Samsung to Appeal $119M Patent Verdict as Foreman Says Apple Should Target Google Instead

[Renzatic]

I'm saying Google is a douche bag for taking the concept of Java, hiring Oracle developers to rebuild it just different enough to not infringe, and basing an entire OS on it's concepts. The difference is intent. From the emails I read the developers knew this and were attempting to get an answer as to how they should proceed. What does that indicate to you?

It's ultimately no different than WINE in a lot of ways. WINE isn't Windows, and uses its own code built from scratch, but can run Windows programs because it mimics the same basic functions called in the same basic order. It presents a similar environment without directly infringing on anything MS does.

Dalvik is the same way. I mean if Google had the talent to implement a clean room environment of Java, they could have certainly written their own platform completely separate from it just as easily. The reason they did it was to levarage Java's userbase, to present an environment people were already familiar with, but did so without stepping on any of Oracle's IP.

 

[Oletros]

Alsup all but threw the book at being able to patent APIs.

And we are still waiting the appeal ruling about API copyrightability

 

[spjonez]

A codec is a very specific piece of code that does a very specific thing. An API is very general, and normally quite generic. Most APIs tend to look like each other, especially now that everyone is moving towards platform agnostic standardization. If APIs could be patented, then you'd find yourself in a situation where Windows, Macs, Linux, and whatever else is out there would be completely balkanized, each with their own specific way of doing what should be very generic things.

API's are not generic in anything other than their structure. Their purpose and all the underlying code is specific to the problem it's solving. Saying an API is generic is like saying a data structure is generic, and anyone who uses an array is also performing generalized actions. Put 10 developers in a room and ask them to write a simple Hello World app. None of them will be close to the same.

Second point is exactly what we have today... each eco-system wants to protect itself as until recently most were paid products.

It is clear that you don't know much about the case because that is not what Google did.

Apart that you're confusing Android OS, Dalvik virtual machine and Java classes.

So Google didn't build their own Java compatible VM and base an OS around that VM?

 

[Oletros]

So Google didn't build their own Java compatible VM and base an OS around that VM?

No, they didn't that, Dalvik is not compatible with Java.

 

[spjonez]

No, they didn't that, Dalvik is not compatible with Java.

My mistake, they built a VM that compiles Java to bytecode, so they can leech the community/name and not pay Oracle a cent. Because you know, Oracle doesn't deserve anything for making Java what it is, and they aren't basing their product on the success of their hard work. /s

 

[Renzatic]

API's are not generic in anything other than their structure. Their purpose and all the underlying code is specific to the problem it's solving. Saying an API is generic is like saying a data structure is generic, and anyone who uses an array is also performing generalized actions. Put 10 developers in a room and ask them to write a simple Hello World app. None of them will be close to the same.

Second point is exactly what we have today... each eco-system wants to protect itself as until recently most were paid products.

An API simply performs a function in software, and that function is allowing intercommunication between pieces of software. There are a thousand different ways to do it, but since software patents only require the process to be described rather than the implementation, allowing an API to be patented would only make a hazy, overly convoluted situation even worse.

Because if someone can patent how one piece of software talks to another with only a description of what it does, they can patent anything. You could end up having large companies claiming ownership of how people use software to tell a computer what to do.

So Google didn't build their own Java compatible VM and base an OS around that VM?

Making it compatible isn't the same as ripping it off directly. Plus I'm pretty sure Dalvik requires an interpreter to be able to understand Java directly anyway.

----------

Because you know, Oracle doesn't deserve anything for making Java what it is, and they aren't basing their product on the success of their hard work. /s

Actually, Oracle didn't make Java what it is. Sun did.

 

[Oletros]

My mistake, they built a VM that compiles Java to bytecode,

Still wrong, VM doesn't compile anything. And by the way, the thing that compiles Java to bytecode is Sun/Oracle compiler

so they can leech the community/name and not pay Oracle a cent. Because you know, Oracle doesn't deserve anything for making Java what it is, and they aren't basing their product on the success of their hard work. /s

Apart that Oracle didn't made Java, are you aware that only Java ME needed a license?

Are you aware that Oracle did released Java SE with GPL license in 2006 so NOBODY need to pay anything and if Android had started in 2006 that case would never happened.

And by the way, Google used APACHE HARMONY implementation so you sarcasm has to be directed to Apache Foundations, the ones that ripped off Java according to you.

----------

Plus I'm pretty sure Dalvik requires an interpreter to be able to understand Java directly anyway.

