4 ms·

Just some anectdotal evidence, but at work I had to implement a clone of our Google Maps application in Baidu Maps for our customers in China. The only reason I

by vdnkh 11y ago

Just some anectdotal evidence, but at work I had to implement a clone of our Google Maps application in Baidu Maps for our customers in China. The only reason I was able to use their API was because they copied Google's interfaces, in some cases, word for word.

IshKebab 11y ago
Evidence for what? Sounds like a good thing that they used the same API as Google for their maps to me. Like how Google used Sun's API for Java.
- logicchains 11y ago
  Or how Microsoft and Oracle used IBM's SQL API.
- Zigurd 11y ago
  Google uses the APIs from Java 6 and back for the "boring" bits. Android Java is the de facto client Java today because Google abandoned the UI APIs in Java 6 and created their own. Sun's, then Oracle's argument is that Google is "harming" Java by breaking the standard.
  - virmundi 11y ago
    I think there is subtile difference. Java was, is and shall be a standard. To say you had a Java implementation meant that you supported the Java APIs. It was a legal definition. Google had Java-like runtime that they promoted as a Java runtime. This led to the question of API protections and reasonableness. Using Google's API for your own competitive product API is different. Google has not set a standard for map APIs. At least not officially. It might be THE standard for maps, but that is neither here nor there. At this point you could call it cheating. They took intellectual property and appropriated it for a clone. Plus side, we now have an implied standard. Downside, theft of intellectual property.
    - Zigurd 11y ago
      You are mixing a number of issues here: 1. Google Play Services APIs: These are optional, proprietary APIs. You don't have to use them, and you have to treat them as optional if you want to operate across Google, Amazon, and other AOSP-derived Androids. What's the issue here? They're like any other proprietary API. 2. "Breaking" the "Java standard:" Google "appropriated," via a permissive open source license, an open source implementation of some Java base classes, and the (not protectable) syntax of the Java language. They added support for their own remote API feature and a bunch of APIs, mainly to make a usable UI system. The result runs on a runtime Google devised, using a bytecode Google devised. Where is the intellectual property theft?
- vdnkh 11y ago
  Evidence in the context that Baidu "cheats". I agree, it's not a bad thing. But from my experience it seems they copied Google's interface (which is functional and pretty) but had a complete misunderstanding of how to implement it. A lot of features that worked well with Google's implementation felt awkward or forced with Baidu's.
dantheman 11y ago
It's no different than companies make 3rd party parts for existing systems, e.g. making competing kurig pods, etc

by vdnkh 11y ago

IshKebab 11y ago

Evidence for what? Sounds like a good thing that they used the same API as Google for their maps to me. Like how Google used Sun's API for Java.

logicchains 11y ago
Or how Microsoft and Oracle used IBM's SQL API.
Zigurd 11y ago
Google uses the APIs from Java 6 and back for the "boring" bits. Android Java is the de facto client Java today because Google abandoned the UI APIs in Java 6 and created their own. Sun's, then Oracle's argument is that Google is "harming" Java by breaking the standard.
- virmundi 11y ago
  I think there is subtile difference. Java was, is and shall be a standard. To say you had a Java implementation meant that you supported the Java APIs. It was a legal definition. Google had Java-like runtime that they promoted as a Java runtime. This led to the question of API protections and reasonableness. Using Google's API for your own competitive product API is different. Google has not set a standard for map APIs. At least not officially. It might be THE standard for maps, but that is neither here nor there. At this point you could call it cheating. They took intellectual property and appropriated it for a clone. Plus side, we now have an implied standard. Downside, theft of intellectual property.
  - Zigurd 11y ago
    You are mixing a number of issues here: 1. Google Play Services APIs: These are optional, proprietary APIs. You don't have to use them, and you have to treat them as optional if you want to operate across Google, Amazon, and other AOSP-derived Androids. What's the issue here? They're like any other proprietary API. 2. "Breaking" the "Java standard:" Google "appropriated," via a permissive open source license, an open source implementation of some Java base classes, and the (not protectable) syntax of the Java language. They added support for their own remote API feature and a bunch of APIs, mainly to make a usable UI system. The result runs on a runtime Google devised, using a bytecode Google devised. Where is the intellectual property theft?
vdnkh 11y ago
Evidence in the context that Baidu "cheats". I agree, it's not a bad thing. But from my experience it seems they copied Google's interface (which is functional and pretty) but had a complete misunderstanding of how to implement it. A lot of features that worked well with Google's implementation felt awkward or forced with Baidu's.

dantheman 11y ago

It's no different than companies make 3rd party parts for existing systems, e.g. making competing kurig pods, etc