I don't think you got the point. It's helpful to google. Hence google is doing it. End of story. As has been said by others, it is actively ILLEGAL for a publicly traded corporation to engage in charity, if its easy to prove there was an alternate route that would have earned a lot more money.
Thus, we must move the goalposts a bit. Fortunately, the programming community *CAN* and *DO* significantly affect business. Just look at how universal microsoft hate essentially killed off Microsoft's bid to take over most of development by letting everyone build on top of their own tightly controlled system. That's good news, at least. If Oracle turns into a lawyer-crazy suing factory, that WILL result in the community leaders of java abandoning it in droves, and that in turn leads to the death of java, which in turns leads to a billion+ loss in value of Oracle's holdings. Everyone loses. It can still happen, if the top brass at Oracle does not understand this process and isn't willing to listen to those in the lower ranks that do. I _really_, _REALLY_ doubt google would fall into such a trap. They do at least know what you can and cannot pull, and are in fact heavily banking on good PR being good for the bottom line. They contribute to loads of open source projects, for example. Anyone saying the same of Oracle is, in my opinion, delusional. So, yes, they're all looking out for the bottom line and nothing else, but Google rates the impact of pissing of programmers as far higher than Oracle currently is, which means we as programmers should put pressure more on Oracle than on Google. That's good for _OUR_ bottom line. We can and should lament the fall of Sun, as they more than any other company tried to sell the notion that creating community goodwill is good for the corporation, but, well, they went bankrupt. Saying that more companies should be like Sun is going to get you laughed at. NB: A sidenote to this idea is that it is perfectly allright to get vocal and upset when a corporation does something you feel is bad for your future. Yes, it would indeed be naive to assume companies aren't just looking out for the bottom line, but by getting vocal and upset, you are having a negative effect on that bottom line. As long as one clearly understands the process, there's nothing wrong with this. For example, I vehemently disagree with Apple's app store management, not because I think either apple should just engage in charity nor because I think apple is doing something illegal, but because I think its bad for the future of all programmers, worldwide. And that's how I sell the idea that one should indeed get vocal, upset, and possibly boycott apple. Because it will affect their bottom line and thus may cause them to rethink their strategy, reducing the thing that apple is trying to do that I perceive to be bad for my (and other programmers') future. I also believe in this very process working fairly well if given enough time, which means if I were an advisor to apple, I would advise them to pay a little more attention to this than they currently are. Purely for business reasons. TL;DR: Just because corporations are obligated to care only about earnings does not imply there is no point in campaigning against a corporation engaging in something you feel is a jackass move. On Sep 8, 5:06 am, Michael Neale <[email protected]> wrote: > They shouldn't claim that Oracle are suing open source - for one. It > isn't helpful to the wider community to add FUD to the FUD (but it > might be helpful to google to be dishonest like this). > > On Sep 7, 9:46 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Oh, no question. Google is milking the "Whoa, what the heck is oracle > > doing here" angle as much as they can, and they are definitely > > grandstanding to do it. But why shouldn't they? If ever the argument > > "corporations do whatever they need to do to earn money" holds, it > > holds here. Google understands the vagaries of the wider internet tech > > community exactly in the way Oracle does not. > > > On Sep 7, 2:14 am, Michael Neale <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Not disputing the "attack" on open source angle - but Oracle are > > > "filing a lawsuit" against open source, as said by Josh > > > Bloch:http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2010/08/update-on-javaone.html > > > > Google are adding to the fud by talking like this, and a lot of this > > > is grandstanding to get the development community (more) onside with > > > google. I think there are no good guys in this sorry tale. > > > > On Sep 7, 8:33 am, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Might just be two euro-cents, but, spot on. > > > > > I believe the Apache Harmony TCK thing is in regards to the technical > > > > side of it: Apache Harmony does pass the actual TCK, at least it is > > > > rumoured to do so, as in all the test cases pass. It is not, however, > > > > officially a recipient of the official TCK seal of approval and it has > > > > gained no legal rights or responsibilities for passing it. > > > > > The (ridiculous) broadness of these patents, along with the complete > > > > silence in regards to Oracle's intentions here, means it IS an attack > > > > on open source, and on developers around the world in general (because > > > > it opens the door to just about any language being sued by oracle). I > > > > understand that this feels rather broad, and that silence is the > > > > prudent legal course, but none of that changes the fact that the FOSS > > > > community, and really developers in general, cannot take this as > > > > anything but a direct attack on their future. To do otherwise is to > > > > presume Oracle is merely using this as a convenient stick to beat > > > > google with, and would never use them anywhere else. Why would anyone > > > > make that assumption? > > > > > Oracle should have thought the backlash through a lot more than they > > > > have. It is also entirely unclear what oracle's agenda is here; if it > > > > is merely a bunch of licensing dosh, they would have filed in East > > > > Texas. They haven't. Lack of information is understandably making > > > > everyone rather upset and on edge. Oracle can't very well claim they > > > > didn't see that coming. Or, well, they can, but if so, their PR / > > > > legal team should get a stern talking to for dropping the ball like > > > > this. How could they not have seen this fallout coming? > > > > > On Sep 6, 7:19 pm, BoD <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Excellent episode as always :) > > > > > > 1/ At some point Joe and also Dick if I'm not mistaken say that Google > > > > > shouldn't say that the law suit is against Open Source and that saying > > > > > so is purely a PR move. > > > > > But since Android is based on the Apache Harmony Project, don't you > > > > > think it *is* fair to say that therefore, attacking Android is also > > > > > attacking Apache Harmony? (And thus, "the Open Source community"?) > > > > > IANAL but it seems that at least some of the patents they claim > > > > > concern the 'Harmony' part of Android - and so, if they win the law > > > > > suit, what does it mean for Harmony? > > > > > > 2/ At some point it was said that the Apache Harmony Project passed > > > > > the SE TCK (that it is certified Java SE), but not the ME TCK because > > > > > of the Field of Use restriction. > > > > > But if I understand correctly (feel free to correct me) Harmony didn't > > > > > pass the Java SE 5 TCK > > > > > (cf:http://www.apache.org/jcp/sunopenletterfaq.html) > > > > > > 3/ At some point it was said that what Google did was no different > > > > > from what Microsoft did (re. the 1997 Sun vs Microsoft case). > > > > > But this *was* different, the 1997 lawsuit was about "trademark > > > > > infringement, false advertising, breach of contract, unfair > > > > > competition, interference with prospective economic advantage, and > > > > > inducing breach of contract". > > > > > Basically Microsoft called their version of Java "Java" and they > > > > > didn't have the right to do so (by contract). > > > > > But - and I think Dick knows this all too well ;) - Google made sure > > > > > to be very careful to not call their version "Java". And so all they > > > > > could find was silly (imho) patents claims (actually this case is also > > > > > a Copyright one but it seems we don't know much details about this > > > > > part...) > > > > > > Just my two euro-cents ;) > > > > > > BoD -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