Yap, Dalvik need a compiler that compiles Java bytecode to Dalvik bytecode, Dalvik can't run any Java bytecode

 

[spjonez]

An API simply performs a function in software, and that function is allowing intercommunication between pieces of software. There are a thousand different ways to do it, but since software patents only require the process to be described rather than the implementation, allowing an API to be patented would only make a hazy, overly convoluted situation even worse.

That is one definition of an API, depending on who you ask many developers will use the term API to describe any layer between applications, or to describe an application itself.

Say someone creates an API that functions like Samba and allows file transfers between any OS and partition type without additional drivers. Do you feel that is worthy of a patent? I'm sure you can see the value in that service, by calling it an API and not an application does it somehow lose that value?

Because if someone can patent how one piece of software talks to another with only a description of what it does, they can patent anything. You could end up having large companies claiming ownership of how people use software to tell a computer what to do.

No you can't, people seem to assume that software patents are so lax we are on the verge of patenting data structures and control loops. Every software patent I've read was a specific implementation of a high level concept. Sometimes the steps are simple, so people assume the concept is simple/obvious and should not be patentable. I disagree with that, it doesn't matter what parts you use the implementation is the value.

Making it compatible isn't the same as ripping it off directly. Plus I'm pretty sure Dalvik requires an interpreter to be able to understand Java directly anyway.

Actually, Oracle didn't make Java what it is. Sun did.

I haven't worked with Java in years so my knowledge on the subject is limited. My point is if you created Java and you were the top mobile/embedded systems provider, and someone else came along hired some of your staff and made a compatible (for developers) platform to directly compete with you, wouldn't you be a little pissed off too?

 

[alexgowers]

patents make no sense considering the system for patent application is totally broken and it's impossible when making a product to know if you are infringing.

Patents needs to be based on the entirety of a product, not some minor feature that has no bearing on it's functions.

I feel more offended by samsungs aping of trade dress, advertising, ID, form factors, software appearance and layout than any features like rubber banding. I feel like this is far more important to sales than any of these so called patentable features and i think the courts have had just about enough of these technical cases, it always goes into farce as the jury really can't comprehend the subject matter to begin with let alone decide on infringements.

 

[spjonez]

It's ultimately no different than WINE in a lot of ways. WINE isn't Windows, and uses its own code built from scratch, but can run Windows programs because it mimics the same basic functions called in the same basic order. It presents a similar environment without directly infringing on anything MS does.

Dalvik is the same way. I mean if Google had the talent to implement a clean room environment of Java, they could have certainly written their own platform completely separate from it just as easily. The reason they did it was to levarage Java's userbase, to present an environment people were already familiar with, but did so without stepping on any of Oracle's IP.

It's similar, but again the intent is what I find worrisome. DirectX is free to the end user and so is Wine. Java was a paid product and Google made theirs free to buy market share. Where is Java today? It will ultimately suffer the same fate as Flash. The only ground it has is corporate intranets and that will be replaced with Node JS frameworks as companies support offline/mobile first.

In my opinion, both Google and Samsung are poison for the development community. Both companies are attempting to devalue and profit from competitors patents while ferociously defending their own. When has Google ever offered its top patents (search, maps, drive)? What does Samsung even have for software patents? Hardware or fabrication sure. Google does this under the guise of free open source software but when you read the Android license agreement that couldn't be farther from the truth.

 

[inscrewtable]

What $38 million was Samsung willing to pay?

I was under the impression, perhaps incorrectly, that after Apple put in the $2B claim that Samsung suggested something much much smaller was appropriate.

 

[Solomani]

Again, I can only pledge that I will never purchase a Samsung branded product for the rest of my life! I can't avoid products with internal samsung parts, but I can avoid all outer branded products.

I dunno. I'd still buy (or use) an occasional Samsung fridge or a Samsung-branded toilet paper.

Heck, Samsung even sells life insurance (in South Korea they own a life insurance subsidiary), but I'd never trust them with life insurance. Toilet paper sure. What could possibly go wrong with a Samsung-branded toilet paper?!

 

[PieCake]

Has anyone here read (or listened to) "Dogfight" by Fred Vogelstein? It provides a clear insight into the utterly inept gaggle of Google goons that went into developing Android - no wonder it's such a kludge:

http://www.audible.com/pd/Bios-Memo...f=a_search_c4_1_1_srTtl?qid=1399514422&sr=1-1

 

[Oletros]

It's similar, but again the intent is what I find worrisome. DirectX is free to the end user and so is Wine. Java was a paid product and Google made theirs free to buy market share.

