Shared publicly  - 
 
On Larry Ellison and his comments about Google and Larry Page:

We typically try to avoid getting dragged into public battles with other companies. But I’ve gotten a lot of questions about Larry Ellison’s claims that Google “took [Oracle’s] stuff”.  It’s simply untrue -- and that’s not just my opinion, but the judgment of a U.S. District Court.  

Here are the facts. In 2012, after Oracle sued Google for patent and copyright infringement in a case involving Java and Android, a jury found that we had not infringed Oracle’s patents. And the Court ruled that copyright could not be used to block others from using the “structure, sequence and organization” of APIs, the language that allows different computer programs and systems to talk to each other. The ruling protects a principle vital to innovation: you cannot copyright an idea, like a method of operation.  For example, no one can copyright the idea of adding two numbers together.

This case goes to the heart of the current and much-needed debate about patent reform. Patents were designed to encourage invention, not stop the development of new ideas and technologies.  

And getting that right is what really matters.  I know all of the above because I was heavily involved at Sun with Java and I had the privilege, thanks to Oracle, of testifying in this trial.

Eric
1410
200
Aaron Wood's profile photoVinoth Ragunathan's profile photoKai Wulff's profile photoRicardo Blanco's profile photo
151 comments
 
+Eric Schmidt Why don't you go for the Microsoft job and take that ethos in there with you. Make the world better.
 
Larry Ellison's bitter comments recently against Larry Page shows me that Oracle bought Sun for the primary purpose of suing Google. Larry Ellison now doesn't seem that excited to own Sun and Java.



 
+Carlos Torres exactly, Oracle seemed most excited about the idea of making money by suing people using Java rather than doing something good with Java itself. When that didn't play well they are complaining about Google being evil.
 
... a perfect use of Google+, btw! 
 
Thanks for sharing your opinion. The freedom of speech. And a surprising post here on Google+. There must be a bit of personal feelings involved.
 
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I was wondering if someone from Google was going to respond to his comments.
Kai Wulff
+
1
1
2
1
 
Very balanced response .. Good to see that the Google culture can respond without sinking to the low levels it gets attached from
 
Without smart people building and using your products you will be "absolutely evil" for everyone as they say.
Not this noise is ruining you but all these "auto" and "magic" that's making 9/10 of users happy and 1/10 want quit this.
Enjoy your dictatorship Google. You forgot who gave you that power.  Your vacuum cleaner ate freedom.
No freedom no Google. You should afraid only yourself.
 
I don't care about any of this as long as MySQL stays funky :)
 
As much as I would like to believe this I'm going to has to call bs. Google is evil. Ask Microsoft users. 
 
Google is evil. Ask Microsoft users.

lulz
 
+Fernando Maldonado You're right, users should decide who is evil. But they should see whole picture and not just believe Microsoft with "we want but Google ... ".
Incorrect use of Google's API is real evil for sure.
 
If Larry Ellison feels that he is right and Google is wrong, he has the right for round two. Using the public forum to air his concern, is not going to help him. If he is not happy with the judgement from the US district court, he can file for an appeal. 
 
The best part of that trial was when judge Alsup dropped the bomb that he actually took the time to learn java so he could tell Oracle were liars, and why they were liars. Best judge ever. 
 
I followed that trial very closely. For Oracle to attempt to copyright "SSO" of an interface is pure greed and evil. It would fundamentally change the software engineering industry and would encourage the the rise of small islands of non-interoperable software controlled by corporations.

And don't get me started on rangeCheck() yeesh.
 
Does this have anything to do with the constant Java updates on Chrome for PC that continually attempt to install that treacherous Ask toolbar?
 
Larry Ellison is just a punk, you don´t need to respond to him.
 
I get Mr. Ellison's competitive drive. But when he acts like this he demeans himself, his Company and technology as a whole. This is how a big man can make himself look very, very small.
 
+Eric Schmidt so are you admitting you copied their idea, but that this idea is not able to be copyrighted?

This is not my claim, I am just getting this impression from the argument made in the post.
 
And Sun's then-head blogged excitedly about Android's use of Java, and Sun made a big push to say Java would be "open". So, entirely apart from the law, it's ridiculous for Ellison to use moral language about "stealing" something that Java's creators said was open and were happy to see Google use.

You don't see Google suing Amazon over their use of AOSP or saying they "stole" it, which is a powerful testament to the fact that when Google says "open" it's not meaningless.
 
+Jonathan Langdale He's saying you can't copyright API's. It's similar to how you can't copyright laughing or walking. 
 
+Scott Wilson I realize that.  But offering the argument in the way +Eric Schmidt did in the post above made it seem like while you can steal someone's idea, you cannot copyright ideas.

