OSNews

Google is our benevolent overlord. We should just deal with that fact and move on.

benevolent?

I don't think so.

I think you may have confused the company which Steve Jobs actually took the job of CEO at.

I think because of this technicality -- which has been discussed in a few places on the web as this saga has unfolded -- Oracle will lose the suit, or perhaps will be forced to modify it at the least.

I'm certainly no lawyer, and what little legal knowledge I do possess is criminal rather than civil, but I just don't see them having a leg to stand on if they claim Google shipped code they never actually shipped.

I think because of this technicality -- which has been discussed in a few places on the web as this saga has unfolded -- Oracle will lose the suit, or perhaps will be forced to modify it at the least.

I'm certainly no lawyer, and what little legal knowledge I do possess is criminal rather than civil, but I just don't see them having a leg to stand on if they claim Google shipped code they never actually shipped. "

It is more than just a mere technicality ... in order to infringe copyright law one must have distributed infringing copies of a work.

Making copies of the Mona Lisa is not a crime ... one is perfectly at liberty to make as many copies as one wishes. Paint away ... fill your boots.

The copies only become forgeries when one tries to sell them to someone else.

It is more than just a mere technicality ... in order to infringe copyright law one must have distributed infringing copies of a work.

Well, Google is distributing the file in their repositories. However, Oracle made claims specifically that Android devices themselves come with the disputed file yet as far as I know it's not on any of the devices themselves, only in the repositories for purposes of building Android. Thus, Oracle's claim is already false before even going to court.

Oracle could alter their claims instead to mention the distribution of the file through source code repositories, but that would be an entirely different thing altogether and it'd become really hard to prove they've lost any profits due to a file being used only when building Android and not in any actual distributed binaries.

You're using an illegal bit of code to enable your platform to even build and you can't see the problem with that commercial product [it is a commercial platform].

This particular piece of code is not required to build Android. It does look like it's being used in "compatibility" testing.

You're using an illegal bit of code to enable your platform to even build

It's just part of conformance tests, it can be removed and the platform will still build just fine.

and you can't see the problem with that commercial product

As said, the product itself does in no way rely on that piece of code, the piece of code is not distributed along the binaries, and Oracle specifically claims it is. Thus the whole premise for the thing is wrong.

Besides, I never said it's okay to use copyrighted code where it's not allowed. But you're barking up the wrong tree here.

Actually I see no reason you couldn't see copies of the mona lisa as long as you aren't trying to sell them *as* the mona lisa. Similar case here and they never called it java.

Well actually you can copy and distribute copies of Mona Lisa as much as you like(as long as you don't claim it's the original painted by Leonardo). But Mona Lisa never had copyright to even expire...

A test? What do you base this on? Someone has already shown that it is decompiled code from an older version of Java.
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/dxmvr/oracle_google_di...

What are you saying here anyways? That you can decompile copyrighted code and put it on a public server for developers?

This is not looking good for Google.

Edited 2010-10-30 03:46 UTC

This is a civil case. IF it is decompiled code, Oracle would have to show some evidence of damage or demonstrate how Google unfairly benefited from it (well, they don't have to, but it is very relevant).

Just saying, it may be hard to do that if this turns out to be the only significant example they can come up with. If this is the smoking gun, and it was used for no more than testing and never shipped... Well, good luck with that Oracle. All Google really needs is a plausible explanation for why the needed to decompile the code (I.e. Interoperability testing). It may have been wrong, even illegal, for Google to publish it - but if Oracle cant demonstrate harm actually caused this specific action it won't help them much with their case.

Edited 2010-10-30 04:16 UTC

Yes, it is a test and if you compile Android, that code does not get into the distributable. I verified it myself yesterday(build Android from Git and checked).

It is not compiled from a source file and is not copied verbatim, but it looks like it has been created from a decompiled class file.

Yes I find this very interesting aswell, especially since afaik this was about an api declaration, not actual code (as actually doing something rather than declaring). A ruling on whether api's are copyrightable would be very interesting (and perhaps devastating depending on the result). Unfortunately I doubt this case will ever get to a ruling as most likely there will be some out of court deal between Google and Oracle. From what I understand Oracle just wants a piece of the Android pie and are pissed that Google have circumvented their Java licencing by using a compatible non-java VM.

But am I missing something? wasn't there talk about documentation being copied aswell?

