End of android!?


  1. Socrat3s

    Socrat3s Well-Known Member

    If the dispute with Oracle doesn't end up in Google's favor android is screwed. If i'm not mistaken Oracle is suing Google for 6.1 Billion:confused: because they think Google used Java or something like that, i'm a little confused. I just know it won't be good for Android.

    Advertisement
    :
  2. Stinky Stinky

    Stinky Stinky Well-Known Member

  3. ardchoille

    ardchoille Well-Known Member

    Oracle is in bed with Microsoft, and Microsoft, being the kings of FUD that they are, would love for us to believe that Android is doomed.

    Don't believe the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt).
    9to5cynic likes this.
  4. Socrat3s

    Socrat3s Well-Known Member

    Wait didn't Google publish the ice cream sandwich sdk?(I could be wrong) Honeycomb wasn't that great though. That's why they made 4.0 for smartphones and tablets. Why do you think the xoom didn't sell good? The software wasn't user friendly.
    Stinky Stinky likes this.
  5. Abdur

    Abdur Well-Known Member

    The code for 3.0 was kind of half baked. They didn't want to release that. They will release the 4.0 source code. (Highly likely) The SDK is already out. :)
    Stinky Stinky likes this.
  6. Stinky Stinky

    Stinky Stinky Well-Known Member

    Hmm ja good point actually!

    :/

    It seems there is an Android 4.0 and an Android 3.0 SDK for both Linux and Windows and other main OS's like Macintosh etc etc.

    Here:

    Android 4.0 Platform | Android Developers

    Android 3.0 Platform | Android Developers

    Hmm but I am not happy that they have not released the Android 3.0 AND the Android 4.0 Source Code....

    Baaaaad stuff.

    But I could be wrong not 100% sure though.

    I know they can do what ever they want to but I really hope Boot to Gecko will continue the good Spirit Of the Open Source Community... But I can only hope :(

    https://wiki.mozilla.org/B2G

    I wonder if Boot 2 Gecko will be a success or not?

    I dunno though I could be completey off target here lol ;)

    But I think I am going off topic with my elite "no concentration skills"

    Hahah :)

    Just jokin as I usually do lol ;)

    My apologies because I am always going off topic lol :)
  7. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    This story is kind of old. At the end of the day Google and Oracle will settle and sign some sort of licensing deal. That's how it always ends.
  8. Slug

    Slug Check six! Moderator

    Isn't Oracle's dispute at least partly over the Dalvik VM? Iirc there's some doubt whether they've actually got any claim to that....

    As for Android 4.0 source code, Google have said it will be released once the Galaxy Nexus goes on sale. That's perfectly compliant with GPL etc licensing. The SDK is always released in advance to allow developers to ready their products for the new OS.
  9. ardchoille

    ardchoille Well-Known Member

    Android Open Source Project license

    The preferred license for the Android Open Source Project is the Apache Software License, 2.0 ("Apache 2.0"), and the majority of the Android software is licensed with Apache 2.0. While the project will strive to adhere to the preferred license, there may be exceptions which will be handled on a case-by-case basis. For example, the Linux kernel patches are under the GPLv2 license with system exceptions, which can be found on kernel.org.

    Is Google required to release all of the android source code?
  10. ardchoille

    ardchoille Well-Known Member

    Yeah, Microsoft tried to do this with the Linux community too. The say "your software violates our patents, sign our agreement or we'll take you to court", but they never say which patents are being violated, how or why. They're hoping people will sign an agreement based solely on their statements and bow to their pressure. The Linux community told them to put up or shut up. Microsoft never took anyone to court so many assumed Microsoft is lying just to get people to sign their agreements. And now they're doing it to the android community. It's sad that people bow to pressure without first seeing proof. Google probably knows better :)

    Someone should sue Microsoft for harassment and make them show which patents are being violated.
  11. Gmash

    Gmash Well-Known Member

    The only reason Honeycomb source code wasn't released was because it was designed for tablets and Google didn't want people trying to put it on phones and having a bad experience. ICS will still be open source.
    Abdur and Socrat3s like this.
  12. mikedt

    mikedt 你好 Guide

    AFAIK...Nope... only the GPL licensed portions, namely the Linux kernel. The Apache and BSD licenses carry no obligation for anyone to release source code. They only have to retain the copyright notices.
    Slug likes this.
  13. EarlyMon

    EarlyMon The PearlyMon Moderator

    More sensationalism.

    Both parties upped the ante to over 6 billion - the judge told them to come back to reality or face court sanctions.

    That was weeks - months? - ago.
    Snow_Fox, Gmash and ardchoille like this.
  14. Martimus

    Martimus One bite at a time... Moderator

    I wouldn't worry too much about Oracle. Larry Ellison of Oracle has made a career out of bullying people.
    9to5cynic, ardchoille and EarlyMon like this.
  15. The_Chief

    The_Chief Accept no imitations! Moderator

    Good thing face unlock is coming with Ice Cream Sandwich! I'm shocked that Apple didn't try to patent "unlock" completely, making Apple users the only people who could lock/unlock their phones.

