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

Apple loses German patent court case

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 53 posts

Re: Apple loses German patent court case

#41

Post by blinkingled »

kgarten wrote: post #23
mtgx wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you mean "not very open", as in not community built, or some other type of extreme openness like that (open close is a scale, it's not black or white). But I'd argue that while Android should remain open source (you can use the source once it's ready), it should be even more "closed", in the sense that Google needs to have a lot more control over what the manufacturers/their partners can do with Android. Why?…

Yes, I was pointing at the community aspect of open-source. Just to get some source dumps after a while does not mean "open-source" to me. Seems people at Hacker News see this differently. Yet, I agree with your comments, in general. Why not split it like they did for Chrome (suggestion in the comment below).

>Yes, I was pointing at the community aspect of open-source

There is a good reason for that. Show me one "community driven" open source project successful in the scale that Android is. Think about it, think about the other community driven SmartPhone OS projects and why they failed. What trade offs Google makes with Android are very fair and necessary - once they get the kernel bits in Korg it will only get better.

Re: Apple loses German patent court case

#42

Post by steevdave »

cooldeal wrote: post #37
Tichy wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still, the OS is open source, even if some of the apps are not. Number of installs is not a relevant metric for open sourceness.

The OP I was replying to said that projects like CM won't be popular if Android wasn't open source. I replied that CM's popularity is a direct result of people committing copyright infringement by providing and downloading non-open source Google apps. Won't cutting that off reduce the popularity of CM? AOSP is open. Android? Probably not so much, since it includes the Play Store and Google Apps in common usage of the…

I'm not so sure that cutting off access to play has as much to do with the popularity as much as vendors "abandoning" their devices.

The only way I can run a "modern" version of Android on my Viewsonic Gtablet is by using CM, and I don't care that I don't have access to google play on it. The Amazon marketplace is free to download and install and the apps work great.

Re: Apple loses German patent court case

#43

Post by sp332 »

kgarten wrote: post #16
neya wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? The last time I checked I was able to download the source code and do something with it on my own. Could you please justify your statement?

For me open source means something else. Maemo was a real open source platform. Android is not: 1. You can download part of the source (part is closed). 2. The source you can download and compile does not run on any phone (without some binaries). 3. Can you please send me the svn link to the newest pre-release version of Android (newer then Jelly Bean)? So as a recap you can download part of the OS as source code. Th…

I think you're probably just using the wrong term. Android does not have an open development model (which is certainly a downside), but they are certainly open-source.

Re: Apple loses German patent court case

#44

Post by tveita »

tobias3 wrote: post #11
scrrr wrote: post #2

> In a separate case being heard in Munich, the court backed Apple's claim that Motorola had infringed its patent on what happened when users scrolled to the end of a page, document or list - a technology known as "overscroll bounce" or "rubber banding". That is also what the Chrome browser does..

I wonder how they plan to win that one, given that there are no software patents in Germany. (Only if software is used in connection with a "technical" invention)

To be clear, Apple already did win that case: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/sep/14/motorola-mo...

Nothing about that makes sense to me, but that's patents for you.

Re: Apple loses German patent court case

#46

Post by w1ntermute »

rimantas wrote: post #35
w1ntermute wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Android uses Open-Source as a marketing term Oh really? https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429

Have you tried that? What have you got? There is some interesting thinking there going on. Apple releases lame maps and everyone goes "Android is superior there", but when you cannot get for the source of this app for android then we get "Maps are not really Android".

The issue with Maps is the data. Open source is about code, not data.

Re: Apple loses German patent court case

#47

Post by motti »

scrrr wrote: post #2

> In a separate case being heard in Munich, the court backed Apple's claim that Motorola had infringed its patent on what happened when users scrolled to the end of a page, document or list - a technology known as "overscroll bounce" or "rubber banding". That is also what the Chrome browser does..

HTC has a variation on this in HTC Sense 4 where lists stretches rather than bounces - i.e. the gaps between the list elements get progressively wider to mimic pulling an elastic band that is fixed on one end. I'm guessing they do that too avoid directly copying Apple's UX. It achieves the same goal of proving a real world effect to subtly indicate to the user they can scroll no further.

