If an OEM is going to licence some stuff from Microsoft for use in Android, that's fine. Let them go ahead, after all Android can be 'extended', being opensource.
The trouble is that Microsoft's FUD is claiming that Android OS *is* is infringing. Let them clarify. Are they saying that the source code as downloaded from Android's website infringes or the additions/modifications to the source code by OEMs make Android devices infringe. All I would like is a clarification, and only a lawsuit can assure this.
with this deal over half of all Android devices are licensing patents from Microsoft.
Why is Google silent in this matter? Now before you mod me down, I know Google have made some inconsequential comments. These have not helped at all.
Dicalimer: I am not a lawyer.
If I were Google, I would file a some lawsuit to 'force' Microsoft to reveal the patents that Android is infringing on, or force Microsoft not to mention the word Android in its licensing propaganda.
My suspicions of what is really going on:
1: Microsoft approaches an Android OEM with a 'sweet deal' relating to Android.
2: Microsoft pays the OEM some cash and a deal is struck that results in the OEM saying no word about the deal, but allows Microsoft to spread FUD.
On major OEMs like Samsung, the deal could be about future android based products that would envisage incorporating Microsoft technology (which actually exists and is interesting).
You wonder why the other party says nothing at all about the licensing. But the major thing about all this is the silence of Google.
What Google could do in addition, is to modify the non GPL portions of Android and add language that specifically prohibits licensees from entering into licensing deals like the ones Microsoft touts if they are going to be party to Microsoft's FUD.
'Functionally complete' as a goal is a good end in itself...but equally important is the fact that it must be a pleasure to use by first being a pleasure to look at.
I haven't looked at the latest version but my memory of earlier ones planted a bias in look and feel that will be hard to erase. On Windows XP, the 'beast' took forever to load and once it did, you wouldn't admire its interface.
An Access-like module actually exists but is very clunky to the extent of being unsealable. These folks should borrow a leaf from Microsoft, where the entire office suite, even with its bugs works 'flawlessly' 99% of the time for 99% of users.
Some of Canada's major incumbent ISPs started getting serious competition from smaller competitors.
That's why I always avoided those big 3 telcos in Canada, though the reason had more to do with inflated bills and sneaky fees. One wonders whether it's some kind of cartel. Is it, do you think?
...Apple appears to be on track to dominate commerce that involves intangible goods, (read ebooks, songs and the like because of its restrictions), while Google and others might dominate the tangible goods 'spectrum'.
Here is the trouble: The growth of camps with Visa tussling it out with MasterCard and the rest.
What the ordinary folk would like to see is a comparison of all these services in tabular form preferably, with a focus on the entire world, not on the USA alone as some reviews have tended to do.
1) Perception: With RIM failing to release a touch screen device at most a few months after the iPhone, they were perceived as a dinosaur in making, especially by the young folks. Google did it with HTC and nobody can say it's been a liability to them.
2) Pride: Whenever one would ask them about the looming competition from iOS & Android, they would quickly dismiss those concerns with statements pointing to their 'solid' financial positions at the time. Little did they acknowledge that it would be a matter of time before iOS and Android started to 'eat their lunch', after-all these platforms were not static when it came to development.
3) Strategic vision, or the lack of it: A competent CEO would have [quietly] used the available Android code at the time to develop a 'mock device' for defensive purposes using internal resources. RIM did not. During times like these, they would simply 'out' a mock Android device and the market would probably play along.
4) Being Canadian: This characteristic is proving to be disadvantageous. The same thing happened to NORTEL, a once successful company in its field. Ever wondered why Canada is the only industrialized company without a car synonymous with it? Heck, even once communist Russia still has Lada.
"...HTC secured some patents from Google (who purchased them originally from Palm Inc., Motorola Inc. and Openwave Systems Inc.) on the 1st of September."
If HTC secured them from Google, how then are these patents Google patents?
A better heading could be:
"HTC acquires patents from Google then employs them to sue Apple."
"...Paul Krill surveys the new capabilities that matter most for Java developers..."
Do these developers include Android developers? Well, that's the question. After all, Java code will run on Android's Dalvik VM without modification, right?
IP rights are granted only to those who create compatible implementations.
==>This is a non starter because Google has never claimed that it implements Java. It only employs the Java language together with its associated compiler. These 2 things are legal.
Google does not need to implement compatible implementations of Java. In fact, it does not. It is not necessary, though it would be good to, ( I hear you).
One does not legally need a license to implement a spec. In the US of A, specs cannot be copyrighted because specifications, binary interfaces of a library are regarded as statements of fact, rather than a creative works. Copyright does not apply to statements of fact. Period. This is Law.
