1

Topic: Google vs. Oracle

Google loses Android battle and could owe Oracle billions of dollars the Oracle with the losses of the market in favor of cloudy technologies turns from the vendor of a software to the patent troll. The first variant: If there does not transit appeal Google in Supreme Court the Oracle can become the largest owner of actions Google. Or Google ceases to exist. The second variant: the Oracle blows the appeal and all remains still. Possible consequences of actions of Oracle: the Companies start to run from Java not to walk twice into the same water. It is improbable, of course, as the industry is inert.

2

Re: Google vs. Oracle

A> the Companies start to run from Java they would Write on JavaScript - would not have such problems

3

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, alexanderfedin, you wrote: A> the Companies start to run from Java not to walk twice into the same water. Already. All have operating time and attempts to get on other platforms. An example: Sailfish OS, Tizen.

4

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, alexanderfedin, you wrote: A> Google loses Android battle Considering Google position, to it these "losses" as to you to lose a smart - it is notable, but it is not deadly. Pay the penalty, buy the license and will rivet still to nobody the necessary shovels with Vedroidom full of holes. The market is so sated  with the debugged process  that already vendors rise on protection of "corporation of the beaver".

5

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, alexanderfedin, you wrote: Google weaklings, did not master the compiler With ++. That is why them will be  for usage of another's technologies before their full ruin.

6

Re: Google vs. Oracle

A> the Companies start to run from Java not to walk twice into the same water. You not here mean Android? If normal Java, written - rare delirium. Java Oraklu belongs already long time and changes were for this period only positive - both from the point of view of licensing and from the point of view of language development

7

Re: Google vs. Oracle

A> the Oracle with the losses of the market in favor of cloudy technologies turns from the vendor of a software to the patent troll. And thank God, and Google absolutely coast lost that. https://twitter.com/davidclowery/status … 3204626432

8

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, turbocode, you wrote: T> Google weaklings, did not master the compiler With ++. What for it the when is clang/gcc which, by the way, rather  in . A toad there for  , which today 95 % among programmers. Write on pluses can not only only all. The success  completely confirms this hypothesis.

9

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, alexanderfedin, you wrote: A> the First variant: A> If there does not transit appeal Google in Supreme Court the Oracle can become the largest owner of actions Google. Can become the largest owner of actions of one of subdividings Google of OS of Android engaged in development. And not the fact that gets to them a slice of other subdividing Google, "Google Play"

10

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, alexanderfedin, you wrote: A> Google loses Android battle and could owe Oracle billions of dollars A> the Oracle with the losses of the market in favor of cloudy technologies turns from the vendor of a software to the patent troll. Google for the present lost nothing, there will be a further appeal. If Google loses, it will be bad ALL. It will mean that API will be for copyright'.

11

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, Cyberax, you wrote: the C> If loses Google, it will be bad ALL. It will mean that API will be for copyright'. Well, about ALL"is it is yet known, and here that it will be bad Google is remarkable.

12

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, Somescout, you wrote: the C>> If loses Google, it will be bad ALL. It will mean that API will be for copyright'. S> Well, about ALL"is it is yet known, and here that it will be bad Google is remarkable. Will be, will be. You use SQL? Be going to pay deductions IBM, they will have such right. But yes, I understand that the main thing that to Google it was bad. You not from Ukraine write?

13

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, Cyberax, you wrote: the C> Will be, will be. You use SQL? Be going to pay deductions IBM, they will have such right. Any strange output: the Oracle demands money with google, instead of from developers . A C> But yes, I understand that the main thing that to Google it was bad. You not from Ukraine write? Not, not from Ukraine. But is exceptional negatively to concern to Google to me it does not hinder. I really do not understand as these ... As this not dear company did not receive in due time the claim from the European antimonopoly regulators. Probably they during this moment well covered eyes. And it is good if not for money. So sincerely I hope that the penalty in favor of Orakla will be monumental.

