5 ms·

Indeed. This was bad representation to the point that I'm wondering if it was intentional. Google might have recently realized that, as a monopoly, fighting for

by hugi 6y ago

Indeed. This was bad representation to the point that I'm wondering if it was intentional. Google might have recently realized that, as a monopoly, fighting for API freedom perhaps isn't in their best interest.

phendrenad2 6y ago
4D chess time: Google wants to steal market share from Oracle, and Oracle offered a perfect opportunity by trying to shoot itself in the foot by making Java forks risky (thus ending innovation from the open-source world). I expect Google to invent a new bytecode language that looks and feels like Java, but isn't Java. Oh and it'll come with a promise not to sue if you copy the API, not like that big bad Oracle.
qaq 6y ago
was thinking exactly same thing
pvorb 6y ago
That would have been an expensive realization, but it sounds like a reasonable explanation.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
biztos 6y ago
If they wanted to lose, wouldn't it have been much easier (and possibly cheaper) to settle? I can't imagine Oracle would have a problem with getting to say they were right, and getting a boatload of cash, without all the bother of the Supreme Court. And doesn't intentional bad representation have weird and costly externalities, like reputation damage for the lawyer? I love the image of Google and Oracle behaving like gangsters, but I'm having trouble imagining it being this sloppy.
- toast0 6y ago
  A Supreme Court ruling is a lot better than settlement if they've decided they want to pivot to sueing independent implementations of their APIs. I wouldn't find it compelling to follow if Google took the other side of a settlement they were involved in to go and pursue others. Maybe they settled because they figured out they could make more money that way, regardless of the question of law.
  - FartyMcFarter 6y ago
    Interesting! Leaves me wondering, what independent implementations of Google APIs are out there?
    - solarkraft 6y ago
      One of the more important in my opinion is the microG project (https://microg.org/ https://microg.org/), a free re-implementation of Google’s proprietary libraries for Android that many apps on the Play store depend on.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > If they wanted to lose, wouldn't it have been much easier (and possibly cheaper) to settle? Well, it would certainly be much safer not to present such a comprehensive written argumentation and hope that you can somehow sabotage all that (and all the written arguments from friendly amici, etc., by a clumsy presentation at oral argument.) I think "highly successsful Supreme Court lawyer doing his best has a bad day at oral argument, perhaps in part due to the unusual format" is more likely than some kind of "deliberately throw the case by trying to screw up oral argument" thing.
- RonanTheGrey 6y ago
  Google would permanently lose the tech world if they don't appear to fight this battle. Give away the whole concept of API's free of copyright? The reputational damage would be immense and probably spell the beginning of the end for Google. I had the same thought (that Google is intentionally throwing the case) when I read over the Google lawyer's approach, there's no way the guy is that out of touch. The Google of today is not the Google that started this case all those years ago and the Google of today is working alot harder to create its own walled gardens. They have alot more to gain from suing the pants off anyone who tries to interoperate with them, than they stand to lose from a few $billion payoff to Oracle.
chottocharaii 6y ago
??? Dunning-Kruger effect, exemplified in this thread
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Dunning-Kruger effect, exemplified in this thread How does the effect where everyone feels they are slightly closer to about the 70th percentile in performance at a task than they are (and more the farther away from that their actual performance is) have any bearing here? Or do you mean the D-K effect of popular legend where people who are completely incompetent think they are hypercompetent, rather than the actual effect of that name?
nobody9999 6y ago
>Indeed. This was bad representation to the point that I'm wondering if it was intentional. Google might have recently realized that, as a monopoly, fighting for API freedom perhaps isn't in their best interest. That might well be true. However, I'd be more inclined to apply Hanlon's Razor[0] to this, as it's usually closer to the truth. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
dragonwriter 6y ago
> This was bad representation to the point that I'm wondering if it was intentional. Google might have recently realized that, as a monopoly, fighting for API freedom perhaps isn't in their best interest. Is your speculation that Google had this sudden realization between the filing of the various written arguments (including the standard of review for fair use memo on August 7) after fighting this case for years (all of which they've had a similar position), or do you think their written arguments are consistent with this theory?

