Law Google Could Owe Oracle $8.8 Billion in Android Fight - lol get fucked google

https://archive.fo/SFBq2

Google could owe Oracle Corp. billions of dollars for using Oracle-owned Java programming code in its Android operating system on mobile devices, an appeals court said, as the years-long feud between the two software giants draws near a close.

Google’s use of Java shortcuts to develop Android went too far and was a violation of Oracle’s copyrights, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Tuesday. The case -- first filed in 2010 -- was remanded to a federal court in California to determine how much the Alphabet Inc. unit should pay. Oracle had been seeking $8.8 billion, though that number could grow. Google expressed disappointment and said it’s considering its next steps in the case.

The dispute, which could have far-reaching implications for the entire software industry, has divided Silicon Valley for years between those who develop the code that makes software steps function and those who develop software programs and say their “fair use” of the code is an exception to copyright law.

“It’s a momentous decision on the issue of fair use,” lawyer Mark Schonfeld of Burns & Levinson in Boston, who’s been following the case and isn’t involved. “It is very, very important for the software industry. I think it’s going to go to the Supreme Court because the Federal Circuit has made a very controversial decision.”

Computer Instructions
At issue are pre-written directions known as application program interfaces, or APIs, which can work across different types of devices and provide the instructions for things like connecting to the internet or accessing certain types of files. By using the APIs, programmers don’t have to write new code from scratch to implement every function in their software or change it for every type of device.

“The Federal Circuit’s opinion upholds fundamental principles of copyright law and makes clear that Google violated the law,” Oracle General Counsel Dorian Daley said in a statement. “This decision protects creators and consumers from the unlawful abuse of their rights.”

Google and its supporters contend that the ruling, if left to stand, would harm development of new software programs and lead to higher costs for consumers.

“We are disappointed the court reversed the jury finding that Java is open and free for everyone,” Google said in a statement. “This type of ruling will make apps and online services more expensive for users.”

Limited Freedom
Oracle said its APIs are freely available to those who want to build applications for computers and mobile devices, but draws the line at anyone who wants to use them for a competing platform or to embed them in an electronic device.

“The fact that Android is free of charge does not make Google’s use of the Java API packages noncommercial,” the three-judge Federal Circuit panel in Washington ruled, noting that Android had generated more than $42 billion in revenue from advertising. It also said that Google had not made any alteration of the copyrighted material.

The damages are likely to be hotly contested, with Oracle wanting more than the $8.8 billion it sought at the trial, and Google arguing the value is minimal, said lawyer Ping Hu, who heads the intellectual property group at Mirick O’Connell in Boston. The could mean more public information on how Google profits off an operating system that it offers for free.

The decision “is a major win for Oracle, but it’s not the end of the war,” he said.

Rush to Mobile
Oracle claims Google was in such a rush in the mid-2000s to create an operating system for mobile devices that the company used key parts of copyrighted Java technology without paying royalties. Google, which gets the bulk of its profit from selling advertisements connected to search results, faced an “existential threat” because its search wasn’t optimized for mobile devices, according to Oracle.

Google countered that Oracle was just jealous because it did what Oracle could not -- develop an operating system for mobile devices that was free and wildly popular. Google said it used a minuscule percentage of Oracle’s code, only enough to enable programmers to write applications for Android in the Java language.

A federal jury in California agreed with Google in 2016, saying Google’s actions were a “fair use” that was exempt from copyright law. Tuesday’s Federal Circuit opinion reverses that verdict.

“There is nothing fair about taking a copyrighted work verbatim and using it for the same purpose and function as the original in a competing platform,” the appeals court ruled.

Next Steps
Google is likely to ask that either the three-judge panel reconsider its decision, or have the issue go before all active judges of the court. The losing party could then ask the Supreme Court to take the case, which Google supporters are calling for.

The Supreme Court had earlier declined to review a closely watched 2014 decision in which the Federal Circuit said the APIs were entitled to copyright protection. That ruling, along with Tuesday’s decision, “run counter to decades of software industry practice,” according to Meredith Rose, policy counsel at Public Knowledge. The group submitted legal arguments supporting Google.

