Is there anyone that's not on Oracle's payroll that sides with them on this case?
Microsoft probably wouldn't mind Oracle winning.
They would be the real winners since it would slap both Google and Oracle.
Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle
301–310 of 344 posts
Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The fair use defense is not meant for multi-billion dollar multinational corporations that tried to shirk licensing by violating copyrights. Just because a giant company wants to be paid, and another giant company could afford to pay them, doesn't mean the bill was justified. Huge companies get access to fair use too. It's the flip side of the fact that noncommercial uses are capable of infringing.
>Just because a giant company wants to be paid, and another giant company could afford to pay them, doesn't mean the bill was justified. That's not at all what I was saying. All I was saying is that their usage is very clearly not fair use. That is all.
The problem seems to be that we're stuck with a poor decision earlier down the line -- allowing the idea that an API, rather than an implementation, can be copyrighted -- and now other courts are trying to undo the damage by making sure nobody will ever really succeed in bringing an API-infringement case.
Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe for startups, on the enterprise space I am yet to see any customer move away from Oracle, SQL Server, DB2 and similar.
You should look harder. If you have Oracle experience then brush up on Postgres and cash in because specialization in just that specific migration can probably carry you into retirement.
I also have done some Postgres deployments for a department that didn't want to follow the IT rules regarding Oracle.
I wasn't very impressed.
Specially regarding the programming language for storage procedures, GUI tooling and lack of support for distributed transactions across cluster nodes.
Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle
#304Let's slap a great big IANAL on this before I start: The fair use decision was wrong. It relied on a fundamental misunderstanding of the term transformative where the use of the code was considered rather than merely the implementation. So Oracle has a huge case here. Moreover, practically it doesn't matter. Even if fair use is established in this case, the door has been left wide open to hordes of API copyright trol…
If implementing an interface is against copyright, then every Java program is infringing on Oracle's copyright.
No because the Java license lets you do that.
Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically, instead of innovating, or as the hip kids nowadays say, "pivoting", they just want to make easy money with stupid copyright claims and harmful tactics. I find this strategy extremely toxic and malicious. Google may do a lot of stupid things, and people often make fun of their "don't be evil" motto, but let's be honest, the shit Oracle keeps pulling here over and over is the real definition of evil. It's pu…
>don't be evil Like censoring news articles which portraited a certain presidential candidate in a negative light for cash and goodies promised behind doors? Yeah, it diesn't get more evil than that.
Source?
Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that Florian Mueller is an unbiased source, he was paid by Oracle while the trial was happening
Well if you could point me to an unbiased source trying to argue the other side of this question, then sure. I really want to know both sides of this issue and it's nearly impossible to find someone separating the quintessential geek love for Google and geek hatred for Oracle from the facts of the case other than Mueller. Honestly I'm all for liberalizing copyrights and fair use but it makes me mad to see Google goin…
FWIW here's my attempt, largely written after the appellate court made their ruling: http://www.zerobugsandprogramfaster.net/essays/x-1.html
In their ruling, the appellate court said that Oracle would likely win the fair use argument. Of course, that can change.
Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
* Purpose of the use -- Gogole's use wasn't transformative, in fact it was explicitly the opposite. * Nature of the use -- Google could try to argue that their use was for the public benefit, but since the Android platform exists for business interests it probably shouldn't qualify. * Amount and Substantiality -- Google basically took it all. There's no case here. They took not just the signatures but their semantic…
> At least that's what their lawyer claims. Of course he would, that's his job. How does Android "directly hurt" Oracle?
I can tell you what the lawyers for Oracle claim. I'm not going to do the research to see if their claims are true, though, you'll have to do that.
1) Oracle claims that they had contracts for a lot of "Java in TV" (presumably J2ME) with manufacturers, who later switched to Android.
2) Oracle claims that they had contracts with auto companies for Java in cars, dashboards and such, and those later switched to Android.
3) Oracle claims that Amazon got a discount on Java in the Kindle due to pressure from Android.
4) Oracle claims that they lost and * and as customers. I don't know who those customers are, they were redacted in the appeal.
5) Oracle claims that J2ME (they don't say J2ME specifically) was in ~80% of phones before Android, and Android took that marketshare.
6) Oracle claims hypothetical damages from being prevented from entering the market, because copyright law allows you to claim hypothetical damages.
Those are the Oracle claims.
Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The "next generation" of developers equals SQL engines with "old and bad" I think that what you mean is: - they don't understand the relational model - they don't understand the tradeoffs of ACID vs BASE - they never bothered to actually learn SQL - they *think* that they have "big data" Don't get me wrong - there are compelling use cases for, and decent products for, every class of non-relational database. But the…
To be fair, most of the developers raving about ACID I have met have had trouble naming other valid use cases requiring full ACID besides the "transferring money from an account to other" that nearly every course and school uses. The thing is, most of the applications just don't need that kind of guarantees, if they can at least detect (when using BASE) when something went wrong.
Doing joins?
More seriously, I'd turn the question around. BASE requires you to think hard about a lot of things that ACID gives you for free. The benefits are better performance and scalability. But if you're not certain you need that performance, why go through the extra trouble?
(That said, it also depends of the data model. If you're certain your data is key/value without any relationships and will always be key/value, a key/value store is likely appropriate. If you have something more complex, I don't see it.)
Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle
#309Is there anyone that's not on Oracle's payroll that sides with them on this case?
You aren't going to like the answer to that question, but the appeals court seems to favor Oracle in this case.
They specifically said that Oracle had a strong position, but that they were required to give Google a chance to present full evidence on the fair use issue.
Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Everything that gets linked to GPL has to be GPL.
That's not true. OpenJDK is licensed under the GPL v2 with the Classpath Exception.
FYI, Classpath exception does not remove GPL from OpenJDK, or enable anyone to create a non-GPL JDK. It allows you to create Java programs that are themselves not GPL.