14

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, Somescout, you wrote: the C>> Will be, will be. You use SQL? Be going to pay deductions IBM, they will have such right. S> Any strange output: the Oracle demands money with google, instead of from developers . If precedent all API will be subject copyright' is created. Means, IBM will own copyright' on ALL variants SQL as they implemented its the first and own registered copyright' on it. So nobody will hinder them to take money from you personally. And without a difference that MySQL does not contain also a line of the code written IBM. A C>> But yes, I understand that the main thing that to Google it was bad. You not from Ukraine write? S> not, not from Ukraine. I about: "At the neighbor a cow . A trifle, and it is pleasant".

15

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, Cyberax, you wrote: a C> Hello, alexanderfedin, you wrote: A>> Google loses Android battle and could owe Oracle billions of dollars A>> the Oracle with the losses of the market in favor of cloudy technologies turns from the vendor of a software to the patent troll. The C> for the present lost nothing Google, there will be a further appeal. If I am not mistaken that it lost, a question only in the price. The C> If loses Google, it will be bad ALL. It will mean that API will be for copyright'. Problems will be only at those who uses another's API (on which is copyright) for development of a competitive product not falling on "fair use". It was the lawlessness when google took all operating time of the Dignity constructed on them the infrastructure and started to earn grandmas. And it   the license cost copecks.... It was necessary to arrive as made in Amazon, Azul, RedHat, the JetBrains, IBM, SAP and to attend to the license or to pass on openjdk. They certainly now tried to pass on OpenJDK but I hope for errors of the past them fine.

16

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, serb, you wrote: the C>> for the present lost nothing Google, there will be a further appeal. S> if I am not mistaken that it lost, a question only in the price. No, there will be a following appeal further. The C>> If loses Google, it will be bad ALL. It will mean that API will be for copyright'. S> Problems will be only at those who uses another's API (on which is copyright) for development of a competitive product not falling on "fair use". No. ANY API will be now under copyright'. And as copyright very infectious, also all derivatives API too. For example, for SQL it will be necessary to pay IBM, and for CSS - the Opera. Here there will be an expanse for lawyers. S> it there was a lawlessness when google took all operating time of the Dignity constructed on them the infrastructure and started to earn grandmas. And it   the license cost copecks.... It was necessary to arrive as made in Amazon, Azul, RedHat, the JetBrains, IBM, SAP and to attend to the license or to pass on openjdk. Yes generally, continuous . Write requests on SQL, without giving the grandma to legal owners who SQL developed this, nonstop.

17

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, Cyberax, you wrote: a C> Hello, serb, you wrote: the C>>> for the present lost nothing Google, there will be a further appeal. S>> if I am not mistaken that it lost, a question only in the price. The C> Is not present, there will be a following appeal further. We see. But like they already reached the highest authority where  won, and now them sent to the lower instance to state to the total of losses. The C>>> If loses Google, it will be bad ALL. It will mean that API will be for copyright'. S>> Problems will be only at those who uses another's API (on which is copyright) for development of a competitive product not falling on "fair use". The C> Is not present. ANY API will be now under copyright'. And as copyright very infectious, also all derivatives API too. For example, for SQL it will be necessary to pay IBM, and for CSS - the Opera. It is a lie, esteem as Google it tried to be protected I use points "fair use" and at it almost it turned out. S>> It there was a lawlessness when google took all operating time of the Dignity constructed on them the infrastructure and started to earn grandmas. And it   the license cost copecks.... It was necessary to arrive as made in Amazon, Azul, RedHat, the JetBrains, IBM, SAP and to attend to the license or to pass on openjdk. A C> Yes generally, continuous . Write requests on SQL, without giving the grandma to legal owners who SQL developed this, nonstop. The lie speech does not go about those who writes applications using interfaces java or language sql. But those who give the similar interface without the license yes fall as at remembered above MySQL (but only if IBM somewhere about it wrote). You answer is better why to Amazonu there are no claims and to Google is. As so Amazon such big but all the same tracks that how correctly to use java and openjdk.