I agree with the notion that there are limits to copyright claims which improperly lay claim to a "system or method of operation."

Oracle even acknowledged that Google had not literally copied code.  Their argument was that the "structure, sequences and organization of the overall code" was replicated.

I am not arguing that Oracle was correct.  But I'm saying that the argument offered by Eric seems to say that you simply cannot copyright the "structure, sequences and organization" of an API.  You can copy it, but you cannot copyright it.  So you publish an API, the "structure, sequence and organization" is totally up for grabs for others to copy as an idea?  There are lots of ways of structuring, sequencing and organizing an API. Some might be better than others.

Is that a fair assessment?

And I'm not sure that I agree that the "structure, sequence and organization" of an API is akin to walking or laughing.  There is no subconscious human mechanism that produces API structuring, sequences and organization.
 
+Jonathan Langdale If you could copyright API's, then you could sue people for standard functions like for(), while(), etc that exist in all coding languages. Oracle could have literally started suing python developers, C developers, etc since the API's across so many languages are essentially identical. My example was pretty close to what Oracle was actually attempting to do with their frivolous and baseless harassment suite against Google that they rightly lost. The consumer won. The tech industry won, and Google won when the correct judgement was handed down by an amazing judge that takes his job very seriously.  
 
+Scott Wilson I'm not arguing that API structure, sequence and organization is copyrightable.  I'm not arguing Oracle's case either.

To suggest I am would be a distraction from the point I was actually making, or a simple failure to make the distinction.
 
+Jonathan Langdale I think the confusion is over the language. You are saying "steal an idea" when they used a standard API to build something new. It would be like if you copied an example from a programming book for helloworld.c but instead of saying "hello world", yours said "Hello Planet" and someone tried to sue you for it. That's how basic the functions were that Oracle were trying to sue over. 
 
If anyone can speak with some authority on the Java language, I would imagine it's the man who worked at the company that actually designed it (Sun) rather than the man that bought the company as a legal instrument.
 
+Jonathan Langdale If you're not arguing for API copyrightability, then I'm afraid your argument completely escapes me. You haven't articulated your point well enough. Before putting the failure on others' comprehension, perhaps consider that it was YOU that didn't make the distinction clear enough. I still do not know what exactly you are arguing.
 
the thing about mud-slinging is that fewer people read the rebuke than the original attack.  Larry Ellison knows this, and that's why he continues to make outrageous claims.
 
+Jonathan Langdale He's admitting that they they used a similar API for their Dalvik VM as the existing Java VM so it would be familiar to existing Java developers...
 
+James Pakele I am pretty sure that counterfeit iPhones in China are made to be familiar to people familiar with non-counterfeit ones.

I am not saying that Android is a counterfeit.
 
+Jonathan Langdale No offense, but I'm not really seeing the basis for your argument. Eric never admits to stealing. He says in three words, "it's simply untrue." If there is any vagary in the following lines its probably because its a ~300 word post and not a thesis paper.
 
+Brian Doig My basis is the fact that Eric used a defense that said ideas can't be copyrighted. His words. This would be used when someone takes an idea from someone else which cannot be copyrighted. So, I only ask if that implies that some ideas can be replicated or sourced from an originator whilst not being subject to copyright?

If so, this is an admission of some sort while not admitting to copyright violation. This is totally different than just saying that nothing was ever replicated from Sun/Oracle. 
 
+Jonathan Langdale they mirrored an API... That's not stealing, that's making something familiar...

Copying the style and construct of a door handle is different than copying the idea that a door should have a handle by which to pull it open...

In this case they did not copy the code by which a file was opened, they implemented the idea that a file should have an open method... 
 
+Jonathan Langdale I think you're way over-analyzing this. Even so, we can play this out and say that he's admitting they stole an idea. Then he admits that the idea they stole is comparable to the idea of adding two numbers together. +Scott Wilson 's points were valid. So were Eric's when he talks about the need for a discussion on patent reform.

It's like me trying to sue you for using punctuation, capitalization, and common English sentence structure while composing your responses.
 
+Jonathan Langdale and if you watched the trials you'd see that Google was very open with Sun as to what they were doing and, I believe, Google even had the person that was CEO of Sun at the time testify on Google's behalf. 
 
AMEN!!! Patent trolls big and small need to be removed from the US. 
 
Creating an API structure and organization based on a similarity with an exisiting public API is not the same as copying 2+2 from a web page. I don't think it's copyright, but it seems abit more involved than trying to say that the originator of 2+2 is not well established.

I also agree that DNA shouldn't be copyrighted. But are we saying it's not possible to take an idea from another public source which is not copyrightable? It seems like there are somethings which might not fall under copyright but could still be an original idea from another source?

