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....
no, I’m not thinking of something else. That was stated.
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....
no, I’m not thinking of something else. That was stated.
Where? When? Any evidence other than Mel remembers it? If no one can find it I'd say it didn't happen. You apparently can't find it, nor can I.
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....
no, I’m not thinking of something else. That was stated.
Where? When? Any evidence other than Mel remembers it? If no one can find it I'd say it didn't happen. You apparently can't find it, nor can I.
I wasn’t looking for it. It wasn’t that I couldn’t find it. I’m not going to try to look for a particular quote, but this article tells you pretty much exactly what I said about this from Google’s point of view. Yes, it’s not a quote, but it’s true, and real. There’s a lot more about this, as well as articles about Google’s intentional whining about other companies lack of transparency in patent applications, while Google is, by far, the worst at that as well.
Come on Gatorguy, you’re not going to respond to my last post?
Sorry. Didn't see it until you poked me.
Based on the timeline (2011) my guess is Business Insider is referring to concern over foundational Novell IP coupled with the essential Nortel patents bought by Microsoft/Apple being used as a wall to stifle competition, lock out certain players such as Google with refusal to license at all which was a rumored goal at the time. Fortunately that never came to pass due to a warning to abstain from doing so from the US government and a written agreement between the involved parties in 2012 not to do so (after Google countered with Moto patents), but if that's what the attorney was expressing concern about and considering the atmosphere in 2011 it seems a valid issue to raise. It was not patents in general but specific massive groups of patents that are foundational in nature being withheld from licensing in order to block competition. 2010-2013 was a wild time with everyone threatening everyone with ridiculous attempts to throttle commerce via IP blockades.
In essence IIRC the argument was made that some types of patents should be subject to compulsory licensing which is exactly what I suspected you were thinking of but missing on the detail. There was no suggestion that patent ownership was to be ignored, or proper recompense should not be made for using them. It's hardly what you originally claimed, that Google said they should be able to use everyone's patents for free because "innovation!". Any suggestion that Google wanted everything and anything for free in that article was supposition and "click-baitery" by the article's author and not anything Google even implied, much less stated. Put in context with the times the actual intent is pretty evident: Don't allow anyone to buy up big patent troves that have historically been fairly licensed and then remove access to them to harm competitors.
FWIW, and not necessarily related to this, but compulsory licensing is beginning to gain some traction in the past couple of years with a small handful of court orders that accomplish just that. Personally I expect to see more of 'em.
Come on Gatorguy, you’re not going to respond to my last post?
Sorry. Didn't see it until you poked me.
Based on the timeline (2011) my guess is Business Insider is referring to concern over foundational Novell IP coupled with the essential Nortel patents bought by Microsoft/Apple being used as a wall to stifle competition, lock out certain players such as Google with refusal to license at all which was a rumored goal at the time. Fortunately that never came to pass due to a warning to abstain from doing so from the US government and a written agreement between the involved parties in 2012 not to do so (after Google countered with Moto patents), but if that's what the attorney was expressing concern about and considering the atmosphere in 2011 it seems a valid issue to raise. It was not patents in general but specific massive groups of patents that are foundational in nature being withheld from licensing in order to block competition. 2010-2013 was a wild time with everyone threatening everyone with ridiculous attempts to throttle commerce via IP blockades.
In essence IIRC the argument was made that some types of patents should be subject to compulsory licensing which is exactly what I suspected you were thinking of but missing on the detail. There was no suggestion that patent ownership was to be ignored, or proper recompense should not be made for using them. It's hardly what you originally claimed, that Google said they should be able to use everyone's patents for free because "innovation!". Any suggestion that Google wanted everything and anything for free in that article was supposition and "click-baitery" by the article's author and not anything Google even implied, much less stated. Put in context with the times the actual intent is pretty evident: Don't allow anyone to buy up big patent troves that have historically been fairly licensed and then remove access to them to harm competitors.
FWIW, and not necessarily related to this, but compulsory licensing is beginning to gain some traction in the past couple of years with a small handful of court orders that accomplish just that. Personally I expect to see more of 'em.
Oh please, you’re again confusing the issues. Google bidder on numerous patent bundles, but was outbid. It shows their desire. And it’s nice that you continually try to defend the indefensible.
