6 ms·

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 nar

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.

daenz 7y ago
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.
gpm 7y ago
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/18/18-956/89487/20190225134131839_18-956_Oracle_v__Google_Computer_Scientists_Amicus_Motion_Brief_FILE.pdf 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...
- ethbro 7y ago
  > 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).
  - chipperyman573 7y ago
    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
    - saghm 7y ago
      A lot of people aren't fond of how much functionally is tied to Google Play Services, which is not open source
    - rapnie 7y ago
      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)#AOSP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#AOS...
      - bduerst 7y ago
        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.
ethbro 7y ago
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.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> 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.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  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.
  - smueller1234 7y ago
    Are you looking for https://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/ https://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/ ?
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      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.
zubairq 7y ago
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?
- gpm 7y ago
  In the sense being used in this article and court case, absolutely https://www.google.com 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.
  - zubairq 7y ago
    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
arh68 7y ago
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-google-is-patenting-work-he-put-in-the-public-domain/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/inventor-says-go...
macspoofing 7y ago
>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.
- snarf21 7y ago
  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.
  - pjmlp 7y ago
    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.
    - danShumway 7y ago
      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?
danShumway 7y ago
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.

daenz 7y ago

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.

gpm 7y ago

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/18/18-956/89487/20190225134131839_18-956_Oracle_v__Google_Computer_Scientists_Amicus_Motion_Brief_FILE.pdf 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...

ethbro 7y ago
> 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).
- chipperyman573 7y ago
  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
  - saghm 7y ago
    A lot of people aren't fond of how much functionally is tied to Google Play Services, which is not open source
  - rapnie 7y ago
    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)#AOSP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#AOS...
    - bduerst 7y ago
      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.

ethbro 7y ago

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.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> 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.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
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.
- smueller1234 7y ago
  Are you looking for https://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/ https://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/ ?
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    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.

zubairq 7y ago

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?

gpm 7y ago
In the sense being used in this article and court case, absolutely https://www.google.com 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.
- zubairq 7y ago
  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

arh68 7y ago

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-google-is-patenting-work-he-put-in-the-public-domain/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/inventor-says-go...

macspoofing 7y ago

>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.

snarf21 7y ago
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.
- pjmlp 7y ago
  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.
  - danShumway 7y ago
    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?

danShumway 7y ago

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.