If someone creates a new writing style like iceberg theory, perhaps it's not copywritable but it's is still someone's original concept?
 
+Dirk Davidson and this was patent trolling on a new level, it wasn't even them trying to use something that they invented and tried to make it broader than it actually is... they, seemingly, bought a company to troll using those patents...
 
+Jonathan Langdale oh I get it. Your problem is equating copying with stealing. No it doesn't work that way. Copyright law is by default permissive - it defines the exceptions to what you can copy. At no point does copyright law deal with theft which by definition is depriving the rightful owner of possession. Copying is not limited to literal things either. I can legally copy the style of a writer or painter. As long as I don't try to pass off my work as theirs, it is fine to do so. Other things you cannot copyright: rules to games (including board games) and recipes. Your own literal expression of those ideas yes, but not the ideas themselves. It seems like you're trying to equate copying with some kind of immoral or unethical behaviour but it isn't. Oh and before we get too far off topic: you cannot copyright something that is functional such as a street address. In the end that is all an API is. A set of named addresses in a format that allows one thing to know how to address, and package its bits for sending and receiving in a way the other side will understand.
 
+Jonathan Langdale the issue of if Google did in fact copy these things found to be uncopyrightable would be a totally separate question both in logic and in law
 
Basically this is what they are saying:
say java has a structure called a list, and the list has a method (or function) which is called size().. 

The usage would be something like this.
myList.size();

This would return the size of the list... What Oracle was saying was that they owned a copyright on .size() (not this exact method per say - as this is an example).

So google would have to call theirs myList.gSize() ?

The underlying code which calculates/returns the value from size() would be where the value is, but on some simple tasks such as size() (counting the number of items in a list is not really trade-markable / copy-right-able)..

But lets say for the sake of this. I created a new function called
.whoToSue();

This would calculate which company to sue for infringment, and it would do it very quickly..
Oracle could implement the calculation w/ some secret voodoo logic which would be private, and Google could come up with their own unique way to do this (or probably just return null j/k).

Regardless, google is not prohibited from creating a function called whoToSue() which takes zero parameters (like Oracles version).. They just would not be allowed to copy and paste their private logic into that method.. That would be a violation..  
 
+Jonathan Langdale you're missing the point. You're fixating on the terminology used about 'stealing the idea' and ignoring how this applies to software engineering. APIs are interface contracts between components and in Java, SSOs are fundamental to that. Its not that Google 'stole' the interfaces - they reimplemented them. When I implement a Java API, I am FORCED to apply the exact signatures or my code becomes incompatible with the tools and components that expect those signatures. I'm not stealing them, I'm abiding by the contracts that the signatures dictate. This is fundamental to software interoperability. If Oracle had their way, I would be forced to license the signatures before I have the right to implement them. Its like someone having ownership of the sort(int []arr) API regardless of how it's implemented.

What the trial decide was that you cannot own the 'idea' of ' a sorting function called sort() which accepts an integer array parameter'. But you can copyright the code you write that does the actual sorting. Google didn't violate copyright because they wrote their own.
 
+James Pakele thanks - a lot of credit should really go to Groklaw. PJ and her contributors did an amazing job of documenting the entire trial, including expert testimony from both sides. It makes for a lot of good reading.

For a while I was scared that so much depended on the judge, lawyers and jurors dealing with software engineering concepts. But thankfully the Judge did his due diligence admirably to the point that he actually learned to write Java programs to understand the testimonies better.
 
To whom is the idea of the wheel attributable?

Are we all guilty of theft for having made use of the wheel since, without having made adequate compensation?
 
why dont you also provide a link directing to what Larry Ellison'd said?
 
+Jonathan Langdale The creators of Java could have kept the specification closed but then it likely would never have taken off as a cross platform development choice. In fact a large part of the adoption of Java was driven by more efficient and robust implementations made by the open source community - including Apache harmony and openJDK. By making the specification open Sun gained popularity and reach. So while you can argue that it took time and effort to produce the API, Sun was rewarded for that effort and ultimately it was Sun's choice to make it open and free to implement. 
 
I feel like you guys are referring to ancillary details, of which I'm already aware, and avoiding my main point.

If someone creates a new writing style like iceberg theory, perhaps it's not copywritable but it's is still someone's original concept?

Do you agree that, unrelated to this case, that there are original ideas that cannot be copyrighted and can be "taken" by another person?  To then go argue that 2+2 is not a writing style is obvious and beside the point.  There are still writing styles.

Do you honestly think that the bounds of originality are properly defined by what can or cannot be copyrighted? Are you are satisfied with patent law?