The argument Google was making in this latest appeal was pretty thin, since they were relying in part on arguing "interoperability" being a rationale. In actual practice there was limited interoperability. I expected they'd lose this particular court case, but do not expect monetary damages from a follow-up retrial anywhere near the $9B that Ellison would like. He couldn't have expected that level of profit when he bought Sun years after Google introduced Android anyway which is why Sun sold so cheap. So in reality Ellison suffered no loss at all from Google not paying a licensing fee to the previous owner.
I have been in the industry for close to 35 years... and although things have changed -- early on it was always understood generally that languages themselves could not be protected IP -- only the implementation of the compiler.
As far as I am concerned this is a very slippery slope since protecting languages, protecting APIs only leads to death of competition. I have worked on projects that probably contains huge numbers of lines of code (some of it good, much of it bad and duplicated) and protecting a language and protecting an API would only lead to both the compiler being made a violation of IP, but also language translators, and things like Wine, of course, would be illegal since it implements APIs to run Windows Applications on Linux...
I don't have much love for Google - but I am worried about the long-term consequences.
I dont get this kind of logic. If you have an opensource project that isnt comercial it’s probably going to fall under the Copyrightability exception section of the law. If you want to make comercial project and use someones ip, you better get licenses and permissions to do so. Google thought it needed to But then they where so cheap that they didnt want to pay for someones work. It really is one of the biggest ip thefts of the it world. I dont want to pay that some 300k to get all java developer legaly, now that would have really been a ripoff price if they would have gotten away with that deal. But Google was too shortsighted to do the right thing. 9b$ might not be enough if you look at what Android did to the original Java platform...
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.
Dont forget willfull infringment tripples the amount. And remember Android is NOT free. Its used to harvest advertising revenue for the producer (google) and its the absolutely most essential thing google has after its search engine.
Then what purpose does a jury serve? So far both the judge hearing the case in the first trial and then a jury in the second trial case have both ruled Fair Use. Still somewhat confusing what purpose the second trial served. Unless the Fed Circuit got what they had already pre-determined they wanted in a jury finding apparently it wasn't going to be accepted anyway? What an odd and time-wasting system.
Sarcasm? Yes it would be more efficient only to have judge dread style 1 level legalsystem, but I think you are on your own in your desire. The jury is the workhorse, which does the rough work.
Comments
http://www.businessinsider.com/innovation-and-googles-attack-on-the-patent-system-2011-8
Based on the timeline (2011) my guess is Business Insider is referring to concern over foundational Novell IP coupled with the essential Nortel patents bought by Microsoft/Apple being used as a wall to stifle competition, lock out certain players such as Google with refusal to license at all which was a rumored goal at the time. Fortunately that never came to pass due to a warning to abstain from doing so from the US government and a written agreement between the involved parties in 2012 not to do so (after Google countered with Moto patents), but if that's what the attorney was expressing concern about and considering the atmosphere in 2011 it seems a valid issue to raise. It was not patents in general but specific massive groups of patents that are foundational in nature being withheld from licensing in order to block competition. 2010-2013 was a wild time with everyone threatening everyone with ridiculous attempts to throttle commerce via IP blockades.
In essence IIRC the argument was made that some types of patents should be subject to compulsory licensing which is exactly what I suspected you were thinking of but missing on the detail. There was no suggestion that patent ownership was to be ignored, or proper recompense should not be made for using them. It's hardly what you originally claimed, that Google said they should be able to use everyone's patents for free because "innovation!". Any suggestion that Google wanted everything and anything for free in that article was supposition and "click-baitery" by the article's author and not anything Google even implied, much less stated. Put in context with the times the actual intent is pretty evident: Don't allow anyone to buy up big patent troves that have historically been fairly licensed and then remove access to them to harm competitors.
You could have linked instead to the AI article on the subject authored by DED about that same time, which is probably the one you were remembering reading. Even he didn't claim Google wanted everyone's IP for free.
https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/129818/google-complains-of-patent-attacks-upon-android-from-apple-microsoft/p1
FWIW, and not necessarily related to this, but compulsory licensing is beginning to gain some traction in the past couple of years with a small handful of court orders that accomplish just that. Personally I expect to see more of 'em.