18

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, serb, you wrote: S> we See. But like they already reached the highest authority where  won, and now them sent to the lower instance to state to the total of losses. No, the highest authority is Supreme Court. They lost the appeal in the intermediate court. The C>> Is not present. ANY API will be now under copyright'. And as copyright very infectious, also all derivatives API too. For example, for SQL it will be necessary to pay IBM, and for CSS - the Opera. S> it is a lie, esteem as Google it tried to be protected I use points "fair use" and at it almost it turned out. No, not so. They benefited court on  API, but lost the appeal and again went back. Then in the second time Google was protected by that implementation API is fair use, irrespectively a question on, whether can API get under copyright. They benefited also this court. Now it was rejected again by the appeal. Further variants are to go to the Supreme Court or to protest the appeal. C>> Yes generally, continuous . Write requests on SQL, without giving the grandma to legal owners who SQL developed this, nonstop. S> a lie speech does not go about those who writes applications using interfaces java or language sql. Goes, goes. S> but those who give the similar interface without the license yes fall as at remembered above MySQL (but only if IBM somewhere about it wrote). Well so to use a counterfeit software it is impossible. Licenses at MySQL are not present, as well as at PostgreSQL. So IBM have the right to demand money from all users. Because of it and all noise. It not the next 100500th process about patents. S> you answer is better why to Amazonu there are no claims and to Google is. As so Amazon such big but all the same tracks that how correctly to use java and openjdk. And and here Amazon? The Oracle invented absolutely wild occasion to court, earlier anybody to such idiocy not .

19

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, Cyberax, you wrote: a C> Hello, serb, you wrote: S>> we See. But like they already reached the highest authority where  won, and now them sent to the lower instance to state to the total of losses. The C> Is not present, the highest authority is Supreme Court. They lost the appeal in the intermediate court. The C>>> Is not present. ANY API will be now under copyright'. And as copyright very infectious, also all derivatives API too. For example, for SQL it will be necessary to pay IBM, and for CSS - the Opera. S>> it is a lie, esteem as Google it tried to be protected I use points "fair use" and at it almost it turned out. The C> Is not present, not so. They benefited court on  API, but lost the appeal and again went back. Then in the second time Google was protected by that implementation API is fair use, irrespectively a question on, whether can API get under copyright. So and than Google will be protected now? It already tried all variants. In general we look. C> They benefited also this court. Now it was rejected again by the appeal. Further variants are to go to the Supreme Court or to protest the appeal. S>> a lie speech does not go about those who writes applications using interfaces java or language sql. The C> Goes, goes. Is not present does not go, speech does not go even about those who gives the version openjdk. S>> you answer is better why to Amazonu there are no claims and to Google is. As so Amazon such big but all the same tracks that how correctly to use java and openjdk. A C> And and here Amazon? The Oracle invented absolutely wild occasion to court, earlier anybody to such idiocy not .  and other companies that I enumerated, runtime royalty fees pay or correctly use openjdk. It though any money for development java, and google simply stole another's and earned on it money so let answers. And I do not understand why all so select that "" should differ something from other code (from implementation) as though convenient API easier to create than its implementation is than is not easier at all, I would tell more difficult.

20

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, serb, you wrote: S> So and than Google will be protected now? It already tried all variants. In general we look. At them possibility of the appeal of a type:" Yes they there generally blockheads who  do not understand programming. The jury of jurymen twice already justified us ". S>>> the Lie speech does not go about those who writes applications using interfaces java or language sql. The C>> Goes, goes. S> is not present does not go, speech does not go even about those who gives the version openjdk. OpenJDK has the license which resolves usage. And here on SQL from IBM nobody gave the license. So now it is possible to take ANY user SQL for . A C>> And and here Amazon? The Oracle invented absolutely wild occasion to court, earlier anybody to such idiocy not . S> Amazon and other companies that I enumerated, runtime royalty fees pay or correctly use openjdk. Sunoracle JDK does not demand any deductions. And I never heard that Amazon something paid Snoracle' for it. S> It though any money for development java, and google simply stole another's and earned on it money so let answers. And I do not understand why all so select that "" should differ something from other code (from implementation) as though convenient API easier to create than its implementation is than is not easier at all, I would tell more difficult. What stole Google? Why then impudent thieves in Oracle which steal RedHat' Linux are not condemned yet? I do not say that Oracle constructed all business on stolen SQL.