Java is and was free.

In my opinion, both Google and Samsung are poison for the development community. Both companies are attempting to devalue and profit from competitors patents

Really? Poison for the development community? This is a joke, isn't?

Google does this under the guise of free open source software but when you read the Android license agreement that couldn't be farther from the truth.

And exactly why Android is not open source?

 

[zipa]

And exactly why Android is not open source?

Android without Google services is rather useless. Also, you can't really contribute to Android development without getting a job at Google doing just that. But sure, that applies for a lot of open source projects.

 

[Oletros]

Android without Google services is rather useless.

Tell that to Amazon, Nokia or all the other companies doing smartphones with AOSP.

AOSP is a ****ing whole operating system, it is not useless and it is not incomplete

 

[zipa]

Tell that to Amazon, Nokia or all the other companies doing smartphones with AOSP.

I don't think that I need to go pointing it out for them. The sales figures surely speak for them selves. Amazon might be getting something done since they have a rather big service ecosystem to leverage, and MS/Nokia are obviously trying to use MS services to accomplish the same thing as a makeshift solution until WP can be used for sub-$100 devices.

Or do you think that people would be rushing to buy an iPhone that didn't have access to the App Store, iTunes or iCloud services? No, me neither.

But yeah, "useless" is perhaps a bit strong, but I digress.

 

[Oletros]

I don't think that I need to go pointing it out for them. The sales figures surely speak for them selves. Amazon might be getting something done since they have a rather big service ecosystem to leverage, and MS/Nokia are obviously trying to use MS services to accomplish the same thing as a makeshift solution until WP can be used for sub-$100 devices.

Or do you think that people would be rushing to buy an iPhone that didn't have access to the App Store, iTunes or iCloud services? No, me neither.

But yeah, "useless" is perhaps a bit strong, but I digress.

Sales are irrelevant to the fact that AOSP is a whole an complete OS.

By the way, this quarter has been sold more than 50 million AOSP devices, strange for an useless OS.

And, by the way, it has nothing to do with the OP claim that AOSP is not so open source.

 

[spjonez]

Really? Poison for the development community? This is a joke, isn't?

No, I'm being serious. A lot of people will disagree with me, but I find their business practices reprehensible.

In this case, Google obviously has the money to pay a fee to Sun/Oracle for using Java. They intentionally worked around it to avoid paying for it, the emails from their developers show their concerns. They do this all the time, they take a paid platform, build a free version and give it away. By not charging for it they escape most of the legal ramifications of possible infringement, all the while feeding their most lucrative product (ads). How is that good for the community? It's good for users, more high quality software for free. But for developers they are basically saying, if we can replicate your service cheaper than buying you, we will and proceed to crush you out of existence.

You are the product in Google's business model. Why do you think all their services are free? Why is Google Fibre free? It wouldn't surprise me if Glass is free or their autonomous cars. They want to track every aspect of your life and use that data to deliver targeted ads. Is free software worth giving up your life/privacy?

Have you ever read Google's unified privacy policy? And no, I don't have GMail, use Maps/Drive, or Facebook. The only Google service I use is search and to use that I have to run several privacy addons.

And exactly why Android is not open source?

Android doesn't include any Google services, if you want those you have to sign additional agreements. What other open source project requires that? It's a bait and switch. Here's a free OS, but all the important apps are missing. You can have those too, but we want unrestricted usage data. Agenda? What agenda? No really we just want you to have this free software! It's open source! Do no evil! Believe us yet?

How useful (today) is a mobile OS without an eco-system? See Blackberry.

 

[Oletros]

In this case, Google obviously has the money to pay a fee to Sun/Oracle for using Java.

Java WAS and IS free, it doesn't have to be paid

They intentionally worked around it to avoid paying for it, the emails from their developers show their concerns.

Wrong, and the trial stated that

You are the product in Google's business model.

No, the product is ad space

Why do you think all their services are free? Why is Google Fibre free?

Google fiber is not free, I don't know how you can say something like that

Have you ever read Google's unified privacy policy?

Yes, and?

And no, I don't have GMail, use Maps/Drive, or Facebook. The only Google service I use is search and to use that I have to run several privacy addons.

Yes, we know that you really don't like Google, it is very clear

Android doesn't include any Google services,

And what the heck has to do with the ****ing AOSP being free?

if you want those you have to sign additional agreements.

Yes, you have to have agreements for NON OPEN SOURCE and PROPRIETARY services, shocking, isn't?

What other open source project requires that?