    DANG! I'd better shut up before they file the paperwork! ;)
  16. EarlyMon

    EarlyMon The PearlyMon Moderator

    How interesting. The story first hit 9-to-5 Mac, here's the link -

    Slide to Unlock? Patented! | 9to5Mac | Apple Intelligence

    Earlier, that story referenced patent 7,657,849 because it was filed in 2005 (but actually granted in Feb 2010.

    Abstract:

    But now 9-to-5 is correctly noting the 2004 Neonode N1m was cited by a Dutch judge who declared the Apple patent invalid due to this prior art -

    Neonode N1m review - YouTube

    (edit - try not to go nuts on tnkgrl from Engadget swapping her lefts and rights in the explanation - she was watching another display and goofed, it happens)

    Meanwhile, they also updated the article to explain that it was patent 8,046,721 that was granted on Oct 25, 2011, interestingly filed in June 2009. Note the abstract -

    So - the new patent filed in 2009 is a continuation (expansion?) of the patent filed in 2005.

    I'm too busy or bored to track down iPhone details. There will be a lot of work for the legal hounds on this one. Five years on that first patent - that means that an examiner was not happy and Apple had to answer to their questions. That was probably the basis for the 2009 filing.

    I was curious enough to see how wide this patent went on touchscreen tech and found -

    If other courts agree with the Dutch judge, then Apple has tried to patent prior art and this all goes away.

    If we get judges like that German idiot - well... it'll be more fun and games.
  17. pastafarian

    pastafarian Pâtes avec votre foie Moderator

    Another Apple patent for something that existed before Apple first "invented" it. There were slide to unlock tools on WM (WinCE back then actually)that way out date the 2009 or 2005 filings. Apple design is great, but their marketing and legal (abuse) departments are really where their strengths lie.
    EarlyMon likes this.
  18. Snow_Fox

    Snow_Fox Well-Known Member

    "HI I am going for a computer science degree!"

    "Well that is lovely which law school do you plan to attend?"
    Stinky Stinky and EarlyMon like this.
  19. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    Apparently there is also some dispute over whether the Apple patent covers swiping left to right to unlock (which Android doesn't violate if they just change the lock screen to swipe down) or whether it covers all swiping motions on the touch screen to unlock (which Android violates even with it's pattern to unlock feature). Apple will try to argue the latter as they should (I would in their shoes). Every other phone manufacturer will try to argue prior art and/or that it's obvious. How else will you unlock a touch screen phone?
  20. EarlyMon

    EarlyMon The PearlyMon Moderator

    I missed that in the patents. Seemed very clearly written to cover all embodiments, not just left to right.
  21. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    Yeah it does the more I read it. It's pretty incredibly broad to the point where you have to wonder why it was even granted in the first place.
    EarlyMon likes this.
  22. EarlyMon

    EarlyMon The PearlyMon Moderator

    The patents I've gotten, worked on, have dealt with, were all very tight in the language. In one of my earliest ones I drafted the phrase, "including but not limited to" because that's common language in requirements and also contracts, btw.

    My attorney all but slapped me. I had to list each embodiment so that there was no doubt what my claim was.

    Yet, here is a post-dot-com patent, and that phrase is there: including but not limited to.

    And this is not a small point and I'm not nit-picking.

    I believe that individuals and companies ought to be able to seek legal protection against infringement of their intellectual property.

    However - for that to work, the definitions of the property have to be clear. Not from a nit-picking legal sense - to the patent examiner. Old school, you and your attorney searched for prior art according to enumerated claims - and then the examiner searched even more deeply, taking sometimes years just on the search.

    I think when the language is broad, the examiners are limited in their search - and what isn't refuted in patents is granted.

    I've been wondering how we could have gotten so many patents granted in the last decade and with that language, I can see why.

    I often am involved with contracts for our company. My attorney says repeatedly, leave nothing vague, because anything vague hurts both parties later if we have to go to court.

    And what are we seeing today? In my opinion, vaguely worded patents in court getting dragged out and only then cross-referenced to reality and all of the arguments that entails.

    Does Android infringe on the Apple patent or was it too broad or covered by prior art?

    Much of this could have been avoided - either the bad patent, the infringement if it did happen, or the protracted court battle that's apparently coming.

    As who pays for this?

    Taxpayers, shareholders and consumers.

    In other words, everyone except the guilty parties.

    That's how I see it, anyways. Your mileage may vary. :) ;)
    Drhyde likes this.
  23. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    In the world of patents I think it's in the companies best interest to be vague. If I can patent, you touch the screen and something happens then I have basically patented a touch screen. It's extremely broad, but I can sue everyone and maybe one of them will pay up which makes it worth my while. The more specific I get the easier it is for someone to step around my patent.

    If Apple had patented "you slide an icon from left to right", then all Android (or anyone else for that matter) has to do is just make you slide from right to left. Problem solved. But that's not Apple's intent here. They don't just want to just protect their IP, they want to punish their competitors in the process. I'm not saying Apple is evil for doing this either as every company out there is doing the same thing.
Loading...

Share This Page