came down to what percentage of The Whole was that particular feature, here and there, that Samsung took from Apple. Damages were based on that. It’s a very old idea of how damages are calculated. I don’t think that it’s proper though. If Samsung didn’t copy Apple in those instances, how many phones would Samsung have sold? It’s very difficult to determine that.

    here, the question is that Android is given away for free. Since Google began “making” phones and tablets under its own name, direct benefits may be able to be shown. But if damages are assumed to be from a percentage of the devices value, what part of that that can be ascribed to Android, since it isn’t sold, but rather, it’s Google’s services that ride on Android, that are sold, or licensed. But since many of those services are available on iOS as well, the issue is even murkier.
    Au contraire. Its more than clear What androids and Googles business model is and how its value should be evaluated. But please stop that Android is free BS. It is not. The value is clear and even if the money Exchangen path is not traditional What is still clear is that the Exchange is information that is used for profiling and advertising. The payer is the same phone user But he just pays this via the other products and Services he buys. And that revenue then ultimately goes to google/Android to pay for the costs and the expected revenue on top of that.

    So the only waynto look at this is to look at how much money is generated via Android advertising. And since phones and tablets are a pretty big thing nowadays it part of total revenue could be quite big. Google has to know this secret to be able to judge how cost and investments are going along.
    You opinion isn’t the one used by the courts, so stop right there. It doesn’t matter what you think this should be based on, it isn’t. That’s what matters. Android is free. Period! What isn’t, is the use of some of their services. That, some companies pay licensing fees for. But they would pay that even if Google put that into another OS, such as, oh, iOS, which they do.

    before. Asking statements on what should be done, by your own desires, learn about the way it actually is done.
    jony0
  • Reply 176 of 189
    bkkcanuckbkkcanuck Posts: 854member
    melgross said:
    melgross said:

    I dont think so. Google clearly understood the value of java. That will be proven on court and the damages will be mindblowing. They will be because of willfull infringment. Basically willfull infringers arent supposed to make a good deal out of the infringment (econimical awarding), the question really is would Android had sucseeded with a new language. Probably not. Hence  the economical aspects belong to Oracle.
    Not true. The courts, and those in the business who testified, as well as the experts gathered by the judge, believed that Oracle’s estimations were way too high. It’s not the valuation of Java per se, that’s being decided here, but what Oracle is saying the use of it, unlicensed by Google, is worth. The problem is that often, there must be fairly hard proof that the entity violating the license DIRECTLY benefitted from that violation. Since Google doesn’t sell Android, or the direct derivatives of it, the question is what the damages should be.

    we saw that in that several year long trial between Apple and Samsung, damages came down to what percentage of The Whole was that particular feature, here and there, that Samsung took from Apple. Damages were based on that. It’s a very old idea of how damages are calculated. I don’t think that it’s proper though. If Samsung didn’t copy Apple in those instances, how many phones would Samsung have sold? It’s very difficult to determine that.

    here, the question is that Android is given away for free. Since Google began “making” phones and tablets under its own name, direct benefits may be able to be shown. But if damages are assumed to be from a percentage of the devices value, what part of that that can be ascribed to Android, since it isn’t sold, but rather, it’s Google’s services that ride on Android, that are sold, or licensed. But since many of those services are available on iOS as well, the issue is even murkier.
    Au contraire. Its more than clear What androids and Googles business model is and how its value should be evaluated. But please stop that Android is free BS. It is not. The value is clear and even if the money Exchangen path is not traditional What is still clear is that the Exchange is information that is used for profiling and advertising. The payer is the same phone user But he just pays this via the other products and Services he buys. And that revenue then ultimately goes to google/Android to pay for the costs and the expected revenue on top of that.