I have to ask: Why do so many of you seem to hate Google? In general, Google has been very kind to open source. The Chromium browser and Firefox (largely funded by Google) are two examples. They also decided to give away VP8 for free - we all benefit from that.

This doesn't mean that I approve of everything that Google does. Yes, I wouldn't mind seeing more competition in the search engine wars. And I was VERY annoyed when they started getting cushy with Verizon over the issue of net neutrality. Many people reacted - quite correctly - with anger towards Google over that.

But overall, I have far more trust in Google than I do in patent trolls such as Microsoft, Apple and Oracle, to name a few. Google is not trying to make Linux illegal with patent suits. On the other hand, Microsoft, Apple and Oracle are indeed trying to criminalize the use of open source software.

When Google puts their foot in their mouth (as they did on net neutrality), then by all means vent your rage. But why is it that people are so happy to see that Google is having legal problems over distributing free Java with Android? What has Oracle done for open source lately? Do all of you want to start paying royalties to Oracle when you buy your next cell phone? You hate Google but you love Oracle? Sounds to me like the Stockholm syndrome:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

Know thy enemy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll

I very much hope that Google wins this lawsuit, but the American legal system being the cesspool that it is, I'm not confident.

Edited 2010-10-30 04:41 UTC

This is naive. Google is good to everyone as long as it's good for their business.

The business model of Google is very different from the model of traditional hardware / software companies: Google does not have to sell hardware (hence they stopped doing their own cell phone). They don't have to sell an OS (hence they give it away). However they need that people use their online services. That's why they give away their software (OS, browser, Google Earth, Sketch, ..) or provide free online resources (Gmail, Picasa, Maps, ..). It ties people to their services, gives access to their personal data and online behaviour, generates ad revenue, etc.

The business model of Google is largely dependent on making everything accessible online. And Google does not care much if the legal owner of that data/service approves. As long as that data/service ties more people to Google (providing Google with additional user data), Google is satisfied. And as long as people get useful data and software for free from Google, people are satisfied (and as long as Google provides Android to Motorola, etc. for free, they are satisfied).

That's why Google seems to be the 'good guy'. But: From an Orwellian point of view, Google is a real nightmare. The same way the MS dominance over desktop OS / office software has become a problem, Google is a problem for privacy and the advance of the internet. The only reason why this is not so obvious is because Google acted very carefully so far. But things can get different (e. g. Google's support for censorship in China - it doesn't matter if they later tried to change that - it clearly shows what Google is willing to do for their own benefit).



Patent trolls? I don't believe so. You can dispute the state of patent laws (especially in the US), but: as long as those laws exists, everybody should be allowed to use them.
Google would use patent laws as well if they had to protected their core business.



Microsoft, maybe (big boss Ballmer at least does a PR stunt from time to time when it comes to Linux), but Oracle and Apple? Examples please?

And if you think Google is about openness:
Just go and ask Google to open up their algorithms for searching, ranking, ad serving, ... Or ask them to remove all data they've collected about you.
See?

Just because your interests (Linux I assume) do not collied with / are somehow supported by Google (albeit because of very different motives) does not make Google the 'good guy'.

[DELETED]

Edited 2010-10-30 12:47 UTC

It's not that hard to see Apple legally bashing open source, I think, provided that you have a look on the iOS side of things.

If I remember well, the iOS SDK's EULA specifically includes a clause which specifies that any application using it cannot be distributed outside of the Apple App Store. Redistribution of source is probably a violation of this part of the EULA.

Oracle, on the other hand... They didn't criminalize open source, afaik, they just kill it in a cold-blooded fashion. So for me too source needed.

It's impossible to really know what management at Google considers; except, it is most certainly true, as with all companies today, that profits are paramount. However, this does not mean that these managers do not care about larger social issues that bring companies and individuals into conflict. Looking at the background of the Google's Founders and the companies position with open source, I would say that the Google's culture is biased favorably towards these larger social issues. Open source is arguably anti-capitalist and the fact that any American company gives support to this is remarkable.

Yes, Google sometimes does do questionable things - who doesn't. This does not make them evil. I agree with ozonehole, they are essentially benign. Also, I think Google commands some respect because they compete primarily on the quality of their products and not on legal assaults which are based on dubious law and disingenuous motives.

As far as the products, why is is it that because someone likes the iPhone, for example, they think all other similar devices are crap. Just buy the product you like and leave others alone. You simply DO NOT know what is best for others. The marketplace will sort things out.

