bkkcanuck

Soli said:

cropr said:

The moment we can no longer run an Intel based linux server in a VM on a Mac at a decent speed, will be the day that my company stops using Macs as development machines.  This is an absolute showstopper.  If we don't have this functionality locally on a development machine, all my developers will move to Intel machines with Linux (e.g. Dell XPS).

I have to assume that Intel-based Linux VMs on Macs are statistically insignificant to Apple.

 ) The only people that will have to have an idea of the different internals will be those running VMs.

kpom said:

Interesting. I didn’t expect that so soon. Windows on ARM emulates 32-bit x86 but not x64. With Apple’s push on 64-bit I wonder if they plan to emulate x64. 

melgross said:

techrules said:

This ruling is a lot bigger then this situation. If APIs can now be copyrighted the entire industry will change dramatically. We have copied APIs for decades and it is vital for the tech world we have today. Heck, Oracle themselves abuse this ruling and re-use APIs.

This is a complex question. No side on this issue is completely correct. The concept that API’s should be available to everyone comes from the legal issue of access. In other words, company A needs to allow access to company B for the purpose of integrating their work into the work of A, when that itself is legally posssible.

so an OS company needs to allow access to developers for the purpose of writing software for their OS. That makes a lot of sense. We also saw Microsoft abuse that in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s after Windows 3.1 came out, by keeping “secret: apl’s For their own software, mostly Office, while denying the necessary apli’s to their competitions for the purpose of hooking their software in properly. The court struck what Microsoft was doing Dow.

interestingly, the court didn’t make it clear as to whether Microsoft needed to share their secret apli’s with other developers, on,t that they needed to have a Chinese” wall between their systems development, and their client software development.

some developers are getting all out of whack over this decision, and I’m not sure they’re correct in it. If Google did get the license their engineers said they needed to, and used it correctly, they wouldn’t be in this position now. But they didn’t. Instead, they almost gutted Java, and wrote a lot of their own code, giving it their own name. If they had licensed Java, they wouldn’t ha ve been allowed to do that. Microsoft got into the same trouble over that. They did license Java, and then proceeded to come out with Java For Windows - a clear violation of the license. They were sued, and the courts slapped them down.

google seemed to think that if they didn’t take out a license, they could mangle the code any way they wanted to. I predicted when this first came out that in the end, Google would lose this.

as or API’s this case isn’t just about API’s. Those who think it is don’t know the case very well. While appi’s Are an issue, they aren’t the only one. The neglect to take out a license is the main issue.

but I don’t see how the API issue is so much of a problem. What I see is Google appropriating the APIs for their own use is an issue in that they are attempting to substantially reproduce what amounts to an OS. But this isn’t going to affect developers of software to sit on that OS. So while it’s s problem, it isn’t the overriding one that some people think.

gatorguy said:

radarthekat said:

gatorguy said:

radarthekat said:

gatorguy said:

radarthekat said:

gatorguy said:

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 due to Google not licensing Java from the previous owner. It's really not all that different from a patent troll buying up a couple of unused patents for a hundred bucks and then using a claim from one of them to sue Apple for stealing from them for use in Siri or something and demanding $Millions for the harm.

As for "stolen Java" the way that Google used it was more like copying chapter names and then writing the original book that filled the rest of the 1000 pages as I've understood it. If accurate it hardly seems like a stolen product, more like a handful of bolts scooped up. 

What Oracle has done with Java since they bought it (well after Android was on the market) has sent it far downhill in my view. First they started bundling trashy and near impossible to rid ASK malware in with their automatic Java updates to slip it past consumers, then trying to force McAfee subscription virus software on those same consumers by using the same sneaky method, and then Yahoo snatching your browser and who knows what other software packages that many folks didn't even know was being installed too. That they escaped being sued for it is only because of technicalities IMO. It's still despicable conduct.
https://www.infoworld.com/article/2613298/java/java-scam--how-oracle-and-ask-profit-from-sneaky-add-ons.html
https://www.techlicious.com/blog/java-yahoo-browser-search-settings-hijacking/

Even the Oracle Java software as a whole has become more problematic security-wise and far less trustworthy, to the point that a great number of folks won't get anywhere near it given the choice, and professional advice is to rid your computer's of it.

So I don't weep for an Ellison-led Oracle who wants to claim they've lost profit on Java because of Google. They're not seeing the profits they could due to their own uncaring attitude towards it, and destroying it's reputation further with their sneak malware installs seemingly driven by a personal vendetta pursued by Larry Ellison and his Ask search bar and Yahoo browser replacement hoping to cause harm to Google but hurting computer users to do so. He evidently does not care about any collateral damage as long as he gets what he wants.

He paid little for Sun because it wasn't worth much.  He was hoping he could discover hidden gold there and with his $B's it was a only a blip on the financials. Ellison didn't want Sun's Java because he thought he could make it better IMO. He was buying a lotto ticket that could be tossed away without much loss if it didn't pan out. 

The most interesting, and telling, part of your comment was this bit:

”It's still despicable conduct.”

i moted that you reserve that sentiment for Oracle but don’t apply it to Google, which willfully stole technology from Oracle and the whole damn interface and user interaction
model from Apple.  What would Google need to do to earn a despicable badge?  Mine people for data to sell to advertisers?  Would that do it?

You've not ever seen me call Google out for lying? You don't follow my posts as close as you think you do then. I have. 

..and if Google mined people for your personal data to sell to ANYONE I'd call that out as despicable too. They don't so you're arguing a moot point. 

Your putting words in my mouth.  Read it again.  I didn’t say google sold anyone’s personal data.  I inferred google mines people for data to sell to advertisers.  Data, not personal data.  So my point is not moot and you can’t avoid the obvious answer.  You are duplicitous in your communications here.

Google doesn't sell ANY user data, personal or not AFAIK. Google isn't in the business of selling data like an Experian or TransUnion, they do contract ad placement for both large and small companies (along with other advertising-related services and a few subscription-based services thrown in with misc hardware stuff).  Whatever data they have is kept locked up tight to be used only for assisting with more accurate and therefore more valuable ad placement services or for the benefit of the user themselves for user-facing features. It's not sold. The companies like Apple and P&G and Grannies Korner Kafe are happily covering your entry fee for "free" Google services thru their ad payments to them. 

Really?  You couldn’t just go back and read what I wrote?  I neither said user data nor personal data.  I said data!  Are you deliberately being obtuse?  

Well if it's not personal data or user data then could you tell me WHAT data you claim Google is selling that should be considered "despicable"? I asked earlier after you implied I was being intentionally obtuse in avoiding an answer. Even sent you a direct mention so you wouldn't miss it. It's kinda looking more like it's you deliberately avoiding an answer (notice I didn't need to say obtuse), which seems out of character for you, as was the flyby insult.