There is also no reason to continue to argue Google's case because nobody here seems to be arguing Oracle's.  I'm certainly not.  My point is to point out a distinction between ideas being used which are not subject to copyright, ideas which are a bit more original than the use of 2+2, and those ideas that are subject to copyright.
 
Could Ernest Hemingway have patented his writing style?  Did he create it? If someone wrote a book in his style with an original book idea, are they not still replicating his style of writing by being inspired by his other work?  Hemingway cannot lay claim to the sequence of words and the characters or plot used in a derivative using his writing style, but he might have a good argument that the writing style was taken from his published works, if that was the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceberg_Theory

Isn't this something he created that he could not maintain ownership of?  So if someone goes and writes a book in this style, being specifically inspired by it, can they say that their work is totally original? Or should they at least give some honest credit that Hemingway's work was an inspiration, and that they replicated his specific style of writing at least in part?
 
+Jonathan Langdale 

"My point is to point out a distinction between ideas being used which are not subject to copyright"

Which are?
 
+cocker dunn and yet... 

why dont you also provide a link directing to what Larry Ellison'd said?
 
Let's hope the law courts stay sane . Mr Ellison is just greedy , when Oracle bought Sun it was a DARK day in tech . As these companies get bigger and some stock holders call for more profits ,it gets difficult for them to act like they did before . Profit takes the throne and wealthy share holders call the shots.
Don't be evil :-) 
 
Why are you looking for a distinction?  Ideas, no matter how creative or new or novel cannot be copyrighted or patented - period.  And in THIS context of discussion an 'idea' is the API signature of an operation, apart from its actual implementation
 
I get the impression from Bill Gates and Larry Ellison that they understand clearly that Google's vision and innovations are surpassing what their companies have done or can do, and Ellison and Gates cannot help but manifest their jealousies, which come from that emotional part of the brain that does not keep growing after a very early age (although the neocortex can experience continuing neurogenesis).
 
+Frank Cuenca, every time i hear about, read about, or listen to Larry Ellison, part of my brain comes to your conclusion. Ellison may wear expensive lip gloss, surround himself with lovely art, build ridiculously huge yachts for himself, and treat people in the ruthless manner that his "best friend" Steve Jobs was also known for, but there is something about his style that makes my brain's "punk" alert glow in neon colors.
 
+Brad Acker So now we're at the level of personal attacks?  Interesting.  Doesn't that just taint all of your arguments with utter bias?  Are your arguments failing or is this just a dog pile session?

I guess it's not surprising since this is a Google fan club.  I'd just like it more if Google fan clubs were filled with people who were open minded enough to realize that everyone make mistakes, even Google executives, and internal criticism is a good thing.

Should we talk about the personal appearance of Schmidt too? Lame.  I'd suggest sticking to the arguments that have value.
 
+Jonathan Langdale Oh, I think Google has made some mistakes. Usually when they attempt to sink to the same level as some opponent in something. It doesn't suit them well. The Motorola lawsuits come to mind. And the wifi scanning gaffe also. But the reason Google has "fans" is because their intent is positive. Their business model actually benefits from cooperation from other corporations. They are ultimately pushing an ecosystem that works fine on any platform. So there's essentially an "implied morality" even if the ultimate goal is to make a lot of money.
 
+Scott Wilson I'm honestly confused. I don't know whether to believe the positive branding or to think it's no different than what Jobs did.  I tend to think everything is bullshit.  There are very few things which are genuine these days.  Is Google immune to corruption or bullshit?  

As far as Google goes, my opinion is that there is a pretty strange contrast between the feel good of a Larry Page image, and other aspects of Google or it's history of buying companies and/or incorporating new services under their umbrella.  Ultimately, there is no implied morality.  There is only profit and market share.  The user is not a priority, advertisers are.

The Wifi thing didn't bother me.  If people beam out Wifi, then it's not really private as far as I'm concerned.  I think a better indicator might have been the cookie stuff that they halted.

Another good indicator for me is how utter obtuse Google seems to be in in how it runs Google+.  My honest opinion is that while Hangouts are cool, and there's a lot of positivity on this social network, underneath the surface there's probably a lot more going on.  I don't get the idea that the motivation is to actually be productive or have a good user experience.  And in terms of copying someone else's idea that cannot be copyrighted, this whole site is just another example in a lot of ways.

There are lot of people motivated by an illusory sense of perceived morality for the sake of it, & not actually for any actual benefit it provides to others.  It's a selfishness to feel moral just for the comfortable feeling it yields.  And it's all but a proven fact that Silicon Valley is filled with a majority of self-absorbed people drinking green smoothies.

The stories published about Mayer and dealings with previous companies (employees that thought the were to be made perm) seem like a clue to what Google might be really like behind the happy-fun branding.  I honestly have no clue.  I'm just not willing to swallow all of this Googley happy joy joy without wondering if it's accurate.