Re: Apple loses German patent court case

#48

Post by kgarten »

kondor6c wrote: post #40
kgarten wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me open source means something else. Maemo was a real open source platform. Android is not: 1. You can download part of the source (part is closed). 2. The source you can download and compile does not run on any phone (without some binaries). 3. Can you please send me the svn link to the newest pre-release version of Android (newer then Jelly Bean)? So as a recap you can download part of the OS as source code. Th…

I don't think a downvote is necessary :) It seems as though you're coming down on Android pretty hard. On my laptop I can't get my Broadcom wireless card to work without binaries. I also can't get my NVIDIA graphics card working either. Is that the fault of Debian? Does that make Debian any less open? It's more the fault of the hardware provider. I don't think that Android takes away from Debian at all. I think the o…

Here the problem ... Google partners with handset manufacturers and markets Android as open / open-source. For me the core functionalities of a smart phone are to call smb., mail, maps and installing 3rd party apps. All four are NOT open-source in any definition (3g modem, gmail, google maps and play).

No Debian is not at fault there, yet the debian community does not have direct links and influence on hardware manufacturers.

Imagine a Debian, where the most of it is open source (after some time), yet the core functionalities you use daily are all closed source. Is it still open-source? :)

Re: Apple loses German patent court case

#49

Post by kgarten »

w1ntermute wrote: post #46
rimantas wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried that? What have you got? There is some interesting thinking there going on. Apple releases lame maps and everyone goes "Android is superior there", but when you cannot get for the source of this app for android then we get "Maps are not really Android".

The issue with Maps is the data. Open source is about code, not data.

Yes, then what about the source code for google maps, gmail and google play? Are they open source? Do you get them doing your git checkout?

Re: Apple loses German patent court case

#50

Post by subcultural »

cooldeal wrote: post #15
deelowe wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stand that it is: http://source.android.com/ Some people like to state that gmail, maps, the play store and other proprietary Google bits are not open source and that is true, but those are not android. Those are separate apps. Some like to claim that since Google gives vendors early access to the source, this somehow makes it not open. For those releases, at that specific date in time, maybe so. But, the source is…

Sigh, this whole Android is open or not argument is degenerating into the kind of arguments over 'Copyright infringement vs. Stealing'. Here's one good solution, call the open Android as Androidium(on the lines of Chrome vs. Chromium). Very good article on the openness of Android and to implement the above proposal. http://marketingland.com/what-is-the-one-true-android-and-ho... >Some like to claim that since Google…

> The problem came to fore when Acer got threatened with being cut off early access etc. when they wanted to launch other phones with Alibaba OS (Aliyun) on them. It's sort of a Android fork, but that's legal, but still Acer had to fold under the pressure or force getting cut off from their mobile business. Early access is much more important to OEMs than you make it seem to be and being able to fork is the core tenet of open source.

At first glance it looked like Google was going mental about Acer and Alibaba forking Android, but later on it became clear that their Aliyun OS was to be released with all the Google Apps preinstalled, which of course is not allowed. Hence all the drama at Google. Combine that with the fact that Alibaba is a big company in Asia, which gives Google reasons enough to step up.

> You know what, barely anyone would use CM if they couldn't get access to the Play Store and Google Apps like Map. So they download it illegally from other sources. CM used to provide them but got a warning from Google. So right now they wink-wink-nudge-nudge towards the Play Store.

Same issue here. Not allowed to come with Google Apps preinstalled. But unlike Aliyun, CM is not a competitor in the smartphone OS market. It just provides an alternative to the standard installed Android OS with custom manufacturer skin (Sense, TW, ...) and often bloated apps. Although Google forbids CM to come prepackaged with Gapps, I highly doubt Google would ever go on a crusade against CM for providing links to the Gapps packages floating freely on the net. After all, with a few exceptions, only people owning a genuine Android phone would ever flash CM. Having the ability to still flash Gapps would continue to extend their value as a customer to Google due to ad and Play Store revenue.

It's just Google enforcing their policy concerning the Play Store and Google Apps in the entire Open Source story that is Android. It's actually Google that's wink-wink-nudge-nudge-ing the entire custom rom developer scene. Plenty of ways for Google to DRM their apps to prevent the likes of CM from using them, but they won't.

Post reply on HN