You, sir, get it.

Google is, of course, evil. With evil in relation to companies I mean that their goals are entirely the opposite of our (customers) goals. They want to offer us as little as possible for as much money as possible, whereas we want as much as possible for as little money as possible.

However, there are companies out there that who are not just evil because they're companies - they're also evil because they choose to. Apple and Microsoft would do just fine just selling their products to those that want them. They'd make just as many billions. However, it's not enough for them. They willingly choose to perform acts that are clearly evil and anti-consumer - acts that are, in no way, even in the least bit, crucial to their goals of making money.

Google chooses to not to do those acts. Google has a clear privacy policy, open and free for everyone to read. Google provides all the tools and information to cease using their products and take your data with you. They are not trying to force anything on you, and they are not trying to lock you into anything. Heck, the fact that Android phones ship with Bing is proof enough of that.

If you look closely, you'll see that most of the Google hate comes from Apple fanboys, because Google is everything Apple is not, and is still incredibly successful. Google is a huge threat to Apple, and Apple fanboys know it. As such, they hate Google, like they hated Microsoft before that.

It's basic human psychology. People who lack the ability to think for themselves are easily suckered into identifying themselves with groups, identifying themselves in such a way that they BECOME the group. As such, they will react violently towards anything that threatens their group. Just look at John Gruber - he had no issues with Google until Google became a threat to Apple. Nowadays, what used to be a fun and interesting blog on Apple and design-related stuff has become Google Bashing Central.

I feel sad for those people.

They want to offer us as little as possible for as much money as possible, whereas we want as much as possible for as little money as possible.

Google provides a truckload of stuff for free, some of the stuff even being absolutely great. If they only wanted to offer as little as possible they wouldn't be offering all the stuff they are now. Thus, by your very own definition, Google is not evil?

All that stuff is free because if helps Google sell more ads. That is their core business.

Search, Gmail, Google apps & docs, Android, everything else is there so that Google gets more info on you and can target ads better and sell more ads. Simple as that. Not saying there is anything wrong with it, since I happily use many of their products for free, but don't think Google is offering all this stuff for free out of the goodness of their heart.

Or that they feel may threaten their group, even when in fact it doesn't. This is something that you can also see in open source projects, where for many loyalty to the group becomes more important than objectivity. Great observation Thom!

I was just thinking the same thing about Google haters. Seems to be Apple fans. To love Apple you must hate Google.

Sad.

HAHA That is a pretty bold statement. But completely baseless too. I know plenty of people that hate Google because of the privacy concerns and are not Apple users. I know plenty of people in Corporate IT that hate Google because of the way they tried to give them the shaft with their search appliance. Again not Mac users. I also know plenty of Windows MS users that can't stand Google also because of Privacy concerns and the way some of there tools work, or rather don't work.

So don't go creating another stereotype here, we have enough of those already!

For the record I do not hate Google, but think, like you, they probably do questionable things and probably don't respect your privacy, despite what they say. Of course I am not an Apple fanboy. A Mac fan, Yes, but that is not the same thing.

Though your observation about profit-seeking companies being inherently evil is thought-provoking, I disagree pretty strenuously about Apple fandom being the root of anti-Google sentiment. Though it may be true for Gruber, I think you're on the wrong track, there.

I think that most Apple fans have been and continue to be fans of google too. For me, it's kind of like mom and dad are getting a divorce. A tragic situation.

I think the big issue is that most of us are hard-wired for Microsoft to be the bad guy, and people challenging Microsoft to be good. But now with Apple and Google having both become big and powerful and "evil" themselves, people just don't know who to naively believe in anymore. It's even come to the point where people feel a little bit sorry for Microsoft. Those are confusing feelings.

I think the big issue is that tech people are trend-chasing sheep, and tend to get irrational and political about their technological ideology. That includes not being introspective enough about your inner fanboy, and jumping on the bandwagon about the latest powerful behemoth being worse than Hitler.

Don't worry. Once Apple and Google and Facebook become hapless, sclerotic also-rans, and some new upstart whipper-snappers have become the new evil, then we can all move on.

When exactly were profits not paramount for companies? Mabye with the medieval trade guilds, prior to the industrial revolution. If you want to call them companies.