There is one important thing for you to consider, thus: "One of the fundamental tenets of copyright law is that protection extends only to the author's original expression and not to the ideas embodied in that expression. 17 U.S.C. Sec. 102(b) codifies this tenet by denying copyright to ideas, concepts and principles.
So Google or even you, can give a function the same name as one that is found in Java or any other language. You may then use your own logic to code to the spec. With Oracle's logic, they will come after you for patent and copyright infringement.
..."Android applications are written in the Java programming language."...
This is not in dispute at all. They could also be written in C, C++, Python and a number of other languages. There is no legal problem in writing an app in the Java language (read "using Java syntax and semantics").
Second you only get a license for Java if you do a full implementation. Otherwise you don't get one. And if you still go ahead you are in violation of Sun' IP.
Not exactly, this is probably what you meant: -
You only get a license for Java (meaning the VM), if you do a full implementation of the Java VM. Otherwise you don't get one. And if you still go ahead you are in violation of Sun' IP.
Google does not implement the Java VM. Google only uses it to produce bytecode which it then 'translates' to Dalvik bytecode.
I repeat: Google does not implement the Java VM and nothing binds Google to implementing the Java VM afer using the Java language initially, which as mentioned earlier, is legal.
The fact remains that Davlik does not run Java programs properly, it is intentionally incompatible.
Does it have to? Not at all. Dalvik is NOT Java. Not in the least, and Google has never claimed it is. Get the distinction?
The very reason why Java license only allows full implementations of the entire API, so this fragmentation would not happen.
So that means that if I do not want 'full implementation' of Java, I do not need to get a license...or do I? Please tell me. I agree with your assertion in the last sentence about fragmentation though.
Authors of C# never called it Java at all, though it borrows many bits and pieces from Java. Have a look for yourself.
Tell me: Should Oracle sue C# authors over these class names as well?
...Aeryon Labs, a Canadian defense firm, revealed on Tuesday that it had quietly provided the rebel forces with a teeny, tiny surveillance drone, called the Aeryon Scout.
This means the rebel forces got some hardware, right?
Small enough to fit into a backpack, the three-pound, four-rotor robot gave Libyan forces eyes in the sky independent of the Predators...(emphasis mine)
With this, my understanding then shifts to the fact that the Libyan government forces got "eyes in the sky" with this "hardware donation".
And here's why: The Libyan forces up until a few hours ago, referred to Libyan Government forces led by Mr. Gaddafi. Right?
Google did to Java on Phones exactly what we criticized Microsoft for through all those years of Slashdot existence.
Not exactly: -
First, Google made the code open source. Second, Google never proclaimed JavaVM compatibility.
That's a far cry from Microsoft's behaviors.
They took the API, they partially implemented them, then made their own incompatibilities, then took over the market with their incompatible implementation.
While I agree with this, it is not illegal. After all, everything was open source according to SUN.
Oracle says no court has ever found that APIs for software like Java are ineligible for copyright protection.
That's not the issue here. No body ever said APIs for software like Java are ineligible for copyright protection.
There are precedents in matters of law. This could be well be one of them. Oracle should know better.
I even have concerns about Oracle's confusing statements about Java. Java can mean the language, the VM or the libraries associated with it or even the combination of everything I have mentioned.
When Oracle says, "Google Chooses To Base Its Android Platform On Java Without Taking A License", one wonders what they are really talking about. I certainly need no license to use the Java language. Do I?
Much as I loathe Microsoft, I think that their platform is one of the front-runners for developers at the moment. As a developer, I would not touch Microsoft even with a 10 foot pole though, mainly because the platform receives more 'bad press coverage' than good at present.
Poor Nokia suffered the Osborne Effect, whereby sales of current available products plummet after the announcement of un-available 'future' products.
Things have changed a lot! In my little world, Microsoft is of no consequence, and that's a good thing. I will not touch Microsoft products (including NOKIA), as a matter of principal.
...Well, instead of giving us real news, say about what happened or what is likely to happen given current conditions, 'non news' makers go on the line and speculate with questions posing for real stories. I am tired of this.
Please get us some real news. A lot is happening in the tech sector. What's wrong with that?
Slashdot Mirror
Here's my problem.
If an OEM is going to licence some stuff from Microsoft for use in Android, that's fine. Let them go ahead, after all Android can be 'extended', being opensource.
The trouble is that Microsoft's FUD is claiming that Android OS *is* is infringing. Let them clarify. Are they saying that the source code as downloaded from Android's website infringes or the additions/modifications to the source code by OEMs make Android devices infringe. All I would like is a clarification, and only a lawsuit can assure this.
Folks at Pubat claim the patent was rejected.
Why is Google silent in this matter? Now before you mod me down, I know Google have made some inconsequential comments. These have not helped at all.
Dicalimer: I am not a lawyer.
