Microsoft foresees chaos if Google v. Oracle result stands
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
The ruling [1] [2] draws a bright line between what is copyrightable and what is not. As much as Microsoft would like to kill Wine and ReactOS, independent implementation is always permissible [3].
As for Google's copying of "key source code:" An individual Google engineer copied a nine-line function called rangeCheck(), which validated some numerical parameters in the Java implementation of Timsort [4], from his previous job at Sun. When Google became aware of the code's provenance, it was removed from Android.
[1] http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120531172522...
[2] http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1202.pdf
[3] As far as copyright is concerned. Patents specifically forbid independent implementation. The problems with software patents are a whole article in themselves.
> "If I did, it was a mistake," Bloch said, "and I'm sorry I did it."
> The nine lines of rangeCheck code were removed from Android in version 4.0 of the operating system.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/19/2961128/google-chief-java-...
--
I know it's not good when linking to FOSS, but could not find another source: http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/04/andy-rubin-knew-that-clea...
> Andy Rubin wrote:
> My reasoning is that either a) we'll partner with Sun as contemplated in our recent discussions or b) we'll take a license. I think a clean-room implementation is unlikely because of the team[']s prior knowledge, and it would be uncharacteristically aggressive of us to position ourselves against the industry.
> The only thing we give up is a little leverage in the discussions where the threat of a clean-room implementation is of some value.
The fact that it's in the ruling is important: Since Alsup articulated these circumstances as judicial findings in the official case record, they will definitely receive strong consideration in an appeal.
(At least in the US, appeals courts can only consider findings of fact that have been found by a judge or jury in a lower court.)
I agree with what you say about copyright, but this doesn't really make much sense to me. Why would Microsoft even care about ReactOS? It's been in development for over a decade and hasn't released a single stable version that's even compatible with Win 2000, let alone Win 8.
Wine might be a little more tricky, but even looking at their compatibility page it lists two applications that aren't games (photoshop CS3 and .net framework 3.5) that appear on their "Silver" list of compatible applications (i.e. "Applications with minor issues that do not affect typical usage"). In both cases, the version that is listed is several years out of date from the current version.
While I applaud the efforts by both of these teams to create the software that they've created, looking at it objectively, I don't see either one of them as threats to microsoft in any sense of the word. Both projects have had over a decade to prove otherwise, and both have failed to do so. They are still cool and useful projects, but not as something I think microsoft would wish were dead.
It would be really funny if the appeals court reversed, IBM sued Oracle into oblivion (since SQL is the latter's flagship product), and then Microsoft and Google teamed up with the open-source community for copyright reform.
Hopefully Oracle will lose the appeal and we will keep a little more of sanity on the software world.
The funniest thing is in the title itself. Foreseeing is the exact thing they've always been bad at - I tend to thing they even have a "screen for foresight and reject if such ability is detected" policy on hiring interviews or a corporate culture that explicitly forbids "foresight" :)
If Microsoft truly had foresight, they wouldn't be in the situation they are in.
You made your DWG clone? Get sued. Made a PDF clone? Sued! Made a insertRandomProprietaryFileFormatHere clone? Sued! Made a Wine, DOSBOX, Mono, any other sort of compatibility layer? Sued!!!
If Oracle manage to reverse and win this, it means that Oracle, Microsoft, Adobe, Autodesk and Apple will just bash everyone else (including Open Source stuff) to oblivion.
Maybe Microsoft is using the wrong legal mechanism if this ruling will destabilize the software industry? Maybe they are looking for trade secrets?
I don't really understand this argument that the law needs to change because my business methods won't make as much money.
> "little respect for the creativity involved in Oracle's works"
Wasn't it just a timsort implementation? Surely Oracle didn't create that originally.
EDIT: Yea, apparently Oracle ripped it off from Python. Not suggesting copyright infringement, but there was no "creativity" involved.
But I suggest reading the judge's ruling [1], which is actually rather entertaining, to get a sense of the actual circumstances of this case before you try to swim against the tide without making any cogent arguments or citing any facts.