It's easier than getting a refund from Microsoft for the MS Windows license that you are forced to buy with a laptop... BTW, Google does not hide the info that they have collected on you, you can check it and remove things you don't want... I've actually done it a few weeks ago.

On the other hand, Google knows much less about you than Facebook does.

Everything the internet knows about you is stuff you willingly handed over. You can't blame Google or Facebook for knowing things you yourself told them! It's idiotic.

Thom this is something where I can not agree with you, many people have no idea how this works and what really happends.

Poeple do not understand the consequences. Even many of the more technical people don't. It is really hard to imagine what the future will bring.

Just to give you an example:

Google says, when you search on Google Google can, a lot of the times, predict what your next search will be, because Google knows so much about you already.

And that's Google's (or anyone else's) fault, how, exactly?

I don't know where you're from, but it's kind of an American attitude to blame others for one's own stupidity. See for example the truly idiotic lawsuits against companies because there was no warning label stating "Do not put penis on stove*".

* Not drawn from personal experience.

Edited 2010-10-31 14:45 UTC

Oh really? Another baseless stereotype. I live in the US and I do not blame people for my mistakes or stupid misunderstandings.

I don't get why you think it is ok to make these accusations nor do I get why you think it belongs on a technology site.

This is more of a problem with search engines in general than with Google in particular, in my opinion.

You can see it this way : the URL is like the telephone number of a website. On the early web, you remembered it by heart or copied it on some piece paper, and you could use it to access the requested website. A priori, if you didn't know a website, you didn't know its URL and couldn't access it either. Just like electronic telephone number storage is now everywhere, every single modern web browser can bookmark websites and quickly recall them, which is convenient for heavy web users.

Then, at some point, search engines and portals became so powerful that one could discover a website using only some keywords and thematic research. For some time, this was used for its intended purposes : discovering a website, bookmarking it if you like it, forgetting it if you don't like it. But gradually, we've moved towards stopping to use bookmarks and starting to use search engines to find on the web some websites we use daily. A simple example of how far it goes : each time I ask my mother to open Youtube, she opens Google and types "youtube" in the box ! And she's not alone, I see people repeatedly doing that on a daily basis.

There's a problem with that : it gives search engines too much importance. Before, they were just a way of looking for something, but now they are a universal way of accessing something which you already know. We don't access the web anymore, we access a search engine which then guides us to the website you're looking for. That's very worrying, since it means that search engines can control what most people experience as "the web" on the output side, and profile web users on the input side. Such an Internet is the perfect companion of a dictatorship and only waits for the opportunity to be used this way.

I think that people should learn how to be less dependent from the search engines. What's interesting is that in this area, browsers can help or make things worse : when they allow quick search in history like Opera and Firefox, they reduce the dependency on search engines by doing some implicit bookmarking. But when they blur the lines between typing an URL and typing a search request in Google/Bing, like Firefox, Chrome, or IE 9, they make things worse by increasing the feeling that the internet is accessed via a search engine.

If one day my phone network started to allow me to encounter new people using a thesaurus or some keywords, I'd just void my phone contract and go live naked in the jungle as quickly as I can...

Edited 2010-10-31 15:50 UTC

Fail.

Youe post is good, but here it fails. People should do a whole bunch of stuff, but you'll never get them to do it. As such, you need to deal with the reality and design around reality instead of trying to change it.

And I can tell you that most people actually want that to happen for convenience... and people will go to Google because they are the best at it.
If you take it away, people will genuinely be disappointed...

I think it's obvious that most of the hate here comes from those with bias towards Google's competitiors. Hiev and nt_jerkface are microsoft fans, and Macuser... well, take a guess. But this is no different when it comes to Microsoft, Apple hate, much of that comes from people who have bias towards their competitors. Best thing to do is to try and filter out these extremes (although it can be hard, they are usually very vocal) and join the discussion on a more objective level.

Oh and why have I made numerous positive comments about Qt and the iphone? What about my endorsements of FreeBSD? I know more about FreeBSD than 99% of the people here.

Fanboys can't bring themselves to say anything positive about the competition.

Yes I am critical of google, but only because most of you treat that mega advertising corp like your boyfriend.

If you want to get behind a decent company that supports open source then try Nokia. The fact that Google used a non-standard Java for Android instead of Qt speaks volumes. Stop following them, they care more about shareholders than open source.

Well, even with Nokia the open-source world should be careful. After all, they were, along with Apple, one of those who pulled Theora out of the HTML5 spec, with the ridiculous claim that it was proprietary technology.