It “could have devastating effects on the competitiveness, openness, and development of the technology industry,” Rose said in a statement. “This could lead to higher prices, fewer choices, and worse products for consumers.”

Java was created by Sun Microsystems Inc. in the 1990s, and some have accused Oracle of violating Sun’s pledge to ensure that Java is widely available. Oracle bought Sun in January 2010 for $7.4 billion and sued Google fewer than eight months later.

Part of Google’s defense focused on the idea that Java was developed for desktop computers, while Android was created for phones and other mobile devices. Oracle sought to extend the case to desktops, where Android is now available, but the trial judge said he wanted to keep the case narrowly focused.

The case is Oracle America Inc. v. Google Inc., 17-1118, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Washington). The trial court case is Oracle America Inc. v. Google Inc., 10cv3561, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco).
 
Oracle's kind of a shitty company anyway. They've been known to withdraw any software Sun made completely open source, and make it proprietary, despite that being highly in violation of many FOSS licenses. Still, Google kind of needs a slap in the face for this one.
 
Oracle's kind of a shitty company anyway. They've been known to withdraw any software Sun made completely open source, and make it proprietary, despite that being highly in violation of many FOSS licenses. Still, Google kind of needs a slap in the face for this one.
Java is kind of a shitty programming language anyway.

Javirgin v.s. Chad++.
 
Can someone explain this to a man who once set fire to his freezer checking email. No really I am lost on the tech.

But anything bad happening to google I am fully in support of.
 
Can someone explain this to a man who once set fire to his freezer checking email. No really I am lost on the tech.

But anything bad happening to google I am fully in support of.

Google being shitty doesn't make Oracle less shitty, they're just a different kind of shitty.

Most of Oracle's revenue is licensing fees because they own the rights to Java, the most widely-utilized programming language outside of C and it's derivatives. Due to the overly broad nature of software patents, they can sue most companies they deem a sufficient threat for utilizing Java in a "for-profit" manner, but keep distributing it for free and pretending they believe in open-source principles.

Google used some Java APIs to make it easier for third party developers to write Android apps in Java, and in response Oracle sued them for copyright infringement. This ruling is stupid both because it legitimizes this sort of pseudo-open-source selective-enforcement tactic, and because Google probably did Oracle a goddamn favor in increasing Java's usage by utilizing their APIs and making Android more Java-friendly in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Can someone explain this to a man who once set fire to his freezer checking email. No really I am lost on the tech.

But anything bad happening to google I am fully in support of.
I'll explain it if you tell me that story first.
 
Ok, fair's fair.
So basically, Java is a programming language made by a company called Sun in the 90's and they were purchased by Oracle this century. Java is a popular programming language because it runs on a virtual machine (a fake computer inside of your computer,) which means that if the virtual machine is ported to any system by anyone just once, most programs will become compatible essentially automatically.

This kind of future proofing, the ability to run Java on exotic OS's (which were more common back when Java came out,) and a programming language that was very good for its time led to big businesses loving Java. Since big businesses loved Java, people became Java programmers, so big businesses loved it more, since they would always have a reasonably large supply of programmers compared to something obscure like BLISS or RPG.
Now, Sun was a pretty cool company that made a lot of stuff open source (basically this means free, but in addition to not paying anything, you can also legally reuse their stuff for your own stuff and then charge money for it,) which also made the language much more popular.
Since Java is popular and possibly intending to make programs more portable as well (not that the latter has really happened,) Google went with the Java programming language as the normal language for developing Android apps.
Oracle is alleging that Google went too far and used some non open source things illegally, so they should get a lot of money. Some people in this thread are saying that it's more or less a cash grab on Oracle's part. I haven't been following it, but I think it's hilarious because Google and Oracle both compete with each other in the cloud services market. I haven't heard a ton of good things about a lot of Google's offerings and I've seen people outright mocking Oracle for only putting $1bn into its cloud offerings last year IIRC, so Google could end up funding Oracle's cloud.
 
Java's dogshit and all, but lolno. C++ is terrible and a blight on the craft. It's a recipe for software vulnerabilities.


Go ahead and explain how C++ is terrible. I come from a C, C++, and modula-2 background, so I'd be happy to hear what you have to say.
 
