ericthehalfbee

bigmushroom 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.  

So since 2016 the phone Android use openJDK and Chromebook runtime uses Android 7 and hence also openJDK. So the damages case (if the case is not reversed again by supreme Court) will cover usage up to Android 5. 

I doubt the court will see it this way.

It's irrelevant that Google switched. What's relevant is their entire Android platform was launched and gained momentum largely because of stealing Java from Oracle. You can't do something illegal to gain an advantage in the market, and then expect to retain that advantage in perpetuity.

Good. The court made the right decision.

I wonder what people think of Florian Mueller right now? Lots of hate thrown his way over the years and it turns out he was right. Not right like someone flipping a coin and claiming they had some kind of insight, but right in giving very detailed reasons why. And now this court decision aligns pretty closely to what Florian predicted.

On the flip side we have Groklaw, shut down years ago in a cowardly manner, being proven wrong in Oracle vs Google.


On a side note, I see the naysayers out with their typical doom & gloom saying stupid things like:

- So I can now sue anyone who uses a=b(x)?
- This is going to make everything more expensive for consumers as we’ll have countless lawsuits demanding licensing fees from developers.
- Developers are screwed as any API they use will see big companies swoop in and bury them in lawsuits.
- This will destroy open source.

And so on. 

Niels Jørgen Kruse said:

There is no analog audio in Lightning. See https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Apple+Lightning+to+Headphone+Jack+Adapter+Teardown/67562

I still see a lot of confusion over this.

Lightning is 100% digital. There's no pass-through that lets analog audio go through the Lightning port to your headphones. The Lightning headphones have a miniature D/A converter and amplifier built right into the connector. That's why it's physically larger (though not by much). The Lightning to 3.5mm adaptor also has a built-in D/A converter and amplifier. That's why selling it for $9 at the beginning made it such a bargain - it's not a traditional adapter and actually has a lot of tech packed into its connector.

I live nearby and have seen this in the local news. A few things:

Note: I've worked with Transport Canada in the past doing vehicle fire investigations, so have some experience in this and also in the language fire department officials use and what it means.

The iPhone is in the possession of an "independent forensics company" and Apple has indeed not had a chance to examine it yet. If they refuse to hand over the iPhone it's probably because they know it wasn't the cause. If they had determined the iPhone was in fact faulty, then I'm quite sure they would have released that information. For now the cause is "undetermined". I wonder if this company even has the engineering expertise to examine something as complex as an iPhone and even come up with a cause.

When we finished an investigation (which would be very well documented since we know we might not get another chance to examine the vehicle) we never prevented others from looking at it. In fact, at times there might be more than one investigation. I've been at an insurance facility looking at a vehicle when another investigator from a different firm showed up to also do their own investigation. We weren't allowed to talk to each other to avoid influence, but at no time did I ever come across a situation where access would be denied.

This forensics company could allow Apple to send an engineer to examine it in their presence if they wanted. This is also a common practice I've witnessed before when dealing with independent insurance companies. Bottom line: There's absolutely no excuse to prevent Apple from also having a look at this device.

There was also a notebook involved, "it would appear that the phone or charger generated enough heat to ignite the leather chair and notebook and start the fire." This comment was followed up by "The cellphone was on a combustible surface while charging. It was in the area of origin but was not ruled out or determined to be the igniting object or direct cause of the fire,". They like to focus on the first part of the comment while ignoring the clarification made later. I can't find further details on exactly how the notebook was involved, but it's an interesting fact many people are leaving out. Were the iPhone and notebook stacked on top of each other?

Product liability is typically only limited to the value of the product itself. Exceptions to this would include product defects. In the automotive trade a vehicle fire would be paid out by the insurance company. They may (depending on circumstances) ask for a detailed analysis of the fire and if there's a defect (perhaps a precursor to a full recall), then the insurance company may go after the manufacturer for their costs. The majority of the time insurance just pays out the claim for the fire and leaves it at that. That said, if the iPhone did in fact cause the fire, Apple would not be responsible unless it can be proven that there's a known defect with the iPhone that makes them more dangerous than similar products. This will be practically impossible to prove given the very low incidents of fires and the hundreds of millions of iPhones out there.


This will go nowhere for this family. While I feel bad for what happened, they should have had additional insurance coverage to cover their business. Now they're just lashing out trying to shame Apple into helping them out.

The solution is simple.

Start arming the bus drivers.