    So the only waynto look at this is to look at how much money is generated via Android advertising. And since phones and tablets are a pretty big thing nowadays it part of total revenue could be quite big. Google has to know this secret to be able to judge how cost and investments are going along.
    You opinion isn’t the one used by the courts, so stop right there. It doesn’t matter what you think this should be based on, it isn’t. That’s what matters. Android is free. Period! What isn’t, is the use of some of their services. That, some companies pay licensing fees for. But they would pay that even if Google put that into another OS, such as, oh, iOS, which they do.

    before. Asking statements on what should be done, by your own desires, learn about the way it actually is done.
    It is likely also not the last opinion that this case will get.  Google will appeal the case and there are fairly good odds that the case will be picked up by the Supreme Court (but time will tell).  A previous court case that had some similarity a couple decades ago ended in a deadlock - which left a lack of precedence in place.  Regardless, it would be a good time to maybe take the opportunity to invest heavily in the Kotlin native project - so that they have a backup plan in place if the case does not go their way.  I just wish they would take the opportunity to invest in both Rust and Scala native projects.  
  • Reply 177 of 189
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,348member
    melgross said:
    Patents are absolutely needed.
    You got that right.

    The founding fathers saw the vitality of patents to spur markets that they are encoded in the constitution.

    The thing they fought like mad to keep as small and to the point as possible.  People who scoff at patents, period are breathtakingly naive.  I don't think our patent system is perfect, but tossing it completely out would be far worse than the broken mess we have now. 

    Then again talking about how to fix things and then doing so is a lot harder than making bombastic assertions like "kill all patents" or "patents are evil".  
  • Reply 178 of 189

    This is fanboy propaganda in the same way that the article deliberately blurred the distinction between Apis and implementing code.

    Google didn't use the Java API to save time developing Android (they could have easily renamed function names and changed them slightly) but in order to make it easy for third party to develop for the platform. It's not clear why an API developer should own the human capital that stored in form of muscle memory in the heads of thousands of developers if they profited handsomely already from these developers writing code for them.

    Finally, Apple stands on the shoulder of Giants like anyone else. Objective c is based on c and it's standard is heavily influenced by the c library. Swift's library is also obviously based on the countless libraries that came before. This is taken for granted: I have never seen the creators of C go around and Sue anyone I sight for repurpursing their libraries.

    Sure, Google "only steals". I guess that's why these hadoop companies reimplemented MapReduce and the Google file system from the seminal 2005 paper and created Hadoop out of it. That's the reason why kubernetes (developed by Google) has become the container orchestrator of choice. That's why tensor flow is opensourced by google and the tool of choice for deep learning. That's why Node uses the V8 JavaScript engine to develop a huge ecosystem around it. That's why countless academics use syntaxnet (Google too) for creating syntactic parse trees. Etc. Etc.

    Bending your mind like a pretzel to write stuff that fits your anti Google crusade isn't healthy.
    I wonder why the owners of C didn't sue NeXT or Apple over Objective-C?

    Maybe it's because neither NeXT nor Apple stole any code nor violated the licensing of anything.

    Google stole code and violated the GPL in order to screw over Java and take value that it did not own nor had any right to appropriate.  That's been decided after extensive legal review. 

    More importantly, your opinion doesn't matter. Google now faces the potential of having to pay for the work it appropriated in violation of Sun's licensing, to Oracle as the current owner. The fact that you're upset about Google having to pay to license technology it knew it should have paid for from the start makes it pretty clear who is the delusional fanboy here and who is just stating facts in a news article. 
  • Reply 179 of 189
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,988member

    This is fanboy propaganda in the same way that the article deliberately blurred the distinction between Apis and implementing code.

    Google didn't use the Java API to save time developing Android (they could have easily renamed function names and changed them slightly) but in order to make it easy for third party to develop for the platform. It's not clear why an API developer should own the human capital that stored in form of muscle memory in the heads of thousands of developers if they profited handsomely already from these developers writing code for them.

    Finally, Apple stands on the shoulder of Giants like anyone else. Objective c is based on c and it's standard is heavily influenced by the c library. Swift's library is also obviously based on the countless libraries that came before. This is taken for granted: I have never seen the creators of C go around and Sue anyone I sight for repurpursing their libraries.

