LMAO... Yes, it's called shorting dumbdumb..haha ..
First like I've said to you so many times...get smart and educate yourself. .. But i still couldn't promise a donk like you well be as successful as me ( : actually I would bet against you even being able to learn anything at all........Bawhaha
bigdonut knows all ( :
papa puppet pounder are you still making money buying high and selling low? I want to trade like you papa puppet pounder.
LMAO...did somebody write stupid across your head right before you posted that ?....Bawhhahaha Hilarious how when I read the board posts, you are always in one or two posting thinking they're me. I love it...
Have patience my uneducated trumpuppet, as I have more important stocks to tend to than to be here pulling your strings & correcting you all the time. I can't stop laughing.....Bawha
sorry papa puppet pounder what would ever make me think you would post under another fake name papa puppet pounder. It must be just a coincidence you always answer when I post to mill, beans, jelly, and many more.
Not all "interfaces" are created equal ...
CAFC (Oracle's brief): .... As to those 37 packages, Google admits it copied verbatim virtually all of Sun’s declaring source code, thereby replicating the entire detailed structure of each package, and then paraphrased the implementing code. Google did what other businesses that took a Specification License to do—but without the requisite compatibility.
.... The 37 packages Google copied from Oracle contain 677 classes and 6508 methods—totaling at least 7000 lines of declaring code.
Google admits that it copied all of this declaring source code verbatim—thousands of specific package, class, and method declarations; the definitions and parameters; and the exceptions. Because declaring code identifies, specifies, and defines the components and their arrangement within the packages, when Google copied Java’s declaring code, it also copied the “sequence and organization” of the packages (i.e., the three-dimensional structure with all the chutes and ladders). Google’s “Java guru,” conceded (and the district court found,) that Google did not need to engage in this massive copying in order to design its own platform in the Java language.
What Google paraphrased. Once it had the declaring code, “doing the implementation from scratch is a
relatively easier job.” Google merely had to “follow the map” laid out in the 40,000-page Specification and “fill in the details” (i.e., implementing code).
Google hired Noser—a foreign contractor that the Android Project director described as “super shady,”— to help write Android’s implementing code, Google’s programmers admit that they and Noser pored over the Specification as they did their paraphrasing ... "
"API's shouldn't be copyrightable. "
Obviously, the court has it right. API is essentiallly a software socket that provides docking facility for communication with external programs. Otherwise, without API how else would you be able to develop application on client/server?
I was only saying that the copyrighted interfaces in themselves, without implementation or patented design meat, are pretty much of the same value as my
Copyright (R) Alugoing2.zero
I'm interested in it too very much, the daily phone I still use is a Nokia because it's battery life. Of course, I have couple of other phones as well, but still.
It is hard to predict the future, here's some proof:
"The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys." -- Sir William Preece, Chief Engineer, British Post Office, 1878.
By definition, you can't patent or copyright a public domain design. Java is a free and open source language, but the Java platform is not free. Oracle offers 3 types of licenses for the Java platform: free (with a requirement to give back all modifications to the community), specification licenses (you can copy the declaring code but make your own implementation code and pass the TCK compatability test) and commercial licenses (go for it, baby, as long as it is compatible). In this case, Oracle asserted patents and copyrights on different parts of the Java platform, not the language. This case is about copyright.
It's a mixed model of open source and closed source that most companies now struggle with because, at the end of the day, somebody's gotta pay the bills that kills.
And there's winners and there's losers
But they ain't no big deal
'Cause the simple man, baby
Pays for thrills, the bills,
The pills that kill
Oh, but ain't that America
For you and me
Ain't that America
Something to see, baby
Ain't that America
Home of the free, yeah
Pink Houses - John Cougar Mellencamp
Well, I'd like to see one but lloks like HMD would be doing it. Might be a hit because ppl may be interested in new blood.
The purpose of FirstNet is to establish, operate, and maintain an interoperable public safety broadband network. To fulfill these objectives, Congress allotted $7 billion and 20 MHz of valuable radio spectrum to build the network.
