Last Active
  • Apple CEO Tim Cook calls for racial equality in light of US shooting deaths

    Let the investigations play out. If the police were guilty of murder, throw them under the jail, then, capital punishment is a good method of stopping murderers. 

    Also, 4 police officers are dead tonight, anyone think we'll hear from Tim Cook on that? 
    Violence promotes violence. We have neither police murdering nor the other way around here in Finland (well extremely rare cases), even if we have violent felons. People respect the police and they are friends of the people and people themselves. And what happened to diplomacy and negotiating?

    Treat others like you want yourself to be treated. What is happening in the US is a spiral down to total anarchy. If people don't trust the police who will they trust. Themselves of course, and their right to use their own hands, if they think they will not get a fair trial. If a felon thinks he will most probably be executed, what has he to loose if he shoots some cops?

    So is the GTA going to be just jailtime after a fair trial or is it going to include murder as well. Chose for yourself...

    Desperate people do desperate things. A good question: Is this the result of upper IQ limit on people on the force and lack of gun control?
  • Google staves off Oracle code copyright claim

    gatorguy said:
    A computer program is not a hamburger.

    You compile, classify, define the interdependencies and the precedence between library functions and the final collection of header files resulting from such an intellectual effort is copyrightable.

    Nothing technically forces you to compile your functions in the file (library/class/whatever...) "java.security". Compile your functions into another header file under a different name and composition. If you don't, then you may be breaching someone else's copyright.
    Did you take the time to read the brief I linked in the previous post? If not you should take 5 minutes to do so and then comment again on why you think API's should be eligible for copyright protection. It's an interesting discussion since the Appeals Court decision was the one that broke with established precedent wasn't it?
    Well, you could read those example cases more specifically and think about why they dont apply here....
  • Google staves off Oracle code copyright claim

    gatorguy said:
    knowitall said:
    Not a good comparison at all, the posix API was create to be open and implemented by all (to make UNIX a stronger and more compatible platform).
    Sun's Java API wasn't open to implement for all from the start, all implementations had to be certified by Sun when used in a commercial product.
    Thats a clear cut difference. 
    By renaming it to Android, Google tried to circumvent the certification, and that's what this case is about.
    ...except that according to some of the best law professors in the US this should never have been reversed in the first place as API's should not be copyright eligible to begin with.

    Here's how Sun's CEO explained API's as they relate to Java:

    "An API is like a restaurant menu. An implementation is the food itself. So two restaurants can offer “hamburgers,” using the same word for two different dishes. The word “hamburger” lets the customer know approximately what they’re getting, it’s a useful shorthand that lets them parse menus that across many different restaurants.

    BUT, an API isn't a restaurant menu, and no you can not copy another restaurants menu and just change the restaurant logo. Its a crime of copyright.... Where do you people read up on copyright / patent law?

    BTW you can create that API in about 1000000 ways to do the same but you couldn' t use the same API calls for the same functionality, The only thing here is that Google needed JAVA programmers and not "Android" programmers that where available directly...
  • EU lays antitrust charges against Google over locking in Android apps and features

    gatorguy said:
    tmay said:
    Here's a significantly more detailed article about the antitrust charges than AI's:


    "The European Commission on Wednesday made new antitrust charges against Google, alleging that the company foisted its search application and the Chrome browser on Android smartphones makers as a condition to license its other apps and services.

    The commission also charged Google with preventing makers from selling devices running variants or “forks” of its Android operating system, and giving financial incentives to both phone makers and mobile network operators if they agree to preinstall Google Search on their devices.

    In its contracts with manufacturers, Google has made the licensing of the Play Store on Android devices conditional on its search application being pre-installed and set as default search service, according to the commission."

    Oddly, since no one actually asked what my thoughts were on all of Google's responses to the Commission's concerns here it is.  

    For the most part I agree with Google on including Google Search as the default on Google Android devices. They're spending significant time, money and resources on an operating system that benefits the OEM's and in return they get their investment back via advertising revenues. That's how Google works, like it or not. It's a time-honored way to support magazines, newspapers and journals that works well for Google too. I've also no issue with Google requiring their other apps to be pre-installed either. Users can set the default to someone else's app whether it be from Microsoft, Facebook or whoever, but it's Google's version of Android so it comes with various Google services. No one has to use 'em, consider it bloatware if you wish.

    Now about not allowing OHA members to develop their own forked Android versions as a condition of joining: I think those old rules already served their purpose. There's little danger that official Google Android won't continue to be the world's most used operating system for the foreseeable future. The ecosystem is mature, there's no lack of features, security issues have largely been dealt with, developers in the Play Store are making money. . .

    There's not much reason for any OEM to roll off on their own and try to develop yet another ecosystem for a relatively small market served by their specific smartphone models. IMHO Google should just drop that stipulation as it no longer serves any particular purpose regarding Android adoption. Google accomplished what they set out to do, ensuring they would not be locked out of the mobile market by a company like Microsoft. Android won, with probably far more success in market adoption than Google (or anyone here) could have imagined in the beginning dating back to 2005.

    So drop that from the OHA agreement. Let OEM's try doing their own if that's what they wish, but not likely that many will try nor succeed IMO. It wouldn't matter anyway as consumers are going to want Google Search, Google Drive, Gmail and a number of other Google services on their phone no matter whose OS is running it if those services are available to them.

    So on those other points I personally think Google is right in their response. On the whole forking thing just retire it and move on, not worth fighting it. 

    So there's my .02
    There are so many problems with that 2 cents that I don't know where to begin. Oracle now brought the big guns to the party by proving how Google operates. It is doing so many illegal thing that this makes MS look like a quireboy.
    tallest skil