bigmushroom

auxio said:

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.  

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 using 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.

d_2 said:

Groundbreaking vs. the standard, IMO, because it sounds a whole lot more educational and engaging than what my kids use their school’s chromebooks for — checking grades, writing a few docs to submit, and reading docs from the teacher or other students — that’s it

Well, you know this is arguably what school is all about: writing lots of essays, reading docs, comments, collaborating on these documents. 

The video poem example is just embarrassing: it demonstrates that the creators of ClassKit had to come up with far-fetched application that takes a ton of work of code and will be used exactly once.

Moreover, ClassKit applications will only work on Apple devices. With all due respect: why would educational content creators want to lock themselves into a platform that is used by a minority of students in the country and that doesn't work at all in the browser and other devices? School need simple but effective tools - not some boutique development framework that seems mainly useful for creating interactive applications for museums - where there are only a few interactive apps which should look glossy and polished and are used by visitors only once.

gatorguy said:

jameskatt2 said:

Apple is the last large company to do this.
Microsoft did this years ago.
Google did this years ago.
There is no escaping Chinese law if you want to do business in China.
Obviously, encrypting your backups helps maintain your privacy even in China.

Microsoft began moving user data under Chinese control last year. Google NEVER has done so, and I would be a bit surprised if they would no matter how much much money they could make there. 

To be fair, this is only possible because Google doesn't have any Chinese users. That is the only defense against these kind of laws. Google is building up some research groups after they mostly left in 2010 - and there were rumors about Play store coming to China. But I don't believe anything will come out of this: China doesn't want Google back as a consumer service.

StrangeDays said:

gatorguy said:

foggyhill said:

optik said:

 I think we’re going to enter the spin zone.
ߤ⦬t;/div>

The one were the Chinese users and Apple have to follow Chinese laws, unless Apple becomes a foreign power, there is nothing else to do here.
And yes, in the US, the government can ask the same, that's why Apple is trying to move away from actually owning those encryption keys even for Icloud storage although they do have to "know" some of the metadata cause well, Apple knows who you are obviously. So, they could match a origin apple ID with a destination one and yet not know or be able to retrieve the content of the message.

It doesn't make Apple evil, immoral or anything of that sort. They're a business. They chase PROFIT! just like other companies do. Corporate declarations, events organized by public relations, statements of principal and the like are all coordinated and crafted to support PROFIT!

Like any other company Apple too will modify policies and procedures if they negatively affect revenues. That's business and why Apple exists: To make the greatest amount of profit they can. "Making the world a better place" is along for the ride and helps Apple market their products, framing their public persona quite nicely in giving buyers a social reason on top of a hardware one for Apple products to be worth a premium. If there comes a time it does not they'll modify as needed. Standing up for customer privacy goes only so far and is not what drives Apple to do what they do. 

While profit is the air corporations breath, it's Apple is not 100% driven by "PROFIT!" alone. They engage in many decisions at the expense of profit, including their industry-leading accessibility and environmental initiatives. Famously Cook told off a shareholder who asked him to focus only on profit:

"Tim Cook Erupts After Shareholder Asks Him To Focus Only On Profit"
http://www.businessinsider.com/tim-cook-versus-a-conservative-think-tank-2014-2

"When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind," he said, "I don't consider the bloody ROI." He said that the same thing [applies] about environmental issues, worker safety, and other areas where Apple is a leader.

....so no, their "making the world a better place" is not just marketing fluff, it's a core value held by the company. It's real, unlike Google's "Don't be evil" weasel words. 

You know, it's uninformed bullshit like this that can get me riled up.

Google left China in early 2010 - they gave up their 30% market share in search in that country and ceded everything to Baidu because they no longer wanted to comply with Chinese censorship laws.

I am not aware that Apple has ever done anything remotely on that scale. The fact that they are not willing to leave China over this issue is proof that it would simply be a cost they are not willing to pay.

I don't have any illusions about companies in general - they cannot afford to be altruistic and I think neither Google nor Apple are. Only sometimes, are there decisions - far in between - where a company makes a principled stand - and Google made one in China which was extremely costly to them and that deserves to be recognized.

zimmie said:

Uh ... is this somehow different from their acquisition of Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion? They later sold it to Lenovo for $2.9 billion, taking a $9.6 billion loss.

Not quite.

- They sold Motorola to Lenovo for 2.9 billion (as you correctly report).
- They also sold the cable modem and set-top box business to Arris for 2.35 billion in 2012.
- Motorola had 3 billion in cash.

So once you factor everything out (plus some tax assets apparently), it appears they lost not more than 3.5 billion on the deal. A nice article is here:

http://bgr.com/2014/02/13/google-motorola-sale-interview-lenovo/

In return, they kept most of Motorola's patents in the end and defused a looming patent war between Motorola and other Android licensees.

So one view is that they paid about 3.5 billion for Motorola patents - which is less than Apple and Microsoft paid when they teamed up to buy Nortel patents for 4.5 billion.

But more importantly, Motorola was about to sue other Android manufacturers (Samsung, HTC). Google appeared to buy Motorola to end that threat because Android was not yet the dominant alternative to iOS. If Motorola would have sued everyone else, it could have disrupted the whole eco-system.

So I don't think Google regrets buying Motorola - it might have been a defensive move (getting more patents, prevent a patent war with other Android OEMs) but it wasn't hugely expensive in the end.