IMHO, Google has stolen a very tiny piece of Java that Google thought to be free (some judges agreed with this opinion). At the time of Sun, $100M was really excessive. I think this case should be the opportunity to fix a very very small punishment so that companies stop these frivolous litigations.
Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
101–110 of 643 posts
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#102I think the part that gets lost in all of this is that Sun offered to license Java to Google previously for $100M. [1] Google turned that down and bypassed Sun because they didn't want to pay (or license). At the time, Sun was happy to see Java being used by Google, even without the license. Still, Google knew exactly what they were doing. [2] My point is, they did this to themselves and they knew what they were poss…
But the thing is Google didn't use the Oracle Java engine. They implemented their own runtime environment that's mostly API compatible with Java (and getting further from that as the years go on). This gets into really critical concerns around APIs. If commercial product A sucks and I'm in a shop where we made our own drop in replacement that implement's A's APIs .. then we open source that drop-in replacement and pu…
> reverse engineering
That is certainly an issue if you reverse engineer anything. Google went out of their way to NOT reverse engineer it.
The issue is can a public API be copyrighted. That is the scary issue.
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Android arguably saved Java by making it much more relevant than it otherwise would have been.
I’m don't agree with that, the big reason why what Google did was so vexing was the timing. Java was just starting to get revitalized after a long period of stagnation. Java 7 was a big deal and for a long time Android devs were limited to a weird amalgamation of Java 6 and a few Java 7 features. Then Java 8 came with lots of great Stream goodies (and a lot more) while Android devs are still forced do to make due wit…
> Java was just starting to get revitalized after a long period of stagnation. Java 7 was a big deal and for a long time Android devs were limited to a weird amalgamation of Java 6 and a few Java 7 features.
Counterclaim: If it were not such a big legal hazzle, it would have been a lot more easy for Google to update to new Java versions fast on Android.
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Java was literally dying before Google released Android. It was just something you did if you were in university or working on a legacy system. Everyone was moving to Ruby, JavaScript, and C#.
I don't think so: https://trends.google.pl/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fm%2F02... From that you see that interest in Java is slowly declining since 2004, release of Android didn't even move it up a bit.
Look again. The downward trend of Java was arrested and it stayed on a plateau when Android began becoming popular; then come 2015 they both came down together.
If we're using Google Trends as a proxy for what happened, then I'd say there's some truth to Android saving Java from its decline.
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#105I’m not sure if I have the timeline correct but I thought Java was owned by Sun Microsystems at the time when they made these decisions. I’m sure they rightly assumed Sun Microsystems would never do this. It is sad to see what Oracle is doing with Sun Microsystem’s creation.
> they rightly assumed Sun Microsystems would never do this
Interestingly, the article includes a quote from a Sun Microsystems co-founder who agrees with Oracle's stance on this:
> Among Oracle’s supporters in the case is Sun co-founder Scott McNealy, who said Java was created to be a platform-neutral system where programmers could “write once, run anywhere.”
> Java “is the foundation upon which our digital world is built,” McNealy said in a filing with the court. “Google stole that foundation, used it to build Android, and destroyed Oracle’s market in the process.”
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't use the expression "contributing back" on a platform that Google rules with an iron fist. Not only is their draconian licensing contract kept secret, for fear that consumers might realize the sort of behavior Google is up to, but now Google is explicitly implementing block screens for installing the app store on an Android device that isn't adequately under Google's thumb. This isn't the behavior of a co…
All irrelevant. If I check out an open source project, expand it significantly, fix tons of bugs, increase performance, and commit the changes upstream, I have contributed back. The fact that I have built another product on top of that isn't 100% open source does not nullify the huge contributions of the former. Chrome isn't open source. Chromium is. Chromium contains V8. V8 alone launched the huge nodejs community.…
People in glass houses (or Google offices) should not throw stones. Also, I have a much longer history of criticizing Apple than Google, and give Microsoft significant flak on a regular basis for the way they've managed several aspects of Windows 10... including Mobile. I have no financial investment or implicit bias in any of these companies such as yourself.
I have no problem with proprietary software, I have a problem with proprietary software masquerading as open software and trying to use claims like "fair use" for something tightly controlled with secret arrangements and bullying the industry into compliance.
I would argue Android offers little benefit to the niches you detail, the only reason other Linux flavors don't make more sense is because they're taking advantage of the fact that they have to have Android developers anyways, because of app support. Android is not a good OS for smart devices, most of the bloat it shoves on top of Linux has little benefit to single-purpose hardware. I don't think Google gets to claim credit for the entire smart device market.
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#107What other law stuff is Oracle going to test now? They already know they can clone AWS/GCE API with no repercussions.
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't a bait and switch based on legalities. If Oracle made representations to Google that they didn't mind them using their software, Google would be able to claim that Oracle is estopped from pursuing a claim due to the prior authorization they received. What's being stated here is that Google's infringement improved Oracle's market position - that fact doesn't bar Oracle from pursuing their remedy against inf…
I am not sure you are familiar with the entire case regarding Sun's public approval of Google's Java use. Oracle argued it was the CEO's personal blog, but the CEO definitely did give a form of "green light" depending upon your interpretation. It's a defense I feel like is easy to do against a large company that "should have known better", but would be considered unfair against a smaller company that was essentially…
I'm familiar with the case. The comment isn't out of context; you (and other posters) need to recognize that IP rights are composite rights, like real estate.
In real estate, you can own a plot of land and provide others with permissions associated with the land; maybe they're allowed to walk over a path that runs through your land. That permission is not equivalent to all possible permissions associated with the land - although maybe some ancillary ones are implied in. Maybe people are allowed to bike over the path too, but they certainly aren't allowed to dump broken washing machines there.
Similarly, in IP I can grant you a set of rights related to my product without giving you ALL rights related to my product.
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#109I think the part that gets lost in all of this is that Sun offered to license Java to Google previously for $100M. [1] Google turned that down and bypassed Sun because they didn't want to pay (or license). At the time, Sun was happy to see Java being used by Google, even without the license. Still, Google knew exactly what they were doing. [2] My point is, they did this to themselves and they knew what they were poss…
SUN wasn't very happy about Google using Java without paying anything. IIRC SUN wanted Google to use J2ME and get some modest fees; instead Google decided to reimplement API, pissing off all top guys at SUN who publicly were OK with it (hoping they could negotiate some payment), but internally were boiling.
Re: Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google
#110I think the part that gets lost in all of this is that Sun offered to license Java to Google previously for $100M. [1] Google turned that down and bypassed Sun because they didn't want to pay (or license). At the time, Sun was happy to see Java being used by Google, even without the license. Still, Google knew exactly what they were doing. [2] My point is, they did this to themselves and they knew what they were poss…
Google believed they could implement their own VM and get something cheaper (and/or better) than they would get by licensing one from Sun. That seems like a perfectly legitimate business decision for them to make. A clean-room reimplementation of an existing API had long been thought to be legally clear, going all the way back to Compaq reimplementing the IBM BIOS and starting the "IBM-compatible" competitive ecosystem that our whole industry is built on.