Microsoft, BSA, others file briefs in support of Oracle's appeal against Google
groklaw.net
groklaw.net
As a company that produced Windows8 apps, its seriously disappointing to see huge investments in their ecosystem go waste. Microsoft's answer for that?
1. Throw Dirt at others: Scroogle, lawsuits .... 2. Hide the stats of their decline: Windows8 apps dashboard used to show download trends of your app vs download trends of top5 apps in same category. This provided a way to judge whether platform is growing. For about 2 months (After initial December bump) the stats have been on decline. So now they decided not to show it any more.
It is really disappointing to see MSFT fall and not even make a serious attempt.
Chew gum and walk at the same time sort of a thing. Microsoft is more than one person so they have the resources to do many different things at the same time. My guess is that it's in Microsoft's interests to have as many rights as possible over code and languages. Also screwing Android and Google wouldn't hurt their business.
Google and MS have been going at each other for a decade plus, with attacks and counter attacks. Google won the latest round by having FTC not press any changes and by having MS pay a huge fine to EU.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e748bfc8-8682-11e2-b907-00144feabd...
March 6, 2013 6:56 pm
"Google tip-off leads to Microsoft EU penalty
Google has struck a €561m blow to Microsoft after the EU’s competition authority heavily fined the maker of Windows for settlement breaches secretly flagged up by the US internet group."
"According to sources quoted by the Financial Times, it was Google (along with Opera) that tipped off the EU about the lack of browser choice in Windows, putting the whole investigation in motion."[1]
The situation doesn't seem all that comparable with the FTC investigation, since this fine was for a breach of a settlement Microsoft had made with the EU. I've never thought the browser ballot was a very good solution, but I'm not feeling a whole lot of sympathy here since Microsoft agreed to it, but then didn't include the ballot for 15 months and didn't reinstate it after it received initial reports that it wasn't showing up.
You also ignored that pesky "along with Opera" for the sake of a nice narrative, though to be fair, the reporters also downgraded the importance of it in pursuit of the same thing. Considering that all you needed to "catch them" was to install Windows 7, this was really just waiting for someone that would notice the lack of the ballot that also had the channels to alert someone who would care.
I think this is missing the OP's point anyways, which is that if the perception of developers is that Microsoft's platform is hurting, then they need to publicly focus on positive boosting of that platform. This is the same complaint many have had about the whole scroogled thing.
[1] http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/07/google-microsoft-eu-fine/
>> I think this is missing the OP's point anyways, which is that if the perception of developers is that Microsoft's platform is hurting, then they need to publicly focus on positive boosting of that platform. This is the same complaint many have had about the whole scroogled thing.
I guess you didn't read my comment, because I addressed that. But I suspect that as soon as this lawsuit is over the one and only person working at Microsoft http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=MSFT+Key+Statistics will focus all his energy on boosting their platform.
No, that's exactly what I was addressing. Reporting Microsoft for breaking their own browser ballot is not comparable to, say, a long running plan to hobble Google by antitrust rulings in the US and the EU[1] or an ad campaign modeled after negative political ad campaigns. So portraying this as some sort of no holds barred fight when one side is hardly playing is rather disingenuous.
Microsoft has improved in so many ways over the late 90s, it's kind of appalling to see what their obsession with Google does to them. I really don't understand it, except maybe just the old guard remaining in positions that can still make these things happen.
And please stop suggesting that we think that all the Windows engineers were retasked to file legal briefs in Oracle v Google. That's, again, exactly the point I was addressing. It's difficult to be excited about those engineers' work when their legal and marketing teams seem to think that the only way to "win" is to make the other guy look worse than they themselves are acting.
[1] http://readwrite.com/2013/01/03/googles-ftc-settlement-is-an...
Do you only feel that way for Microsoft? Because you could say the same for Google, Apple, Oracle...and virtually any huge company that such department.
My last comment in this thread anyway, I give up with you.
> "Oracle Corporation has taken a public stand against the patentability of software and has forsworn use of its own patents except to counter-sue in infringement claims."
(http://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/chapter2_105.html)
Does anyone know the history of Oracle's position on software patents?
I don't know much about the C# license, but to me suggesting Google would use C# seemed very strange, and probably very foolish on Google's part if they were ever to do that, but a lot of people thought that would be a good idea at the time.
Either way, I think this is just another vector of attack from Microsoft towards Google to hurt them, along with stuff like #droidrage, scroogle, the push for the Google search anti-trust, and now the push for the Android anti-trust in EU, too. They just want to hurt Google, badly. It doesn't really matter how they'll do it. They'll simply explore and take advantage of all opportunities to do that. It's actually a very similar strategy they've used in the past like a decade or more ago. Microsoft hasn't changed.