Big companies can bring a lot to the open-source world, because they have a major and *paid* developer workforce, and some actual influence on the software market. But it's a double-edged blade : a company cares about money before caring about anything else, and as time passes, making money becomes more and more contradictory with doing things right...

Actually Red Hat would be a good company for open source advocates to get behind. I've been surprised by how much R&D they invest into areas that they do not profit directly from.

Google is a massive data mining company that doesn't value privacy. They throw dollars at open source but a lot of it is backhanded like their non-standard Java stack.

How? In theory, maybe, but no one uses it, and MPEG patents still cover what it does. It's a less capable x264 with virtually no installed base. Have some free pus, for the benefit of all.



That's a severe, outrageous and false accusation. All of those companies actually make and sell products with their patent portfolios, and at least Apple only uses theirs defensively (when Nokia tried to charge extra for their comm patents because the iPhone was too successful).



Aaand that completely outdid the last one on all three counts. Microsoft hates open source, but their legal threats against it have been vacuous and impotent, more marketing FUD than anything of substance. The accusation against Apple and Oracle is pulled out of thin air. They work in proprietary and dabble in open source, and they keep patent pools because there's no other option. That does not make them enemies of the CopyLeft.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btrfs



I don't want to use an unlicensed, hatcheted-up Java VM to run apps when I buy my next cell phone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

Google built their app platform on a thinly veiled copy of Sun's technology. Sun didn't seem to care, but now Oracle owns that technology, and they do care. So Google thought they got away with it, but they didn't. Oops.

Please, do not say things like that when I'm ill... My throat hurts now...

Remember Apple vs Microsoft in the early Windows day ? Apple vs HTC ? Apple suing schools and supermarkets because their logo vaguely looks like the fruit ?

The company has a long history of entertaining us geeks with the most absurd lawsuits out there. When they sue someone about a patent that's not plain ridiculous, it's generally that they bought it from somebody else in a patent-trollesque fashion (e.g. multitouch screen, Xerox's patents, ...)


Microsoft vs. Motorola ?


See other comment above.


Good one, indeed

Edited 2010-10-31 06:26 UTC

Isn't that statement a little inaccurate?

Nokia's original complaint can be found here:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/102209nokiapplecom...

Check points 4. through to 6. in particular. Nokia appears to have offered Apple opportunities to pay licensing fees under F/RAND conditions yet for some reason Apple has refused.

All I read on various sites is that Nokia did not offer to license under F/RAND conditions hence Apple's refusal to pay. If that wasn't the case though, Nokia's complaint would get chucked out straight away so it would be pretty pointless filing the complaint in the first place.

So is there any proper evidence anywhere to support the accusation that Nokia is trying to charge Apple extra? There seem to be lots of similar accusations bandied about with no real evidence behind them.

How? In theory, maybe, but no one uses it, "

Webm is embedded within Firefox, Opera, Google Chrome and and it will work with IE9 if the user installs a codec. For the first two browsers named, WebM and Theora are the only video codecs installed, they do not ship with a h.264 codec at all.

YouTube has encoded over a million of their most popular videos in WebM format.

Adobe are working on a Flash plugin that will work with WebM as well as h.264 and h.263.

All things taken into consideration, WebM has better support than H.264.



Actually, On2 patents, owned now by Google, cover what it does.



You have no support for either claim. Both are at best highly dubious, the latter is provably wrong (certainly Firefox + Chrome + Opera is approaching 50% installed base of browsers).

The strange thing is ... why is anybody barracking against, and spreading false statements about, the free and open code that will benefit people the most?

BTW, you are aware that in order for a codec to be acceptable as a web standard, it must be royalty free for everyone?

http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/

Edited 2010-10-31 09:42 UTC

I don't think so ...

http://blog.webmproject.org/2010/10/demo-of-webm-running-on-ti-omap...

http://blog.webmproject.org/2010/10/vp8-codec-sdk-aylesbury-release...

Something's puzzling me on this TI video : is it mandatory to put a copyright notice when embedding parts of Big Buck Bunny on a media ?

I don't think so, but their lawyers are probably used to doing so. :-)

You could also look at it from the other side, the project does have copyright on it. It might be a liberal license, but they do own the copyright.

indeed that piece of code could have its origin in the Apache Geronimo project.

pica