If I were Google, I would file a some lawsuit to 'force' Microsoft to reveal the patents that Android is infringing on, or force Microsoft not to mention the word Android in its licensing propaganda.
My suspicions of what is really going on:
1: Microsoft approaches an Android OEM with a 'sweet deal' relating to Android.
2: Microsoft pays the OEM some cash and a deal is struck that results in the OEM saying no word about the deal, but allows Microsoft to spread FUD.
On major OEMs like Samsung, the deal could be about future android based products that would envisage incorporating Microsoft technology (which actually exists and is interesting).
You wonder why the other party says nothing at all about the licensing. But the major thing about all this is the silence of Google.
What Google could do in addition, is to modify the non GPL portions of Android and add language that specifically prohibits licensees from entering into licensing deals like the ones Microsoft touts if they are going to be party to Microsoft's FUD.
Here's the worry: It might backfire!
'Functionally complete' as a goal is a good end in itself...but equally important is the fact that it must be a pleasure to use by first being a pleasure to look at.
I haven't looked at the latest version but my memory of earlier ones planted a bias in look and feel that will be hard to erase. On Windows XP, the 'beast' took forever to load and once it did, you wouldn't admire its interface.
An Access-like module actually exists but is very clunky to the extent of being unsealable. These folks should borrow a leaf from Microsoft, where the entire office suite, even with its bugs works 'flawlessly' 99% of the time for 99% of users.
"...The company has now defended the policy, stating, oddly, that the Facebook obligation would make sign-up easier."
I guess the questions are:
1: Why not let me the user determine that?"
2: Why not pitch the idea that I might find Facebook signing easier?
The end result will be easier and better for Spotify but guess what, I am gone!
He failed to explain why Google results always came 3rd on product comparisons though.
The entire interview can be watched here .
Doesn't every politician especially from the GOP say that the American Healthcare system and its actual care are the "best" in the world?
By the way, this is despite the fact that various metrics indicate the USA is no where near the top!
Some of Canada's major incumbent ISPs started getting serious competition from smaller competitors.
That's why I always avoided those big 3 telcos in Canada, though the reason had more to do with inflated bills and sneaky fees. One wonders whether it's some kind of cartel. Is it, do you think?
...Apple appears to be on track to dominate commerce that involves intangible goods, (read ebooks, songs and the like because of its restrictions), while Google and others might dominate the tangible goods 'spectrum'.
Here is the trouble: The growth of camps with Visa tussling it out with MasterCard and the rest.
What the ordinary folk would like to see is a comparison of all these services in tabular form preferably, with a focus on the entire world, not on the USA alone as some reviews have tended to do.
For years RIM charged $200 to register as a developer before you could make any apps. Just a few months ago they announced they are "waiving" the fee.
Because at the time, they were the 'only game in town', simple as that.
1) Perception: With RIM failing to release a touch screen device at most a few months after the iPhone, they were perceived as a dinosaur in making, especially by the young folks. Google did it with HTC and nobody can say it's been a liability to them.
2) Pride: Whenever one would ask them about the looming competition from iOS & Android, they would quickly dismiss those concerns with statements pointing to their 'solid' financial positions at the time. Little did they acknowledge that it would be a matter of time before iOS and Android started to 'eat their lunch', after-all these platforms were not static when it came to development.
3) Strategic vision, or the lack of it: A competent CEO would have [quietly] used the available Android code at the time to develop a 'mock device' for defensive purposes using internal resources. RIM did not. During times like these, they would simply 'out' a mock Android device and the market would probably play along.
4) Being Canadian: This characteristic is proving to be disadvantageous. The same thing happened to NORTEL, a once successful company in its field. Ever wondered why Canada is the only industrialized company without a car synonymous with it? Heck, even once communist Russia still has Lada.
"...HTC secured some patents from Google (who purchased them originally from Palm Inc., Motorola Inc. and Openwave Systems Inc.) on the 1st of September."
If HTC secured them from Google, how then are these patents Google patents?
A better heading could be:
"HTC acquires patents from Google then employs them to sue Apple."
How about that?
I am vexed, piqued, annoyed, frustrated, exasperated by Apple's behavior! Who do they think they are?
What can a small man really do to effect [positive] change in Apple's conduct?
"...Paul Krill surveys the new capabilities that matter most for Java developers..."
Do these developers include Android developers? Well, that's the question. After all, Java code will run on Android's Dalvik VM without modification, right?
I do not know how best to say this...
First, from the PDF document you link to:
IP rights are granted only to those who create compatible implementations.
==>This is a non starter because Google has never claimed that it implements Java. It only employs the Java language together with its associated compiler. These 2 things are legal.
Google does not need to implement compatible implementations of Java. In fact, it does not. It is not necessary, though it would be good to, ( I hear you).