While he is no corporate saint, it seems to me that Bill Gates does a lot of truly positive things.  And I think he's distanced himself from Microsoft.  Over time, I've wavered much less about Gates than I do about Jobs, Page, Schmidt, etc.
 
+Jonathan Langdale See, I have the exact opposite take on the cookie thing. They were doing something EVERYBODY had been doing for two years to set a cookie in safari specifically so gmail users didn't have to keep logging in. Again, that's intent. Their intent was to make it so OSX users didn't have to keep typing their password into gmail every time they opened it. 

The wifi thing, another example of intent. Their intent was to provide an alternative to GPS by having a triangulation map based on public wifi hotspots. Not something nefarious. Good intent. They got crucified for it though. Microsoft has a very powerful Washington lobby, and Patton Boggs as their legal stormtroopers. 

But it's how the PR is handled sometimes. The Wifi thing could have been handled better. The cookie thing, while not a big deal at all, simply shouldn't have happened. You don't take chances like that when Apple and Microsoft are clearly out to get you. 

As for Google+, it's a hell of alot better than Facebook. I know that. Even though the userbase is rapidly growing I don't think it's even half the size of Facebook yet. But this is a superior user experience. It's nicer looking, easier to user, and ironically I'm not getting bombarded by advertising here like I am on Facebook which has turned into a scrolling infomercial. 

The thing with Google is every argument for them being "evil" is a reach. Like, it's actually an argument that has to be made. There's no one thing they've done you can point at and say "oh, that's clearly evil". Not without repeating some spin that Grassroots Enterprises or the fake group Consumer Watchdog or the paid shill Florian Mueller dreamed up because they were paid to dream it up. 

My favorite recently being the whole YouTube thing. Microsoft COULD make a compliant YouTube client for Windows Phone right now. They have the talent. They have the API's. But instead they've intentionally made non-compliant versions of the YouTube client ON PURPOSE TWICE so they could get their own users angry at Google for something that isn't Google's fault. To Microsoft, using their own users to lash out at Google with their failed "Scroogled" campaign is more important than giving their users the YouTube client they want.  

Also, there's the whole fact that there's an actual negative political campaign against Google at all. Microsoft spent 100 million dollars hiring Mark Penn, a negative political campaign expert, to attack Google. That's just amazing to me, and a new low in tech. And I consider that. And I consider that Google hasn't made a negative ad against anyone. They don't even have a budget for it, let alone a 100 million dollar one.

Google takes the high road. And despite the attempts by paid pundits to paint all companies with a broad brush, Google is different. And that matters to some of us. 
 
Wish I had a plus a gazillion button for times when people make awesome comments like +Scott Wilson right now... 
 
+Scott Wilson I'm not only pointing a finger at Google.  There's a lot about Google I like.  And a lot about Apple I like.  But I'm not going to sugarcoat reality.   Jobs turned out to be a maniac and a jerk, does that mean he was wrong?  I dunno.

The Google+/Facebook stuff is probably a side issue best left elsewhere.  I was just trying to make a point related to my earlier point and this thread, which I think remains valid.
 
+Jonathan Langdale Oh, some of our best work comes from jerks. Ender's Game is so amazingly good that it's required reading in Quantico due to the near perfect explanation of applied abstract reasoning skills. But Orson Scott Card is a complete asshole. 
 
+Scott Wilson So we can either discount the opinion of jerks for being jerks, or be open to the possibility that a jerk can be right?  I don't know the answer.  But we have both Ellison and Jobs being highly critical of Page.

I'm not really sure what to think.  Page seems uber cool to me, so should I just use that to discount what detractors might say in a specific instance?  I think the jury might still be out.  In the interview, even Ellison seems to be trying to say that there might have been a "slip up."

These guys are like celebrities, we have no clue what they're really like or if they're really well intentioned all of the time or not.  That said, both Ellison and Jobs would seem to know better than most other people, would they not (those in a position to not have to butt kiss or benefit personally)?
 
+Jonathan Langdale That plays back to intent. Jobs had to be critical of Page. He wasn't not going to be. Ellison has to be critical of Page. It's all he has left. The man could crap cancer cures, and single handedly save us from an alien invasion and they have/had to be critical of him. It's in their business model to be catty. 
 
Jobs was at least responsible for the things he was trying to sue for... Ellison went out and bought a company to do it... 
 
