Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 26th Jul 2011 11:27 UTC
Google And the patent and lawsuit related news just keeps on coming. Sorry. Anywho, this one's a doozy. As we all know, Oracle - led by Larry Elison, who just so happens to be one of Steve Jobs' best friends, but this is of course entirely coincidental - is suing the crap out of Google over the use of Java in Android, claiming not only patent but also copyright infringement. Well, when Sun was still on its own, its CEO, Jonathan Schwarz, publicly and explicitly endorsed Android's use of Java in a blog post - a post that has since been removed by Oracle. But, as we all know, the internet never forgets.
Thread beginning with comment 482277
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Google deserves it
by nicholasj on Tue 26th Jul 2011 17:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Google deserves it"
nicholasj
Member since:
2008-12-10

I'm not completely comfortable with Google's dominance, but there are demonstrable differences in attitude and behaviour between Google and Oracle.

Google appears to fundamentally understand it must continue to earn customer loyalty through furious innovation in order to maintain its market position.

By contrast, it is difficult to point to many concrete innovations in Oracle's core "cash cow" enterprise software products in the last five years - they appear all too willing to do everything possible to lock-in organisations and milk them for annual maintenance revenues.

Most large IT vendors get to the point where much of their growth is by acquisition. Some genuinely acquire strategically useful capabilities and work hard at integrating the acquired technology with their existing products. Others simply 'buy and milk-dry'.

Oracle's recent behaviour is just sleazy. The "redistribution" of RHEL is one OSnews-relevant example - what value were they really adding with a 100% binary compatible clone?

And this - frankly disgusting - patent-license grab is another; with any luck the case will be thrown out. Can you seriously imagine Google acquiring ailing companies to build a patent portfolio simply in order to 'tax' innovative companies? (Nortel was for defensive reasons).

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Google deserves it
by Not2Sure on Tue 26th Jul 2011 18:45 in reply to "RE[3]: Google deserves it"
Not2Sure Member since:
2009-12-07

I'm not completely comfortable with Google's dominance, but there are demonstrable differences in attitude and behaviour between Google and Oracle.

Google appears to fundamentally understand it must continue to earn customer loyalty through furious innovation in order to maintain its market position


Are you referring to furious innovation in Android or you mean in Google products generally? I don't find much innovative about Android, but I'd love to learn more if you think there are aspects to Android that are particularly innovative. They are playing catchup to Apple/RIM pretty quickly, that's for certain. Also Android was an acquisition. Not clear whether it would have succeeded to compete with Apple/RIM without Google's vast resources, reach, and brand but given Rubin's previous commercial successes, it stood a good chance on its own.

And I think generally Google is running out of steam wrt innovative products. Buzz, Wave, Health, Power, Games, Apps, ChromeOS, Latitude, Places. All google product failures, and either dead or soon to be. Apps Marketplace is still alive but I don't know of anyone making alot of money. Are there some other innovative products you had in mind?

Plus is interesting and has a fresh UI but I don't know whether it's very innovative. It's also kind of a ghost town once you get very far away from the "celebrity" early adopters and they had that whole ban-stick snafu last few days, hopefully it was one-time problem. The run-of-the-mill early adopters (like me and people I connect with!) seem to log in 1x or 2x, create a little content and then disappear back to twitter/fb/whatever, but I'm sure my experience is not universal. I think they continue to innovate in search but only to stay ahead of the SEO dorks from poisoning their system. And some of the innovations are downright ghastly, (e.g., personalized search).

They like Oracle have been trying to acquire anything that smells like talent in the past few years, they both have the cash reserves to do it.. (rumors Google offered US $200 million for Color and got turned down, lolz but not sure which will prove to be more laughable, the offer or the rejection).

I'm sure the new(older?) CEO is hoping to turn the dial back a few years and get Google back into "startup" mode. Will be interesting to see how it works out.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Google deserves it
by nicholasj on Wed 27th Jul 2011 11:39 in reply to "RE[4]: Google deserves it"
nicholasj Member since:
2008-12-10

Paradoxically, I believe that list of Google product "failures" points to a healthy Darwinian approach; It's inevitable there will be innovations which don't work, but what matters is how Google deals with them. They tend to be reasonably open about their failures and I respect their lack of spin. No corporate-babble about 'changing directions' - Eric Schmidt has stated they think of themselves as following a "scientific" approach in that they try promising avenues and discard those which don't meet expectations.

I like and use Android, but mainly because of the openness - I think there are certainly incremental innovations (efficient mobile multitasking, interface malleability for different form factors) in the platform, but appreciate the argument they are in some senses reimplementing a user experience pioneered by the iPhone - despite Android development significantly pre-dating the public announcement of the iPhone.

Some recent Google innovations worthy of the name:

- Google Ideas - http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/08/15/google-to-open-google-ideas-... (Perhaps geek hubris, perhaps a legitimate innovation in the provision of aid & philanthropy)

- Google Go - A beautiful language, and bold in terms of what it discards.

- Driverless Cars -
http://www.businessinsider.com/google-driverless-cars-nevada-2011-6

- When you look the uptake of HTML5 technologies, I feel that ChromeOS as a concept isn't yet dead - though I can see them collapsing it into Android at some point

- Continued innovation in Google Apps and Google Docs - we extensively use the productivity suite in our company and find it an extremely good fit.

What marks them out as different is their continued willingness to take risks - Google+ is a bet-the-farm kind of move which is seldom seen from organisations their size. We'll see how it pans out.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Google deserves it
by JAlexoid on Wed 27th Jul 2011 17:13 in reply to "RE[4]: Google deserves it"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I don't find much innovative about Android, but I'd love to learn more if you think there are aspects to Android that are particularly innovative.

Activity framework. You tried to counter by stating that UIML templates did it? When UIML is a XML layout engine and activities aren't.
http://developer.android.com/intl/de/guide/topics/fundamentals/acti...

What platform had a properly working back button? (So that pressing back would return you to the middle of another application with data filled in an you are ready to continue)

And I think generally Google is running out of steam wrt innovative products. Buzz, Wave, Health, Power, Games, Apps, ChromeOS, Latitude, Places. All google product failures, and either dead or soon to be.

That just points that they are still maintaining startup mentality. Aren't you supposed to be a startup guy?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Google deserves it
by tomcat on Wed 27th Jul 2011 00:31 in reply to "RE[3]: Google deserves it"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Google appears to fundamentally understand it must continue to earn customer loyalty through furious innovation in order to maintain its market position.


No, Google simply ignores techology licenses which it finds inconvenient and uses them, anyway. That isn't "innovation". That's intellectual property infringement.

Reply Parent Score: 2