FirstNet request for proposals (RFP) deadline is May 31. One week to go. That is all the time that is left until proposals are due from bidding teams — known as offerors— seeking the right build and maintain a nationwide public-safety broadband network (NPSBN) outlined in FirstNet’s RFP.
"FirstNet RFP uses an ingenious approach that requires the winning offeror — also known as the contractor — to pay FirstNet a fixed fee annually for 25 years to fund FirstNet’s ongoing operations and potentially provide funds to pay for technology upgrades to the system, even if public-safety adoption of the system is minimal."
Nokia was once the world's leading supplier of Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA) networks and terminals. TETRA is a professional mobile radio and two-way transceiver specification. TETRA was specifically designed for use by government agencies, emergency services, (police forces, fire departments, ambulance) for public safety networks, rail transport staff for train radios, transport services and the military.
"... Again you're confusing patents with copyrights. ...."
No, we are not. I was saying that copying a Java interface without a patent behind is different animal than copying the "Gucci" trademark with lots of design patent behind. A copyright on Java interfaces for a public domain design seems meaningless to me. I can put a copyright sign on everything I say on this board, but it's still meaningless.
Copyright (R) Alugoing2.zero
Again you're confusing patents with copyrights. A patent gives you an exclusive legal right to exclude others from making, using or selling an invention. Patents generally last 20 years from date of application. A copyright gives you the exclusive legal right to use and/or distribute "original" work. Copyrights generally last from 95-125 years.
Again, the term "one with ordinary skill in the art" is used in patent cases, typically as part of a challenge to the obviousness of patented inventions. It is not used in copyrights. Just because it becomes obvious to one with "ordinary skill in the art" doesn't mean that you lose your registered copyright.
Patents and copyright eventually expire and become part of the public domain.
".... but the legal question is what happens when the fair use legal exemption effectively dilutes or renders copyright protection inutile? ..."
"Gucci" is a trademark that is copyright protected. So when Sammy copies Gucci's trademark for his own baggies, it's crystal clear that he infringes on a copyright. If Sammy clones the Gucci baggie, and then pretends it's his own because he put his own brand name alias on it, it's still crystal clear that Sammy is a criminal because the Gucci baggie is protected by a design patent.
The problem with copyrighted Java interface code is unfortunately not as crystal clear. If Oracle had patents for all the innovations behind these interfaces, Google would have to pay Billions to Oracle. But Oracle does not own this design. I don't know what they actually own by merely expressing an existing design in their own formal language, which itself is public domain. Oracle may argue they put the copyright on the structure of the packages, but this structure, too, is typically a direct consequence of the innovation behind it, which Oracle cannot claim, and what's left of the design work seems "obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art."
A group of management people from within the company could do a LBO and take Nokia private. The chances of that happening, however, are approaching 0.
I bet, soon enough. They will be designed (with a little help from Nokia) by HMD Oy, a new Finland based company. It has licensed the Nokia brand, for smartphones. I suppose, HMD will have no trouble finding good people to design them, because of the recent Microsoft layouts.
Manufacturing will be done by Foxconn, the same company who manufactures iPhones.
Btw, there never was Nokia Android phones, but N900, a phone with Maemo OS, based on Linux. That business is continued by Jolla, and the phone operating system is named as Sailfish.
The law is not a popularity contest. Have you not learned anything about the madness of crowds? lol Google is very popular because it provides many free services (with real hidden costs), but the legal question is what happens when the fair use legal exemption effectively dilutes or renders copyright protection inutile?
The jury of laypeople had their say. The CAFC is next. Probably in 1-2 years. Supreme Court will draw that final line in 3-4 years, give or take 6 months depending on how they expedite a very high profile case like this.
Anyway, this was a surprise victory for google, from lawyer's perspective.
One lawyer even set up a poll, where you could vote for the result. I bet there was not many lawyers who voted. It was quite clear, 70-30% for google.
But, the Silicon Valley jurors ruled this way, using someone's API is fair use, it's hard to argue with that.