+Jonathan Langdale I don't think anybody is saying Google is better than Apple, Microsoft etc. It's just that Google has a model that pushes an ecosystem that is open to all and their vision and ambition surpasses the reality that every public company needs to answer to their shareholders. All things equal, Google is the only company out there today that is actually truly innovating every single day without wishing for others to fail. And no, I don't work at Google :) 
 
+Ankur Rakshit I'm not disagreeing, I'm just wondering how far an ecosystem is pushed when companies are purchased and a wide range of services are under one single umbrella?

And speaking of innovation, how many of Google's best products were purchased from other companies?  Youtube, Urchin?  I mean, Google Glass is even being copied from Apache helicopter pilot helmet huds IMHO.  Is that really innovation? Or is this a new type of innovative recycling (improvements)?  I'm not saying it's not, I'm just not sure if totally buy in to it.

When did EC2 launch?  When did GAE launch?  When you look at these services and compare or actually peek into the details, what do you see (on average)?

How many of Google's new services were made to run in-line with GAE/Apps?

Is Android an innovation?

Innovation differs from improvement in that innovation refers to the notion of doing something different rather than doing the same thing better.
 
+Jonathan Langdale Actually that's the definition of innovation. Taking existing tech and improving it. It's not invention. 
 
+Scott Wilson Not according to the definition of the word.  

Innovation differs from improvement in that innovation refers to the notion of doing something different rather than doing the same thing better.

Innovation differs from invention in that innovation refers to the use of a better and, as a result, novel idea or method, whereas invention refers more directly to the creation of the idea or method itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation

What are Google's inventions? Innovations and improvements, if you were to break them down by classification?

Is Android an improvement, invention, or an innovation?

Are you arguing that Google makes no improvements on existing innovations from competitors?  Isn't that the bulk of whatever everyone does?
 
+Jonathan Langdale I think you are confused between invention and innovation. If that's the argument, you can trace every so called "innovation" (and I am including Apple, Microsoft and Oracle here) to being 'copied' from something else until you reach the point where it was actually "invented" from scratch. To speak in that obtuse manner then, innovation in technology doesn't exist today at all. 
 
+Jonathan Langdale You are talking semantics though. Lets take your apache helicopter HUD example. Having a portable power source, higher def screen, more advanced IU, voice command structure, myriad more sensors, completely different OS, and completely different purpose would all seem to be innovation to me. 
 
+Jonathan Langdale Oh, I think I nailed my point. Google Glass is the textbook definition of innovation. So is the iPad. 
 
So you guys are saying that Android, the Google Play store, are innovations?

They're not improvements on gesture-based mobile operating systems and/or proprietary mobile app stores?

You think they're different things?
 
+Scott Wilson you nailed your point proper, this guy just wants to talk I circles, making vague statements, and half (non) points to backup other statements with repeated topic jumping all while avoiding the main topic of the post in the first place...

Someone may be a little lonely... Hehehe 
 
+Jonathan Langdale Android to me is just another linux distro. The Play Store is just another online storefront. Perhaps parts of each could be considered innovative, but nothing springs immediately to mind. 
 
+Jonathan Langdale no, I'm saying, I do t care if anyone considers them innovations or not, it has no bearing on anything, whatsoever... 
 
+James Pakele The consumer clearly doesn't care. They just want cool stuff that works well. Google doesn't really have to defend themselves on the topic. They've been plenty innovative. Those billions of lines of code didn't write themselves. 
 
+James Pakele I wasn't really directly my comment to you.  Did I imply that you cared?

It's strange to think that it has no bearing on anything "whatsoever" in light of the rather large number of articles and blogs that debate this very issue (innovations bad good, who did what, what constitutes an innovation, was Jobs an innovator or was it Woz and/or other underlings). 

Then there are the patent trolls and the civil suits.  It must have some bearing.
 
+Jonathan Langdale The whole "innovation" thing was an Apple marketing creation that won't die. Apple started taking flack for being a "tech recipe" company that hasn't actually ever invented a single thing, so they pushed the "innovation" language out to their market-droids. The upshot is we get to have pointless conversations about it. 
 
+Scott Wilson exactly... It's a pointless debate made to fill pages of comments... Hehehe... At the end, whatever the result of that conversation, nobody really cares and will use what they want... 
 
+James Pakele And what about the legal battles?  And are you're saying that content and clicks are meaningless that have no bearing any thing "whatsoever?"

Isn't that pretty much how Google makes a large amount of money?
 
+Jonathan Langdale no, Google makes money by connecting people looking for a product or service with people looking for said product or service... Not on pointless discussion that has no end. 
 
+Scott Wilson I'm just responding to Mr. Pakele's notion that the distinctions between innovation, invention and improvements have no bearing on anything "whatsoever."  His words, not mine.

He raises a questionable argument and then complains about endless/pointless debates?  Sounds like something a troll would do.
 