One does not legally need a license to implement a spec. In the US of A, specs cannot be copyrighted because specifications, binary interfaces of a library are regarded as statements of fact, rather than a creative works. Copyright does not apply to statements of fact. Period. This is Law.
There is one important thing for you to consider, thus:
"One of the fundamental tenets of copyright law is that protection extends only to the author's original expression and not to the ideas embodied in that expression. 17 U.S.C. Sec. 102(b) codifies this tenet by denying copyright to ideas, concepts and principles.
So Google or even you, can give a function the same name as one that is found in Java or any other language. You may then use your own logic to code to the spec. With Oracle's logic, they will come after you for patent and copyright infringement.
Good luck with that!
..."Android applications are written in the Java programming language."...
This is not in dispute at all. They could also be written in C, C++, Python and a number of other languages. There is no legal problem in writing an app in the Java language (read "using Java syntax and semantics").
Second you only get a license for Java if you do a full implementation. Otherwise you don't get one. And if you still go ahead you are in violation of Sun' IP.
Not exactly, this is probably what you meant: -
You only get a license for Java (meaning the VM), if you do a full implementation of the Java VM. Otherwise you don't get one. And if you still go ahead you are in violation of Sun' IP.
Google does not implement the Java VM. Google only uses it to produce bytecode which it then 'translates' to Dalvik bytecode.
I repeat: Google does not implement the Java VM and nothing binds Google to implementing the Java VM afer using the Java language initially, which as mentioned earlier, is legal.
The fact remains that Davlik does not run Java programs properly, it is intentionally incompatible.
Does it have to? Not at all. Dalvik is NOT Java. Not in the least, and Google has never claimed it is. Get the distinction?
The very reason why Java license only allows full implementations of the entire API, so this fragmentation would not happen.
So that means that if I do not want 'full implementation' of Java, I do not need to get a license...or do I? Please tell me. I agree with your assertion in the last sentence about fragmentation though.
Authors of C# never called it Java at all, though it borrows many bits and pieces from Java. Have a look for yourself.
Tell me: Should Oracle sue C# authors over these class names as well?
...Aeryon Labs, a Canadian defense firm, revealed on Tuesday that it had quietly provided the rebel forces with a teeny, tiny surveillance drone, called the Aeryon Scout.
This means the rebel forces got some hardware, right?
Small enough to fit into a backpack, the three-pound, four-rotor robot gave Libyan forces eyes in the sky independent of the Predators...(emphasis mine)
With this, my understanding then shifts to the fact that the Libyan government forces got "eyes in the sky" with this "hardware donation".
And here's why: The Libyan forces up until a few hours ago, referred to Libyan Government forces led by Mr. Gaddafi. Right?
I am confused. Or am I getting old?
Google did to Java on Phones exactly what we criticized Microsoft for through all those years of Slashdot existence.
Not exactly: -
First, Google made the code open source.
Second, Google never proclaimed JavaVM compatibility.
That's a far cry from Microsoft's behaviors.
They took the API, they partially implemented them, then made their own incompatibilities, then took over the market with their incompatible implementation.
While I agree with this, it is not illegal. After all, everything was open source according to SUN.
Next please.
Oracle says no court has ever found that APIs for software like Java are ineligible for copyright protection.
That's not the issue here. No body ever said APIs for software like Java are ineligible for copyright protection.
There are precedents in matters of law. This could be well be one of them. Oracle should know better.
I even have concerns about Oracle's confusing statements about Java. Java can mean the language, the VM or the libraries associated with it or even the combination of everything I have mentioned.
When Oracle says, "Google Chooses To Base Its Android Platform On Java Without Taking A License", one wonders what they are really talking about. I certainly need no license to use the Java language. Do I?
Much as I loathe Microsoft, I think that their platform is one of the front-runners for developers at the moment. As a developer, I would not touch Microsoft even with a 10 foot pole though, mainly because the platform receives more 'bad press coverage' than good at present.
Poor Nokia suffered the Osborne Effect, whereby sales of current available products plummet after the announcement of un-available 'future' products.
Things have changed a lot! In my little world, Microsoft is of no consequence, and that's a good thing. I will not touch Microsoft products (including NOKIA), as a matter of principal.
A company is a person by the way...This idea originated in the 19th century.
Many folks here address issues from a US of A perspective then extend their often flawed logic to world scenarios.
In reality, if Android lost the battle, it would still flourish in the rest of the world, as it is doing now.
Heck, Nokia is almost unheard of in major US markets, but is doing quite well worldwide.
I liked your assertion:
...Granted, the US is a big important market, but it's not everything...
...Well, instead of giving us real news, say about what happened or what is likely to happen given current conditions, 'non news' makers go on the line and speculate with questions posing for real stories. I am tired of this.
Please get us some real news. A lot is happening in the tech sector. What's wrong with that?