minisu1980

Dracarys said:

andrewj5790 said:

sfolax said:

"April Fools" then continues to post links to his own previous articles. DED, you need to relax a little and stop being so defensive on everything.

How many times does this have to be said? No. One. Else. Is. Calling. Out. The. Media. The whole point of DED articles is to defend against what no one else (except the Macalope) will call out as the preposterousness that it is. The whole point of the article is to be defensive, because most normal tech media attacks Apple all the time and builds up these false narratives. 

Except that DED isn't using facts. He's building his own false narratives to fit his own needs. 

The regular media is NOT attacking Apple, they just aren't always shining Apple as being flawless and that rubs DED the wrong way. It's a FACT that Siri is falling behind, it's a FACT that Chromebooks never went after the enterprise market (why would they? What enterprise is going to go for a web browser based OS? It makes no sense at all). 

This article is so self serving that it's not even funny.

gatorguy said:

minisu1980 said:

gatorguy said:

auxio said:

For all of the people who are splitting hairs over whether code was copied or they just created compatible APIs, you're missing the point.

Sun invested hundreds of millions of dollars creating the Java platform and marketing it.  In doing so, it became well known to software developers who created a large ecosystem of server-side and mobile applications for it (not to mention having a ton of experience with it).  Andy Rubin and company come along with Android and realize that they need a good software development environment for it.  As stated in an email exchange between Tim Lindholm and Andy Rubin, they understood well that the only option was Java, but they simply didn't want to pay a licensing fee for it.  So they effectively cloned and owned Java by taking advantage of open-source projects at the time which had special licensing terms for Java.  Thus gaining the benefit of the money invested in Java by Sun in a commercial product (which went on to help Google make a lot of money), but not paying a dime for it.

If you work in the software industry and somehow think it's cool that they found this loophole and exploited it, then I sincerely hope someone does the same to any products you happen to work on.  It's not right and I refuse to use Android because of it.

And if you think that simply because Oracle bought Sun, it gives them a pass, it doesn't.

And if you think Larry Ellison's Oracle suffered any loss because Google didn't pay a license fee to the previous owner...
He didn't. And he doesn't.

He still has his Lotto ticket and might end up paying nothing at all for Sun, even after helping destroy Java thru his company's negligence.

You and your strawman arguments. Google stole. Stealing is illegal. Intentional IP theft is subject to treble damages. What Oracle did or did not pay for Sun has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

All that’s left if to calculate how much google profited by stealing and giving away another’s illegally appropriated IP. Android has the largest marketshare in an very high value industry. If not for Android, then Sun’s platform would likely have almost the same number of devices all paying a licensing fee. Google themselves stated that it was either steal or license the only decent non IOS platform. I hope the penalties are substantial.

Had Oracle not purchased Sun, then “do no evil” company would have steamrolled Sun out of business with the profit made from the theft of their product. Oracle’s purchase and deep pockets simply allowed justice to be served.

Yup Google stole, if not legally as least morally. Bad decision, which Google no doubt thinks too in hindsight. When you can think of a big company that hasn't let us know. 

bigmushroom said:

DanielEran said:

gatorguy said:

Of course you wouldn't want to code around the agreement. You'd code around the patented part of the technology to try and avoid infringing if you don't want to pay the inventor, and I'm sure that's what you've done before if you've been at it very long. No matter how you get there you're building on someone else's hard work while refusing the originator profit for it.

How many times have you seen some good, inventive and hopefully profitable 3rd party feature "copied" in essence by Apple or whoever and integrated into their own software while the person/company with the original idea withers away on the vine? All quite legal as long as the surgery is good.

Your whataboutism and both-sidesing are phony distractions from the fact that:

Google stole significant Java code available under the GPL, then distributed it in violation of that license to make money without paying a licensing fee for Java, without following Suns' licensing rules for Java (stealing control of Sun's platform), and also without respect for the GPL. 

Apple didn't steal code, it didn't steal somebody else's platform, and it didn't violate the GPL just because it might have been convenient for a large company wanting to run things without doing the work to earn or acquire ownership. 

Google also stole content from Yelp, stole content from authors, stole content from news sites, etc and then repressed lawsuits until it achieved monopolistic control over advertising on the web, and everyone just had to agree that it was okay Google scraped their work because they were being given traffic by Google. 

Google also helped its licensees steal clearly patented ideas from iOS, and only escaped there because it was giving away the support of its theft. 

When Apple acquired former Palm talent to build its notification system (which Google had simply ripped off for Android), Android fans accused Apple of taking Google's (unprotected) ideas. But that wasn't true, Google had no ownership, and Apple had been working on it for just as long.

Apple didn't steal code from Android. It didn't steal Unix code, and it worked to make sure its implementation of BSD was legitimate. Apple has had IP disagreements with Nokia, Qualcomm and many others, but those didn't result from Apple deciding to steal their work and just not pay for it because it was a larger company. Further, Apple has shown a willingness to pay the licensing costs of agreements, even when they are not exactly fair. 

Google's culture is all about stealing. It stole its first business model, stole its primary platform, attempted to steal iPhone and iPad, and it steals content with abandon. That's because it's made up largely of Microsoft people, which shared the same steal first, pay later ethos. 

Your consistent, slavish support for Google reflects the same sort of amorality that often takes the shape of hypocrisy as you try to paint Google as perfectly righteous and (at the same time) the rest of the world as "just as criminal." 

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.

gatorguy said:

auxio said:

For all of the people who are splitting hairs over whether code was copied or they just created compatible APIs, you're missing the point.

Sun invested hundreds of millions of dollars creating the Java platform and marketing it.  In doing so, it became well known to software developers who created a large ecosystem of server-side and mobile applications for it (not to mention having a ton of experience with it).  Andy Rubin and company come along with Android and realize that they need a good software development environment for it.  As stated in an email exchange between Tim Lindholm and Andy Rubin, they understood well that the only option was Java, but they simply didn't want to pay a licensing fee for it.  So they effectively cloned and owned Java by taking advantage of open-source projects at the time which had special licensing terms for Java.  Thus gaining the benefit of the money invested in Java by Sun in a commercial product (which went on to help Google make a lot of money), but not paying a dime for it.

If you work in the software industry and somehow think it's cool that they found this loophole and exploited it, then I sincerely hope someone does the same to any products you happen to work on.  It's not right and I refuse to use Android because of it.

And if you think that simply because Oracle bought Sun, it gives them a pass, it doesn't.

And if you think Larry Ellison's Oracle suffered any loss because Google didn't pay a license fee to the previous owner...
He didn't. And he doesn't.

He still has his Lotto ticket and might end up paying nothing at all for Sun, even after helping destroy Java thru his company's negligence.