by hugi 6y ago

phendrenad2 6y ago

4D chess time: Google wants to steal market share from Oracle, and Oracle offered a perfect opportunity by trying to shoot itself in the foot by making Java forks risky (thus ending innovation from the open-source world). I expect Google to invent a new bytecode language that looks and feels like Java, but isn't Java. Oh and it'll come with a promise not to sue if you copy the API, not like that big bad Oracle.

qaq 6y ago

was thinking exactly same thing

pvorb 6y ago

That would have been an expensive realization, but it sounds like a reasonable explanation.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

biztos 6y ago

If they wanted to lose, wouldn't it have been much easier (and possibly cheaper) to settle? I can't imagine Oracle would have a problem with getting to say they were right, and getting a boatload of cash, without all the bother of the Supreme Court. And doesn't intentional bad representation have weird and costly externalities, like reputation damage for the lawyer? I love the image of Google and Oracle behaving like gangsters, but I'm having trouble imagining it being this sloppy.

toast0 6y ago
A Supreme Court ruling is a lot better than settlement if they've decided they want to pivot to sueing independent implementations of their APIs. I wouldn't find it compelling to follow if Google took the other side of a settlement they were involved in to go and pursue others. Maybe they settled because they figured out they could make more money that way, regardless of the question of law.
- FartyMcFarter 6y ago
  Interesting! Leaves me wondering, what independent implementations of Google APIs are out there?
  - solarkraft 6y ago
    One of the more important in my opinion is the microG project (https://microg.org/ https://microg.org/), a free re-implementation of Google’s proprietary libraries for Android that many apps on the Play store depend on.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> If they wanted to lose, wouldn't it have been much easier (and possibly cheaper) to settle? Well, it would certainly be much safer not to present such a comprehensive written argumentation and hope that you can somehow sabotage all that (and all the written arguments from friendly amici, etc., by a clumsy presentation at oral argument.) I think "highly successsful Supreme Court lawyer doing his best has a bad day at oral argument, perhaps in part due to the unusual format" is more likely than some kind of "deliberately throw the case by trying to screw up oral argument" thing.
RonanTheGrey 6y ago
Google would permanently lose the tech world if they don't appear to fight this battle. Give away the whole concept of API's free of copyright? The reputational damage would be immense and probably spell the beginning of the end for Google. I had the same thought (that Google is intentionally throwing the case) when I read over the Google lawyer's approach, there's no way the guy is that out of touch. The Google of today is not the Google that started this case all those years ago and the Google of today is working alot harder to create its own walled gardens. They have alot more to gain from suing the pants off anyone who tries to interoperate with them, than they stand to lose from a few $billion payoff to Oracle.

chottocharaii 6y ago

??? Dunning-Kruger effect, exemplified in this thread

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Dunning-Kruger effect, exemplified in this thread How does the effect where everyone feels they are slightly closer to about the 70th percentile in performance at a task than they are (and more the farther away from that their actual performance is) have any bearing here? Or do you mean the D-K effect of popular legend where people who are completely incompetent think they are hypercompetent, rather than the actual effect of that name?

nobody9999 6y ago

>Indeed. This was bad representation to the point that I'm wondering if it was intentional. Google might have recently realized that, as a monopoly, fighting for API freedom perhaps isn't in their best interest. That might well be true. However, I'd be more inclined to apply Hanlon's Razor[0] to this, as it's usually closer to the truth. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

dragonwriter 6y ago

> This was bad representation to the point that I'm wondering if it was intentional. Google might have recently realized that, as a monopoly, fighting for API freedom perhaps isn't in their best interest. Is your speculation that Google had this sudden realization between the filing of the various written arguments (including the standard of review for fair use memo on August 7) after fighting this case for years (all of which they've had a similar position), or do you think their written arguments are consistent with this theory?