+Jonathan Langdale no it doesn't have any bearing whatsoever.... And someone that shows up on a post trying to start endless discussion s regarding pointless, round about topics is the very definition of trolling....

By right, most of what you are saying has nothing to do with the post, and you should make a separate post, but if you do that, you won't get quite as much attention so you do it here, hehehe...

Create a separate post, we can discuss it... But I doubt you will because the audience you're looking for won't be there 
 
Well, I'm pretty happy with the arguments I've raised, even if get a few things wrong (which I'd be happy to admit).  I don't really want to steamroll this thread this much so I'm going to bow out.  It's a bit too fan boy for me.  

Cheers.
 
+Ankur Rakshit Chromecast is clearly innovation. Even better, innovation that's already great with the potential to be even better.
 
+Jonathan Langdale weren't you the one complaining about ad hominem attacks? Yet this is not the first time in this thread that you've resorted to dismissing the author as a 'fanboy' (exactly what is wrong with being a fan of something? Do factual arguments lose merit? Facts are facts) rather than address the substance of their argument. Come to that you haven't actually put forward any arguments, facts, or position of your own. All you've done is to try and needle others by implying in tone that their arguments are wrong (despite being evidence and fact based) without actually offering any line of argument or conclusion why this is so. I'm just putting this here so everyone who may have been reacting to individual comments can see exactly what you have been doing.
 
+Anthony Fawcett I'll let the record of the thread stand for itself.   Your type of comment is nothing but a distraction from the topics being discussed.

You're better off making a new post if you have a question on a separate subject, even though you appear, potentially, to be using an alternate profile.
 
+Jonathan Langdale Hahahaha. You do that. You're not even discussing a topic. Discussing requires back and forth of arguments, points, evidence. All you're doing is the equivalent of repeatedly asking "Is that so?" "Are you sure?" "What if you're wrong?" without actually proposing any evidence or reasoning. The rest of us are discussing, what you're doing - deliberate or not - is derailing, misdirecting, and diffusing. I'm not sure if you're pretending innocence while deliberately trolling or if you actually think you're contributing to the sum of understanding and analysis. If the former, well it was a good run. If the latter then let me state quite categorically that you are not.
 
+Eric Schmidt you are absolutely right in this regard. 

Google is trying to extend the API eco-system and that idea in general. 

Now Eric, you just need to see about Quantum Communications for Google Plus with its attendant elimination of the last mile issue, as a matter of fact zero mile at 10 gigabits.

Quantum Communication as a chip set Eric is what we need from your Google Group Research as soon as possible.
 
I agree. We need to encourage rather than discourage the ability to invent. New ideas are founded on this freedom and create forwsrd thinking. 
 
+Alexander Meinhart So basically every time someone beats Larry Ellison, he grants one of his rare interviews so he can talk trash about the people or persons that beat him. That's very mature of him.
Jay L
+
1
2
1
 
stop blocking youtube on windows phone or just shut the F* up
 
+Jay Liang Google isnt' blocking YouTube on windows phone. Microsoft just isn't making their app right on purpose so people like you will blame Google. It's because Microsoft doesn't care about you.
 
lol, and google cared about people? they took out greader despite the outcries from the public and now they put third-party promotional e-mails directly into your gmail inbox (under a new promotions tab).  As regards to youtube, google required MS to code the app in HTML5 but neither android nor ios variants were encoded using HTML5 so it is really inequitable treatment simply because windows phones have small market share.  MS at least allowed blackberry users to enjoy Skype and created good apps like skydrive and office for android & ios.  But google refuses to allow wp users to enjoy even a sliver of the google experience and goes after third-parties who wish to fill that gap.
just keep drinking the Big G Kool-Aid; they are not what they used to be.
 
+Isaac Cao I use iOS 7 on an iPhone 5. I have no native Google Keep client for my phone. So a gifted coder wrote an amazing Google Keep app using that html5 API and it works fantastic. So well in fact, that it's almost better than the native app on Android. If Microsoft REALLY CARED about their users, they could make a fantastic app for Windows Phone. They are just children that want to make non-technical people like yourselves fight their fights for them. Because you don't matter to them.
 
+Jay Liang sure, as soon as we see MS Office and Outlook open up in the same way... 
 
+Isaac Cao LOL! Reader... Only reason everyone so mad is because it was so good...

And they put promotions under the promotions tab... You don't say? Oh my lawd, how crazy of them..

Hehehe... Oh brother... Meanwhile, two years late to every party, MS hires political assholes to run full of shit campaigns... Yeah, respectable.