21

Re: Google vs. Oracle

> And here on SQL the license from IBM nobody gave a C. So now it is possible to take ANY user SQL for . Well so it is problems IBM and SQL? If it is valid at IBM there is a copyright and the appropriate license. There is somewhere a license in public access? A C>>> And and here Amazon? The Oracle invented absolutely wild occasion to court, earlier anybody to such idiocy not . S>> Amazon and other companies that I enumerated, runtime royalty fees pay or correctly use openjdk. The C> Sunoracle JDK does not demand any deductions. And I never heard that Amazon something paid Snoracle' for it. In some cases demands. http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/artic … 36696.html "Is Java still free? JRE use for embedded devices or use of commercial features may require a license fee from Oracle. Read more about embedded use of Java SE or contact your local Oracle sales representative to obtain a license."  in this case decided to steal nothing and for the jvm uses openjdk with all that it implies. A C> That stole Google? Why then impudent thieves in Oracle which steal RedHat' Linux are not condemned yet? I do not say that Oracle constructed all business on stolen SQL. It stole API classes: https://developer.android.com/reference … tring.html Why did not condemn Oracle it is necessary to ask at  and ibm. But it seems to me because the license  allows to do it as well as the license openjdk.

22

Re: Google vs. Oracle

> And here on SQL the license from IBM nobody gave a C. So now it is possible to take ANY user SQL for . SQL it is idea, instead of implementation. Did not hear that ideas were licensed (there are patents certainly, whether but do not know there is at whom that the patent on SQL and whether it is possible  this patent of others) If Google made the  (as MS made.NET) that of problems would not be. But Google filched another's implementation, that is broke the license.

23

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, serb, you wrote:>> And here on SQL the license from IBM nobody gave a C. So now it is possible to take ANY user SQL for . S> Well so it is problems IBM and SQL? If it is valid at IBM there is a copyright and the appropriate license. There is somewhere a license in public access? IBM invented SQL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL#History), means have on it copyright. Accordingly, have the right to demand to license ALL derivative implementations. And if the derivative product does not have license and to demand money from ultimate users. As to  Oracle still nobody fell, it did not excite anybody. As only the idiot can consider that API can be under copyright'. S> JRE use for embedded devices or use of commercial features may require a license fee from Oracle. Read more about embedded use of Java SE or contact your local Oracle sales representative to obtain a license." S> Amazon in this case decided to steal nothing and for the jvm uses openjdk with all that it implies. I did not look in all devices in Amazone, but built in Java I did not see anywhere. Thus that I looked source codes of all Echo and Cloud Cam. Normal JDK in Amazone it is ubiquitous. Passage to own version OpenJDK only began literally couple of months back. A C>> That stole Google? Why then impudent thieves in Oracle which steal RedHat' Linux are not condemned yet? I do not say that Oracle constructed all business on stolen SQL. S> It stole API classes: S> https://developer.android.com/reference … tring.html Well so instead of it is a shame to steal then SQL at IBM? It too API and it steal generally all. S> why did not condemn Oracle it is necessary to ask at  and ibm. But it seems to me because the license  allows to do it as well as the license openjdk. They can  API from RPM, for example.

24

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, turbocode, you wrote:>> And here on SQL the license from IBM nobody gave a C. So now it is possible to take ANY user SQL for . T> SQL it is idea, instead of implementation. Thanks of Oraklu, now ideas can get under copyright. T> did not hear that ideas were licensed See a subject.

25

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, turbocode, you wrote: T> If Google made the  (as MS made.NET) that of problems would not be. But Google filched another's implementation, that is broke the license. How much I understand, Google did not filch code lines. In that and an essence that if Google does not beat off there will be very foul precedent. On it it turns out, as wine it is necessary to developers  MS for the license, about SQL already mentioned etc.