You seem very confused, no open source os requires anything, and AOSP is not an exception

Here's a free OS, but all the important apps are missing.

Wrong, no app is missing

It is clear that you don't know much what are you talking about, your claims are just a mix of wrong facts and FUD so, have a nice day.

 

[ghost of jobs]

I feel more offended by samsungs aping of trade dress, advertising, ID, form factors, software appearance and layout etc...

the actions of a tech company offend you.. wow... Don't take it so personally fella..

 

[spjonez]

Java WAS and IS free, it doesn't have to be paid

Sun's Java was a paid product until 2006 when they changed the license to GNU. Android (or what would become Android) was started in 2003 and purchased by Google in 2005.

Wrong, and the trial stated that

As I said I was stating my opinion on the trial.

No, the product is ad space

Keep telling yourself that.

Google fiber is not free, I don't know how you can say something like that

Possibly because they offer free plans? Check their website.

Yes, and?

Do you value your privacy? If you do it should.

Yes, we know that you really don't like Google, it is very clear

No I don't for the reasons I gave previously.

And what the heck has to do with the ****ing AOSP being free?

Yes, you have to have agreements for NON OPEN SOURCE and PROPRIETARY services, shocking, isn't?

You seem very confused, no open source os requires anything, and AOSP is not an exception

Wrong, no app is missing

You do realize that originally some of those apps were bundled and they were removed at a later date and the license was changed? Wonder why they did that, possibly because Google could have lost control of Android if Samsung forked it and cut them out. The only reason Android exists is to ensure Google has a direct line to mobile search data, which is why the separation of Android and Google Mobile Services exists.

They are not giving you services for free to be nice or because they care about the community. They are doing it to mine your life and sell it for profit. If that's a business model you want to support nobody can stop you. Personally that's not something I want to contribute to.

 

[Oletros]

Sun's Java was a paid product until 2006 when they changed the license to GNU. Android (or what would become Android) was started in 2003 and purchased by Google in 2005.

Sun's Java NEVER was a paid product, the only product you need a paid license was Java ME

But if you're so sure you will find anything to back your claims. Or you will backs as you have backed all the rest of claims you have made?

Keep telling yourself that.

Well, keep telling yourself that, reality won't change.

Possibly because they offer free plans? Check their website.

So no, Fiber is not free, Fiber has the very low speed free (5Mb) and after paying $300 dollars for installation

Do you value your privacy? If you do it should.

I have read, and? Have you read Microsoft/Apple TOS?

You do realize that originally some of those apps were bundled and they were removed at a later date and the license was changed?

I bet you to find just one application removed from AOSP and changed its license from Apache to closed source. Just one.

They are not giving you services for free to be nice or because they care about the community. They are doing it to mine your life and sell it for profit. If that's a business model you want to support nobody can stop you. Personally that's not something I want to contribute to.

Google doesn't sell your life, like Apple don't sell your life with iAds, what both sell is AD SPACE.

If you can, just back one of the claims you have make.

 

[samcraig]

They are not giving you services for free to be nice or because they care about the community. They are doing it to mine your life and sell it for profit. If that's a business model you want to support nobody can stop you. Personally that's not something I want to contribute to.

Sadly I've heard that every time someone makes this incorrect assertion, a puppy dies.

 

[spjonez]

Sun's Java NEVER was a paid product, the only product you need a paid license was Java ME

But if you're so sure you will find anything to back your claims. Or you will backs as you have backed all the rest of claims you have made?

Isn't that the only one that matters here? ME is what you'd use on an embedded system (mobile being one).

Well, keep telling yourself that, reality won't change.

If they are only selling ad space, where do they get the data to match a consumer to an ad? Isn't that why Google is on top, their ability to display targeted advertisements with a higher click through ratio than any of their competition?

So no, Fiber is not free, Fiber has the very low speed free (5Mb) and after paying $300 dollars for installation

So 5mb/s with no monthly fee is not free internet access? You pay an installation fee with any ISP.

I bet you to find just one application removed from AOSP and changed its license from Apache to closed source. Just one.

Here's three: Search, Music, and Calendar. They weren't re-licensed, they were deprecated and replaced with Google Mobile Services.

Google doesn't sell your life, like Apple don't sell your life with iAds, what both sell is AD SPACE.

If you can, just back one of the claims you have make.

Does Apple read my emails or scan my files? Apple is transparent about your privacy. I have never received any unsolicited mail or targeted advertising and I've been an iCloud/iTunes Match subscriber since those services started.