Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 189 posts

Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”

#101

Post by _pmf_ »

oneloop wrote: post #3

Oooooo shit. Isn't this phrase horrible? Don't get me wrong, I think suing over checkRange is ludicrous... but doesn't saying "declaring code isn't code" terrible? He comes across as he's trying to avoid the issue by playing with words. Of course declaring code is code. The clue is in the name, "declaring CODE".

> He comes across as he's trying to avoid the issue by playing with words.

The audacity of Google is astonishing. Betting your mobile business on stolen concepts and getting all third party vendors on board despite the imminent legal trouble is quite a feat.

I actually hope for some fallout for Google; anything else would be a travesty.

Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”

#102

Post by trhway »

dpark wrote: post #77
trhway wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>IANAL but it seems like it would set the precedent that you cannot do clean room implementations that are legal. the practice that interfaces are copyrightable seems to has been in place for quite some time. AMD couldn't make Pentium socket compatible CPU. We have LGPL for the same reason. The miracle of IBM compatible BIOS may be attributed only to accidental benevolence of IBM :) Google is on the receiving end rig…

AMD did make Pentium-socket-compatible CPUs. Also, I would imagine that Socket 5/7 were protected with a patent, not copyright.

i forgot about the Socket 5/7. I was referring to the point of their divergence :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices#K5.2C_K...

"The K7 was AMD's seventh-generation x86 processor, making its debut on June 23, 1999, under the brand name Athlon. Unlike previous AMD processors, it could not be used on the same motherboards as Intel's, due to licensing issues surrounding Intel's Slot 1 connector, and instead used a Slot A connector..."

Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”

#103

Post by ctvo »

amelius wrote: post #79
metafunctor wrote: post #36

Is it Oracle's position that all implementations of the Java APIs (or partial implementations) are illegal, unless it's specifically allowed by Oracle? That sounds ludicrous. What about unit testing libraries, for example?

Well, even though I don't like Oracle's standpoint here, I still feel that often the design of an API is much more work than the implementation of it. Implementing something is often just doing "the logical thing", whereas designing an API requires a lot of trial and error, and planning. An API describes in a way the greater design of the system (how things connect together), whereas an implementation is just filling…

Agreed in this particular case the API was much more valuable than the implementation. You can't mean all APIs require more work than implementations though? Implement the class AI with this API: start, stop.

Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”

#104

Post by ricksplat »

Morgawr wrote: post #14
ricksplat wrote: post #2

Page testified for about a half-hour, answering a lightning-fast round of accusatory questions from Oracle attorney Peter Bicks It really irks me that some of these lawyers, aside from having to do their job feel they have to be dicks about it too.

How are they "being dicks"? It's their job, they have to ask questions and find cracks within the legal system to prove their point. That's literally their job, no more, no less.

I would contend that finding cracks doesn't lead to as many successful convictions as people think it does - and probably leads to a great many wrongful ones. Focus should be on the facts. It's also an approach that puts those who are better at concealing these cracks (think sociopaths; Bundy) at an advantage.

Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”

#105

Post by takinola »

negamax wrote: post #93

Can someone elucidate how these trials have access to internal email exchanges?

It's called Discovery. When a company gets sued, the first thing the opposing counsel does is request they provide all communications relevant to the case. Judges tend to frown on non-compliance with such requests (e.g. shredding papers, deleting emails, and other such similar shenanigans) and tend to send people to jail or declare judgements against the offending party. This is one of the reasons why you should be careful about the emails you send using company systems. You may one day have to read it in front of a jury.

Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”

#107

Post by metafunctor »

amelius wrote: post #79
metafunctor wrote: post #36

Is it Oracle's position that all implementations of the Java APIs (or partial implementations) are illegal, unless it's specifically allowed by Oracle? That sounds ludicrous. What about unit testing libraries, for example?

Well, even though I don't like Oracle's standpoint here, I still feel that often the design of an API is much more work than the implementation of it. Implementing something is often just doing "the logical thing", whereas designing an API requires a lot of trial and error, and planning. An API describes in a way the greater design of the system (how things connect together), whereas an implementation is just filling…

I agree that API documents (say, interface code and it's documentation) are works that fall under copyright.

This case is more about fair use. Is Google's usage of the Java APIs fair use, or a copyright infringement?

Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”

#108

Post by Udo »

What's most striking to me is how easily this could have been avoided, everybody knew what liabilities would arise from betting your entire mobile platform on the goodwill of a competitor. With the massively overqualified talent pool Google hoards, they could absolutely have implemented a completely new language, compiler, and VM themselves. I'm sure this alternative must have been at least on the table. Does anyone with insider info know what the reasoning was behind that decision?

Re: CEO Larry Page defends Google on the stand: “Declaring code is not code”

#110

Post by mikekchar »

Udo wrote: post #108

What's most striking to me is how easily this could have been avoided, everybody knew what liabilities would arise from betting your entire mobile platform on the goodwill of a competitor. With the massively overqualified talent pool Google hoards, they could absolutely have implemented a completely new language, compiler, and VM themselves. I'm sure this alternative must have been at least on the table. Does anyone…

I'm not an insider, but I think the decision making is pretty clear: they bought Android (the company). They could have started something from scratch, but they felt they could get to the market faster buying up a company that was already part of the way there.

Android could easily have been built on the GPLed version of Java. But again the reasoning behind the decision of building your own JVM is pretty clear: Android wanted someone to buy their company and felt that the GPL might make the sale difficult. Of course with Google buying, they probably wouldn't have cared, but by the time Google was doing the buying, the decision was already made.

Pretty typical story.

Post reply on HN