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

Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 116 posts

Re: Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

#31

Post by zubairq »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #5

This coming from the company that files patents like crazy and gives out t-shirts that say “patent heroes wanted”. Call me cynical but I feel like google is narrowly interested in open innovation when they are at risk for billions in fines, and definitely also supports openness in other ways, but still supports a lot of proprietary and closed source work. There are lots of business reasons to be closed source, but do…

On the one hand I agree that Google saying that we need Open interfaces is correct, but then I also know that most code within Google itself is closed source. Does anyone know if there is an Open Interface to Google Search?

Re: Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

#32

Post by runningmike »

Time for Google to support open innovation for real.

Some Key principles for open innovation

Creating value is not an end but a means for making our world better. You embrace openness when creating value for your customers. You use an OSI approved license when developing software. You use an Creative Commons License to share documentation that has value. You embrace openness as basic value for knowledge sharing and growth. Think of open science, open data, open access, open research. Knowledge and improvements should be beneficial and reachable for everyone. Your organization is inclusive.

Re: Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

#33

Post by AmericanChopper »

gpm wrote: post #11
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #5

This coming from the company that files patents like crazy and gives out t-shirts that say “patent heroes wanted”. Call me cynical but I feel like google is narrowly interested in open innovation when they are at risk for billions in fines, and definitely also supports openness in other ways, but still supports a lot of proprietary and closed source work. There are lots of business reasons to be closed source, but do…

This is coming from a whole lot more than just Google. They are the ones who will lose money in the immediate lawsuit, but we all stand to suffer if Oracle's interpretation of the law is held up. Don't take my word for it, take the word of the entire software community who has weighed in on this to support google in the form of amicus briefs (which I really do encourage you to read). Here is a partial list of other g…

I very strongly support Google’s side of this case. But them claiming to champion open innovation is incredibly condescending and frankly bullshit. They’re pursuing this case exclusively for financial motives (which I don’t think there’s anything wrong with to be clear). But the fact that there’s some public good behind it is just a happy coincidence for their marketing department. They’d just as happily be on Oracle’s side if that made financial sense to them.

Re: Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

#34

Post by teekert »

sitkack wrote: post #26

Google should bring XMPP back to its chat application(s), Openess doesn't stop at API workalikes.

This is the new definition of open. A documented API, probably with no guarantees and many requirements. Is the Nest thermostat really open when you can only write values to it via the cloud? Why not a simple local mqtt solution? I would not call this "open".

Re: Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

#35

Post by rapnie »

bduerst wrote: post #27
rapnie wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In reality not fully open source: > Android's source code does not contain the device drivers, often proprietary, that are needed for certain hardware components. As a result, most Android devices, including Google's own, ship with a combination of free and open source and proprietary software, with the software required for accessing Google services falling into the latter category . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An…

I don't think anyone expects the Android OS to be a collection of entirely open source device drivers. Those proprietary drivers are specific to the myriad of hardware that the OEMs are running the OS on. You can still run Android on any hardware you have the drivers for, or emulate it in a virtual machine.

I agree. I was mostly refering to the last part of the quote where it mentions 'accessing Google services'.

Re: Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

#36

Post by anderskaseorg »

ShorsHammer wrote: post #29
pisky wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has that site been hacked? When I use Chrome's simplified view there is a paragraph injected talking about and linking to live porn.

> http:// no donkey in this race but how sure this is not you and your circumstances rather than the site itself? Living in certain countries my ISP used to inject all sort of nonsense into every unencrypted site they could. Anyone not using tls these days is intentionally exposing their readers to harm, which you seem to be experiencing. Personally I won't view such sites on principle and block them with https-every…

It’s not just them—the described paragraph is in the Google cache (search for xxx).

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RhVEwm...

Re: Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

#38

Post by breakingcups »

chipperyman573 wrote: post #23
ethbro wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This case isn't about Google making or loosing some money, Google being open or not. None of the amici care about that, the supreme court doesn't care about that. Only Google and Oracle care about that. ... I don't think there's much support here for Oracle winning on its claims. But this particular subthread was pointing out the hypocrisy of Google trumpeting "Openness in all cases!" These are two separate and unr…

What's wrong with Android? Isn't it fully open-source? I thought you could compile your own version and flash it onto a bootloader-unlocked phone

Google has systematically moved a lot of apps from AOSP to closed source Play Store equivalents. The AOSP apps are still available, but aren't maintained by Google anymore.

Re: Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

#39

Post by nl »

jborichevskiy wrote: post #9

Google could lead by example here - perhaps by letting people download a reliable, usable copy of the data they're making 70 billion dollars a year from. But they won't even do that. https://beepb00p.xyz/takeout-data-gone.html

The takeout data is the data they have. Complaining about that seems a very strange thing to make into an issue.

Re: Google files opening Supreme Court brief in Oracle v. Google copyright lawsuit

#40

Post by nl »

jborichevskiy wrote: post #17
zozbot234 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That blogpost is complaining that Google isn't keeping around as much data as OP would like. I mean, seriously? Damned if you do, damned if you don't?

Let's be real; it's not like your data is also purged from their predictive models when it's no longer available in Takeout. They'll still be using it for profit. The least they can do is let you download a copy of it.

I'd be surprised if behavioural data over a two years old is useful for any predictive models, and I expect they would remove it from their models to avoid spurious correlations.
Post reply on HN