Go ahead and explain how C++ is terrible.
I just don't see the use case for it. If you need low level shit so badly, why are you programming in an OO language? I see it as sort of a Venn diagram where the use cases for low level control of the computer are on one side and application programming are on the other, and there's a tiny little bit of overlap and right there you'll find C++. It's not useless, but I do think it's overused.
 
  • Agree
  • Disagree
Reactions: polonium and Marvin
I just don't see the use case for it. If you need low level shit so badly, why are you programming in an OO language? I see it as sort of a Venn diagram where the use cases for low level control of the computer are on one side and application programming are on the other, and there's a tiny little bit of overlap and right there you'll find C++. It's not useless, but I do think it's overused.

I can agree with you there, because back in the day all my kernel/driver code was written in C under WinNT as the DDK has a differnet memory manager it was dangerous to use C++.

The fact is you got C++ because of type safety and shitty C programers. Doesn't make it a bad lanquage and most of the gripes come from bugs in the RTL, STL, BOOST etc, but that has nothing to do with the lanquage.

The one thing I'm happy they shit canned in the new standard was sequence points, because lets face it, few people read the standard.
 
Go ahead and explain how C++ is terrible. I come from a C, C++, and modula-2 background, so I'd be happy to hear what you have to say.
Memory safety should be the default for virtually every software project started in the past ten years. A software engineer should have to justify using a non-memory safe language, not vice versa.

Outside of kernels themselves, I'd be hard pressed to find a project that directly required C or C++. And if you are thinking about using either of those, it'd be probably best to default to writing the bare minimum in C, and then just linking the C code as a module into some other scripting language like Python.

Perhaps there's some rare hardware project that must be written on bare metal, but even that's kinda hard to justify nowadays. The price of hardware is rock bottom nowadays, that you can get away with running GC'd languages on cheap chips.

Cost of hiring programmers, riskiness from unsafe memory accesses, debugging, it doesn't make economic sense to me.

I think using a restricted subset of C++ is probably more justifiable, but even then I'm scratching my chin to think of examples where one of the other solutions I mentioned wouldn't be a better option.

Basically what @Splendid Meat Sticks said.
 
Memory safety should be the default for virtually every software project started in the past ten years. A software engineer should have to justify using a non-memory safe language, not vice versa.

That depends on what kinds of software you are writing and perhaps it is a generational thing. I'll manage my own memory. Thanks.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Splendid
C does have its uses when optimizing for extreme performance.
It'll never be as good for computer-illiterate scientists to use as Fortran, but nowadays it's basically a nicer way to write assembly.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Marvin
That depends on what kinds of software you are writing and perhaps it is a generational thing. I'll manage my own memory. Thanks.
Objectively speaking, memory safety is a huge issue for virtually all software. Almost certainly the biggest cause of bugs in the wild.

To some extent, some classes of software are less vulnerable, but no software (that has to be useful at some point) is completely invulnerable. Programming languages are tools. The decision to use one tool with downsides over another tool without those downsides needs to be justified.

I don't think C++ brings anything to the table that a GC'd language also couldn't bring, other than performance. And that performance needs to be weighed against the cost of dealing with memory safety bugs.

If we're talking about a private, for-fun project, then yeah, go for it. But if you need to explain it to a boss, I can't think of many situations where you could make a persuasive case for C++ over a GC'd language.

Re generational things: I'm sure up-and-coming programmers nowadays don't understand what they're missing when they skip learning pointers and low level memory issues.

Memory management is a subset of resource management, which you have to do manually all the time. Managing file handles and rendering handles and stuff like that. They think "oh, memory management, we've got GC's, we'll be fine!", and sure, they're right. About memory. But they are missing out on vital lessons in managing resources in general.

Heh, like when some dude just got out of a code bootcamp and tries to let Javascript's GC close their file handles. Or writing old school OpenGL code? Very easy to lose track of buffer handles.

But yeah, all that aside: while learning memory management is important, I still think that there's very little to justify C++ in production.

Edit: Actually, WebGL initially was a rough wrapper around OpenGL itself, so yeah, you had wet-behind-the-ears javascript programmers fucking around with managing video rendering resources and they had no clue how to handle that in a disciplined way.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: LocalFireDept
Back