Hacker News Reader

Comment by TaylorAlexander | Hacker News Reader

This coming from the company that files patents like crazy and gives out t-shirts that say “patent heroes wanted”. Call me cynical but I feel like google is narrowly interested in open innovation when they are at risk for billions in fines, and definitely also supports openness in other ways, but still supports a lot of proprietary and closed source work. There are lots of business reasons to be closed source, but don’t talk up a big talk about the value of openness when you’re really just trying to cover your ass. Lots of google tech fails on openness.

View on HN

This is coming from a whole lot more than just Google. They are the ones who will lose money in the immediate lawsuit, but we all stand to suffer if Oracle's interpretation of the law is held up. Don't take my word for it, take the word of the entire software community who has weighed in on this to support google in the form of amicus briefs (which I really do encourage you to read).

Here is a partial list of other groups who have already filed motions in support of Google: Microsoft, EFF, Python Software Foundation, Mozilla, RedHat, (see the docket for a complete list).

In addition their was a very interesting brief submitted by a bunch of famous computer scientists, instead of an organized company. The names attatched included Edwin Catmull, Alan Kay, Brian Kernighan, Bjarne Stroustrup, Andrew Tanenbaum, Ken Thompson, Guido van Rossum, Steve Wozniak. The total list of people is 78 long and they are all of similar caliber (though I did pick out the names I had the strongest recognition for), see their brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-956/89487/20190...)

This case isn't about Google making or loosing some money, Google being open or not. None of the amici care about that, the supreme court doesn't care about that. Only Google and Oracle care about that. This case is about the law that governs us all and what effects it has on us all.

And yes, Microsoft is agreeing with the EFF in a lawsuit...

> This case isn't about Google making or loosing some money, Google being open or not. None of the amici care about that, the supreme court doesn't care about that. Only Google and Oracle care about that.

... I don't think there's much support here for Oracle winning on its claims.

But this particular subthread was pointing out the hypocrisy of Google trumpeting "Openness in all cases!"

These are two separate and unrelated topics. We can simultaneously support Google winning the case (for the outcome on case law) while also believing Google could be a better corporate steward of open source (mostly looking at you, Android).

What's wrong with Android? Isn't it fully open-source? I thought you could compile your own version and flash it onto a bootloader-unlocked phone

A lot of people aren't fond of how much functionally is tied to Google Play Services, which is not open source

In reality not fully open source:

> Android's source code does not contain the device drivers, often proprietary, that are needed for certain hardware components. As a result, most Android devices, including Google's own, ship with a combination of free and open source and proprietary software, with the software required for accessing Google services falling into the latter category.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#AOS...

I don't think anyone expects the Android OS to be a collection of entirely open source device drivers.

Those proprietary drivers are specific to the myriad of hardware that the OEMs are running the OS on. You can still run Android on any hardware you have the drivers for, or emulate it in a virtual machine.

I agree. I was mostly refering to the last part of the quote where it mentions 'accessing Google services'.

Well, naturally, this is the cash cow part of Android. Google wouldn't want to make it easy to write an open replacement.

Google has systematically moved a lot of apps from AOSP to closed source Play Store equivalents. The AOSP apps are still available, but aren't maintained by Google anymore.

Ars Technica published a detailed story on this in 2018:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on...

I very strongly support Google’s side of this case. But them claiming to champion open innovation is incredibly condescending and frankly bullshit. They’re pursuing this case exclusively for financial motives (which I don’t think there’s anything wrong with to be clear). But the fact that there’s some public good behind it is just a happy coincidence for their marketing department. They’d just as happily be on Oracle’s side if that made financial sense to them.

Based on what precedence? Imo this statement is just false.

A lot of the modern web exists on tech that google open sourced. Something it didn't need to do and would have been a huge competitive advantage to it if they had kept it closed source even after they had moved on to something better.

You can argue about patents, but trying to copyright APIs is on a whole new level. It would be utterly disastrous. Regardless of Google's motivations, their arguments here are completely 100% in the right and we should support them -- if not for Google's sake, then for ours.

