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

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

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 189 posts

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

#131

Post by jdright »

> Bicks moved on to another e-mail, which he was allowed to put up on the courtroom screens. The message was a note from Andy Rubin to upper management, laying out strategic options for Android. One option was to do a deal with Sun, while a second option to go ahead and use Java without a license, but the company would "make enemies along the way."

If it weren't for the dreaded consequences to the industry, I would love seeing Google losing this. They well deserve with these attitude. But then I remember their enemy is Oracle. Oh my, I will close my eyes and flip a coin...

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

#132

Post by cmdkeen »

dpark wrote: post #66
wfunction wrote: post #59

I'm going to go out on a limb here. While I'm definitely not on Oracle's side for this case, I'm not so sure I agree with the statement that declaring code is not code in general. To me, that's akin to the NSA collecting phone call metadata and then claiming that it's not really a problem because they don't actually have the contents. Except, as we know, with sufficient metadata, you don't even need contents to figur…

> more and more information becomes encoded in the declarations I don't see how this is true at all. We've moved continually toward higher-level APIs. There's a lot more "magic" in String.split than strtok. If your API is so specific that the implementation is entirely implied by the declaration, then all that means is that the implementation itself is trivial, in which case I don't think your API implementation shou…

But it isn't a single function definition it is the whole API. Deciding that you want to pitch your API at a specific level of abstraction and ensuring that level is consistently maintained across a whole language is hard work.

The recent criticisms of ASP.Net Core's API changes or PHP's "interesting" APIs over the years surely demonstrate that writing language APIs is hard.

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

#133

Post by hammock »

allemagne wrote: post #129
mseebach wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Apple had the luxury of being the first to sell smartphones, they could do it in whatever language they wanted. Android could never have tried to do the same thing.

Apple were not the first smartphones. Without even nitpicking on Palm, etc, you're forgetting Blackberry.

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

#134

Post by aries1980 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #119
iwwr wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

OpenJDK was released around the same time Android was announced as imminent, and only a little before Android was released. Google could not have forked OpenJDK for Android at launch without doing a bunch of rework and delaying the launch, because the work they did getting Android ready mostly predates OpenJDK.

According to the Wikipedia, there is a 2-year diff between the two release: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenJDK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28operating_system%29 .

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

#135

Post by crispyambulance »

metafunctor wrote: post #36

Is it Oracle's position that all implementations of the Java APIs (or partial implementations) are illegal, unless it's specifically allowed by Oracle? That sounds ludicrous. What about unit testing libraries, for example?

It is clearly not ludicrous, as this fight has been going on for 6 years now. Oracle believes in it, and of course their well-compensated lawyers believe in it.

What I don't understand is WHY Oracle wants to go through with long legal battle. They make good revenue on their database ecosystem as well as some other products of dubious value (has anyone ever enjoyed Oracle EBS?). They've secured their interests in Java on the serverside, android is not a threat there.

Is this REALLY all about monetizing their purchase of Sun Microsystems? Seems like a round-about way to make money and it certainly carries a lot of risk.

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

#136

Post by aries1980 »

Manishearth wrote: post #130
iwwr wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Into this went their irrational fear of GPL (describing it as 'viral' or 'infectious'). Why irrational? If they used the GPL, a lot more of Android would need to be open source today, yes? Including proprietary hardware things that can't be open sourced?

This is not true. You could link the libraries as normal while maintaining your proprietary code. The GPL only asks you to release the code if a) you mix your proprietary code without separation from the GPL code b) you distribute the software to 3rd party. b) rarely happens if you sell the device as a closed/embedded system.

Also, they could use BSD code as well that comes with a more permissive MIT licence.

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

#137

Post by talideon »

asmithmd1 wrote: post #97
cornholio wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course code declarations are "code" the same way a library listing of book titles is made up of "words". Unique, creative words that cannot be explained by chance or well known to the audience before their creation by the author. Yet, none should be protected by copyright, this is the intention of "is not code".

Your example is a good one because it is established law that book titles can't be copyrighted.

But it can be trademarked. Still, I can't see anybody successfully managing to apply trademark law to APIs in general.

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

#138

Post by curt15 »

Manishearth wrote: post #130
iwwr wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Into this went their irrational fear of GPL (describing it as 'viral' or 'infectious'). Why irrational? If they used the GPL, a lot more of Android would need to be open source today, yes? Including proprietary hardware things that can't be open sourced?

OpenJDK was not pure GPL but rather GPL+classpath exception.

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

#139

Post by curt15 »

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…

What cases codify interoperability as a fair use exception? Wouldn't perfect interoperability have a bigger impact on the commercial value of existing products by making it easier for customers to switch to the drop-in replacement?

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

#140

Post by alecbaldwinlol »

coldcode wrote: post #127

One basic travesty not covered in these comments is that a jury of people who have zero clue what software is or how they work are being asked to judge an entire industry on a topic they can't possibly understand. Sadly in civil cases the concept of a jury of your peers is not a right. In reality a jury of software engineers and the like would make more sense since they at least understand how software is put togethe…

Yes, I completely agree with the above. Litigation is handled poorly, taxation handled poorly (federal and state), identity handled poorly (Social Security Admin), legislation, elections, law enforcement, and these are just the things I can think of...

At every step of the way, something or someone outside of your business can topple your personal life and your company's life just for trying to do business in the USA.

So you either try and deal with it, or go abroad and be labeled as something else entirely

Post reply on HN