Jay L
 
+James Pakele sure, because MS requires any 3rd party to get an API key to open office documents or connect to Outlook servers, and if MS doesn't like certain competitor, it will revoke the API key . /s
 
+Jay Liang Microsoft actually expected Google to PAY for allowing people to connect to exchange with Gmail. For doing Microsoft a favor. So slamming Google for having good application security isn't really going to fly.
 
Oh for Pete's sake Larry Ellison, that is the whole point of an API. This is like GE making an electrical outlet and then sueing some appliance manufacturer because their plug fit too perfectly into your receptacle. I can't believe this even saw the inside of a courtroom.
 
i get five to ten calls a week asking to update my google.  I keep pressing 2 to have my name put on do not call list but I still keep getting these calls.  How do you stop that?
 
Eric,  looks like you make world class products...but don't have your shipping and logistics system figured out. Shipping System says order is supposed to be shipped on Sept 2nd and your customer rep says the computer software did not knew if Monday was a holiday and therefore a delay. (also called yesterday got the same sad story)  It felt I was talking to a rep from a company which was poorly managed (customer service and shipping wise) and I thought this company is different. May be I was wrong.
 
+Eric Schmidt Driverless cars are coming but face a major hurdle.  People!!!
But I have a great solution that will make the transition fast, easy and enjoyable.
I think that Google is the perfect organization to execute this plan and I would like to discuss it with you.
Please contact me here or via phone at: 661-644-1523
I believe that millions of lives are at stake and there is a good solution!
Thank You,
Jimmy Wayne Foster
 
I have an idea of which Google would have a huge profit. If you are interested you can contact me at my email address. Regards ;-)
 
Dear Mr. Schmidt:
 
I was very concerned to read that Google, on whose board you serve, has chosen to join the American Legislative Exchange Council. No organization I am aware of has done as much to poison public policy in the United States. Voter suppression, stand your ground laws, privatizing education and prisons, and gerrymandering legislative and Congressional districts … these are just a representative sample of the odious initiatives ALEC has sponsored.
 
Google claims to be committed to openness, and in its statement of corporate values lists not a single virtue ALEC represents. ALEC enshrines secrecy and the corruption of the democratic process. That Google would join ALEC is an unfathomable insult to its countless users.
 
I have been using a fair number of Google products. Unfortunately, I am pretty well stuck for now using Gmail, but for other Google products – notably google analytics, google docs, google+ and of course google search – I have alternatives. I switched my search engine at home to yahoo last night and will switch the default search away from Google here at work. Google+ I can just quit using. Abandoning Google docs and Google Analytics  will require some negotiation with colleagues, but I expect I am not alone in my distaste for ALEC … and its allies.
 
I hope Google will reconsider its affiliation with the American Legislative Exchange Council. I will be watching, in hopes that I can resume using Google products without resentment.

Sincerely,
Bert Woodall
 
Please discontinue flying your 767 jet over my trees, it passes over at far too low an altitude. I should think you wouldn't stand for this flying over your home, with its terrifying  presence and VERY loud noise, as well as spewing its toxins . How about a little consideration for the residents being subjected to this by your privileged few ?
 
Cannot agree more with most of what you said Eric. That being said speaking as a non US citizen. American laws surrounding patents are at best overtly complicated and at worst is stifling creativity. In essence what has happened ideas and thought have become patentable so to speak. By it's nature you cannot patent neither of them. 
 
Eric you just said you do not like getting dragged into public situations; however I do not want to assume I know fully Google's policy on a matter and so I am making a public plea here to you and your staff at Google. My name is Raymond D. Johnson and I am the social media marketing director for The Invictus Foundation. We are a 501C3 charity organization that provides free mental health services to veterans. We applied to Google adwords for a nonprofit Google grant and my boss applied and put in the subcategory of the work we do as mental health. We were immediately rejected for a Google Ad words nonprofit grants.

 This rejection disturbs us as we are passionate about helping veterans and could have implications around mental health services and attitudes. So what exactly is Google's stance on this? Do you not give any Goggle adwords non profit grants to organizations that deal in mental health services? If you do how would recommended we try to obtain a grant. I do not wish to make premature allegations here as I could be mistaken. Could you please clear this matter up for us and for others who are passionate and concerned about the state of mental health care in America? Thank you.
 
Screw Oracle for Google is better. Eric your right
 
+Eric Pardee Yeah, really great rulling. It fucks 90 percent of all software in existence now. So only a petty douchebag would want all software to be screwed over their childish Google hatred. All because some old folks don't understand what an API is. 
 
 Larry Ellison is evil;he burdens millions of its java users by its partnership with ASK toolbar. A few more dollars in his pocket at the cost daily of millions of manipulated internet users who should hate his guts. He's a spineless feeding off users of his Java. WHY doesn't he stop. Was Hitler a relative?
Add a comment...