It's counterproductive to drag a company over purity while it's currently the primary fighter against an existential threat. It's polishing silverware while the house burns down around you.

Yes, Google could do better (particularly on patents). Yes, some of Google's arguments are hypocritical. But openness is a continuum, not a binary state, and it's not helpful to turn away imperfect allies at this time.

> This coming from the company that files patents like crazy and gives out t-shirts that say “patent heroes wanted”

That's not incompatible with openness if they are largely amassing a defensive patent portfolio. A desire for openness does not mean unilateral disarmament in the face of enemies who are very willing to use every status quo legal tool to.prevent openness.

Agreed. Even though Google patents like crazy, I don't recall hearing very much about them suing other people using patents.

What they're doing is trying to make it so that nobody can sue Google over something Google is doing using patents, because Google already patented it.

Are you looking for https://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/ ?

Not specifically. I'm saying that, as far as I can tell, Google isn't using its patents offensively. Not just in open source, but everywhere.

>This coming from the company that files patents like crazy and gives out t-shirts that say “patent heroes wanted”.

This is a complete red-herring. Patents are not what this case is about. Openness or cuddliness is not what this case is about.

The reality is that Google is in the right because Oracle is willing to set fire to the norms and standards that were developed over the last 50 years just because they want to squeeze more money out of Java.

You can say it even more strongly. Oracle bought SUN with the sole intention of using it as the basis to sue Google. Full stop. This is a shakedown and Oracle needs to go away.

Ah, and Google thought that Sun would sink and they could get away with screwing Sun.

If Google was so interested in Java, they could have made a bid to own Java.

Guess what, they would not have been sued and control its destiny.

With Google at the steering wheel I bet Java developers would still be enjoying Java 6.

The argument that Google deserves punishment because they didn't buy another company is not one I'm even remotely sympathetic to.

The entire industry would be worse off today if our legal policy on APIs was, "they're copyrighted, but don't worry, you can just buy out companies you want to interop with." Imagine how much smaller and how much more uninteresting the tech world would be.

Any company that wasn't the size of Google couldn't have bought Sun, and any company, even companies smaller than Google, should be free to interop with the Java APIs the same way that Google did. Discussions about whether or not Google could have bought Sun are meaningless to me, I don't think they have anything of value to add to the current case, and I don't think they have anything to do with Oracle buying Sun with the sole intention of suing someone else.

You're replying to a thread where someone complains about Google excessively filing patents as a defensive/offensive measure, and your argument is that Google should also be excessively buying companies as a defensive measure against lawsuits?

>With Google at the steering wheel I bet Java developers would still be enjoying Java 6.

Maybe. Maybe not. But just to be clear, if all this case was about was Oracle trying to extract some money from Google, it would be nothing but a curious sideshow.

What Oracle is doing goes way beyond Java. They are trying to set an insane precedent and that has never existed in our industry, and had it existed it would have drastically reshaped it to the extent that it would be unrecognizable today. The implications of Oracle winning would be far reaching and unknown.

I don't think you're being unreasonably cynical. We have numerous demonstrations of companies pretending to be virtuous when it benefits them, while also being evil when it benefits them. It's fortunate that their posturing lines up with values that some of us hold, but I consider it nothing more than a profitable coincidence.

IMHO, one of the biggest benefits of Microsoft's recent friendliness towards open source has been providing Google competition for mindshare.

Both do amazing things with and for the open source community, but Google definitely got the benefit of being The large open source company.

More competition is heathier for the entire ecosystem. Especially when it spurs executive-level attention towards continued openness.

On the one hand I agree that Google saying that we need Open interfaces is correct, but then I also know that most code within Google itself is closed source. Does anyone know if there is an Open Interface to Google Search?

In the sense being used in this article and court case, absolutely

https://www.google.com /search?hl=en&q=<query>

Actually it's possible that they copied that interface from someone else, basically every search engine uses the same one, it's how your browser url bar works.

Good point. I actually meant that google had an internal API for search which they use for customizing the search engine which I guess that they have not opened

I think we all deserve to hear Kent Walker reconcile his views with Google's "work" on asymmetrical number systems.

[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/inventor-says-go...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com