In Android, the Java language syntax and semantics are used. In part, the class library is derived from Apache Harmony, though the implementation has substantially diverged, and in part is the original work of Google. The runtime is all specific to Android. The VM does not use Java bytecodes. It uses Dalvik bytecodes.
This is a neat trick: You can use Eclipse and most of the Java compilation chain. It diverges from Java where Java bytecodes are translated to Dalvik bytecodes. That means that every tool, even the ones that depend on Java bytecodes, works for Android development.
You can use other JVM languages with Android https://www.assembla.com/wiki/show/scala-ide/Developing_for_...
But (!) that elegant way it all snaps together means you need to start by making C# a JVM language, which, as far as I know, hasn't been done.
A deep, dark irony of this is that the modern Microsoft runtime environment and class library stems from Visual J++, which Sun sued out of existence. At the time, it was by far the best Java for writing interactive.applications.
Mono is a non-MS backed implementation of that standard. All of these uses of C# and .NET are legal, as far as I know.
On a side note, I've noticed that pretty much every Microsoft story posted on HN includes an antagonistic comment by you. It seems like you have quite the grudge against Microsoft.
For example, here is a comment by you dumping on Microsoft after TypeScript was released -- a completely open source language contribution that was also accompanied by plugins for non-MS editors/IDEs.[1]
I don't even really feel like discussing things with you. You've obviously made up your mind.
This is ad-hominem of the covert kind, in my opinion. Would you mind making an effort to stick to discussing the topic at hand?
I'm less clear on why API's shouldn't be copyrightable. An API isn't just a few lines of code. It's often an intense creative endeavor that ultimately represents a very specific (sometimes innovative) way of looking at the world. Sometimes, those views are uniquely terrible or uniquely elegant... but what's clear is that they are not "natural" in the way that a mathematical equation or physical law may be. It's clearly an act of creation, at least in my mind.
With that in mind... What are the best reasons to deny copyrights to API authors in a legal system that allows writers (who create intense creative endeavors representative of very specific and often innovative ways of looking at the world) copyright protections?
(Mind: I'm not against reforming said legal system; however, given the status quo, I'm not convinced about the differentiation between an API and a written work as creative (and copyrightable) works.)
(Disclaimer: I'm a huge fan of open source and being as "free" as possible. I love Creative Commons and fiercely enjoy the freedoms that FOSS can provide to developers and consumers. I think that API's are something that should be open rather than closed, but I don't think that means that all API's MUST be copyleft / public domain.)
Imagine an Array class. How many names can you come up with for: "number of elements in an array"? Count(), Size(), Len(), Length(). Those are 4 common names.
Now imagine a system where you can copyright those names. The first 4 people who use those obvious, functional names get a monopoly on their use because that's what copyright is: a government granted monopoly.
We have hundreds of languages, and many languages have multiple Array classes.
Can you see how such system would destroy our ability to write understandable code?
An API is a very small part of the overall code.
If you want to compare this to writers: code is the novel and it does get copyright protection, just like a novel.
API name is like a chapter name and just like Melville doesn't get copyright (i.e. exclusive use) of "Loomings", a programmer shouldn't get a an exclusive use of Array.Count().
It doesn't necessarily matter that something is an act of creation -- nearly everything is -- that is necessary for copyright but it isn't sufficient. Your assumption is that any intellectual exercise, no matter have trivial or damaging to the commons, deserves protection. But that is neither the spirit or the letter of the law.
Also, this really doesn't have anything to do with open source and everything to do with interoperability. Open or closed source, copyrights on APIs would lock out entire classes of software that we take for granted every day.
I would have thought they'd get the point by now and stop acting like asshats.
Oh and unsurprising SCO mention. This crap has been going on behind the scenes forever.
Watching the corporate battleground is tiresome and makes me drift away from all parties.
[1] I own a windows phone before anyone marks me up as a hater.
I think it is rising up, especially in the Asian market. From the business point of view, the best thing they did was to partner with Nokia. If it wasn't for Lumia, I don't think I would got a windows phone.
>Why Microsoft is involved I don't know.
I think it has more to do with "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". They hold the grudge against Google for cutting windows phone from Youtube Api, Google Maps, Calender, the whole exchange debacle.. etc. I hate all these corporate fights, because at the end its not them but us who lose the most.
Minor correction: they believe it's in their best interests that APIs should be copyrightable.
They want to kill Android so they can keep their old business model and get the world to license WP instead.
So does Apple. The business world is as nasty as politics, everyone pretends to care for the users, no one really does.
(Though the fact that they have that hedge in place at all is proof that they are "opponents of Android" which they naturally have to be given their agenda. That makes me think though, is there anything preventing them from jacking up that price 2-3x once WinPhone 8 launches?)