    Sure, Google "only steals". I guess that's why these hadoop companies reimplemented MapReduce and the Google file system from the seminal 2005 paper and created Hadoop out of it. That's the reason why kubernetes (developed by Google) has become the container orchestrator of choice. That's why tensor flow is opensourced by google and the tool of choice for deep learning. That's why Node uses the V8 JavaScript engine to develop a huge ecosystem around it. That's why countless academics use syntaxnet (Google too) for creating syntactic parse trees. Etc. Etc.

    Bending your mind like a pretzel to write stuff that fits your anti Google crusade isn't healthy.
    I wonder why the owners of C didn't sue NeXT or Apple over Objective-C?

    Maybe it's because neither NeXT nor Apple stole any code nor violated the licensing of anything.

    Google stole code and violated the GPL in order to screw over Java and take value that it did not own nor had any right to appropriate.  That's been decided after extensive legal review. 

    More importantly, your opinion doesn't matter. Google now faces the potential of having to pay for the work it appropriated in violation of Sun's licensing, to Oracle as the current owner. The fact that you're upset about Google having to pay to license technology it knew it should have paid for from the start makes it pretty clear who is the delusional fanboy here and who is just stating facts in a news article. 
    Well, I have to agree with you on this one. We have the emails from Google engineers stating that they needed to take out a license, and that they told their superiors that. We’ve also had, though I forget who it was, a top executive from Google stating that they should be allowed to use the IP of others for free, because Google was an “innovator”, as though those who spent the time developing that IP were not.
    docno42
  • Reply 180 of 189
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,306member
    melgross said:

    This is fanboy propaganda in the same way that the article deliberately blurred the distinction between Apis and implementing code.

    Google didn't use the Java API to save time developing Android (they could have easily renamed function names and changed them slightly) but in order to make it easy for third party to develop for the platform. It's not clear why an API developer should own the human capital that stored in form of muscle memory in the heads of thousands of developers if they profited handsomely already from these developers writing code for them.

    Finally, Apple stands on the shoulder of Giants like anyone else. Objective c is based on c and it's standard is heavily influenced by the c library. Swift's library is also obviously based on the countless libraries that came before. This is taken for granted: I have never seen the creators of C go around and Sue anyone I sight for repurpursing their libraries.

    Sure, Google "only steals". I guess that's why these hadoop companies reimplemented MapReduce and the Google file system from the seminal 2005 paper and created Hadoop out of it. That's the reason why kubernetes (developed by Google) has become the container orchestrator of choice. That's why tensor flow is opensourced by google and the tool of choice for deep learning. That's why Node uses the V8 JavaScript engine to develop a huge ecosystem around it. That's why countless academics use syntaxnet (Google too) for creating syntactic parse trees. Etc. Etc.

    Bending your mind like a pretzel to write stuff that fits your anti Google crusade isn't healthy.
    I wonder why the owners of C didn't sue NeXT or Apple over Objective-C?

    Maybe it's because neither NeXT nor Apple stole any code nor violated the licensing of anything.

    Google stole code and violated the GPL in order to screw over Java and take value that it did not own nor had any right to appropriate.  That's been decided after extensive legal review. 

    More importantly, your opinion doesn't matter. Google now faces the potential of having to pay for the work it appropriated in violation of Sun's licensing, to Oracle as the current owner. The fact that you're upset about Google having to pay to license technology it knew it should have paid for from the start makes it pretty clear who is the delusional fanboy here and who is just stating facts in a news article. 
    Well, I have to agree with you on this one. We have the emails from Google engineers stating that they needed to take out a license, and that they told their superiors that. We’ve also had, though I forget who it was, a top executive from Google stating that they should be allowed to use the IP of others for free, because Google was an “innovator”, as though those who spent the time developing that IP were not.
    I don't recall any Google exec saying they should be able to use any old IP for free because "innovator" or any other reason. I believe you are thinking of something else and mistaken but if you actually have some link to it.... 
    edited April 2018
Sign In or Register to comment.