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

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, May 20, 2016, 12:16 PM UTC

mrits wrote: post #111

amelius wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wonder if Oracle devs had any influence when they created the API.

Post by dpark » Fri, May 20, 2016, 12:25 PM UTC

trhway wrote: post #102

dpark wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 in…

Post by abecedarius » Fri, May 20, 2016, 12:32 PM UTC

ddeck wrote: post #98

valleyer wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This also means that Wine, GNUstep, FreeDOS, etc., are illegal, right?

I am far from an expert in these matters, but as I understand it there are fair use exemptions when the purpose of the implementation is for interoperability and compatibility. Given WINE's purpose, they would seem to be on safer ground. I believe this was one of Google's initial arguments, but as the DoJ stated when they weighed in: >"The Android platform uses the Java programming language, but [Google] purposely de…

Post by goldbrick » Fri, May 20, 2016, 12:35 PM UTC

mseebach wrote: post #121

baldfat wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android's success was that its foundations was something the community knew. Java was either #1 or #2 of most popular language and their was a vast mind share that could be utilized. A new language for a new mobile platform would have been disastrous. Could you imagine someone saying her is our phone everyone learn it and make great apps for launch in 6 months?

You mean, like Objective-C was disastrous for the iPhone?

Post by Manishearth » Fri, May 20, 2016, 12:39 PM UTC

iwwr wrote: post #112

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…

If anything, Google's desire to reinvent the world has held them back here. They could have just forked OpenJDK and made their lives easier, in retrospect. Into this went their irrational fear of GPL (describing it as 'viral' or 'infectious'). The fact remains that not even Google can reinvent the world in their image. Building a whole new language at the same time as a legacy-prone ecosystem requires too many moving…