Well if you could point me to an unbiased source trying to argue the other side of this question, then sure. I really want to know both sides of this issue and it's nearly impossible to find someone separating the quintessential geek love for Google and geek hatred for Oracle from the facts of the case other than Mueller.
Honestly I'm all for liberalizing copyrights and fair use but it makes me mad to see Google going around ripping off everyone else's tech and then claiming fair use when they get sued. The fair use defense is not meant for multi-billion dollar multinational corporations that tried to shirk licensing by violating copyrights.
Furthermore I find it particularly hilarious that everyone thinks Google fights against copyright with the purest of intentions when it seems transparent that less restrictive copyright is in their direct business interests.
> The fair use defense is not meant for multi-billion dollar multinational corporations that tried to shirk licensing by violating copyrights.
Just because a giant company wants to be paid, and another giant company could afford to pay them, doesn't mean the bill was justified. Huge companies get access to fair use too. It's the flip side of the fact that noncommercial uses are capable of infringing.
The problem seems to be that we're stuck with a poor decision earlier down the line -- allowing the idea that an API, rather than an implementation, can be copyrighted -- and now other courts are trying to undo the damage by making sure nobody will ever really succeed in bringing an API-infringement case.
My comment was a direct response to the idea of "shirking licensing". Yes, they wanted to avoid licensing. But that does not imply the license was ever legally necessary.
> it's nearly impossible to find someone separating the quintessential geek love for Google and geek hatred for Oracle from the facts of the case other than Mueller.
But you can't separate the facts from the quintessential paid love for Oracle and the paid hatred for Google of Mueller.
>But you can't separate the facts from the quintessential paid love for Oracle and the paid hatred for Google of Mueller.
Sure, which is why I was asking you for someone arguing this who was more impeccably non-biased. I realize that some opinions in arguments do not deserve being argued for, such as mass genocide, but I don't think this case is as clear cut and it's a little disturbing to me that the internet was so universally aligned with Google and against Oracle on this one. I just like seeing a little diversity of opinion, that's all.
As for what tech Google rips off, I think that's well established. They clearly had no intention of paying for a license in this case, so they wrote the code first and decided they'd deal with the consequences later. They did this when they copied the iPhone interface for Android too, and they also did it when they created Gmail Inbox which again is substantially similar to Mailbox. It's just sort of their MO.
Google has done a lot of very inventive stuff but it seems obvious to me that they walk a tight line between creating new things and copying old ones from time to time.
Microsoft Legal seems to agree with Google on this due to there's interaction with Wine emulation software which directly costs Microsoft revinue.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_(software). Microsoft has not made public statements about Wine. However, the Microsoft Update software will block updates to Microsoft applications running in Wine. On 16 February 2005, Ivan Leo Puoti discovered that Microsoft had started checking the Windows Registry for the Wine configuration key and would block the Windows Update for any component.[95] As Puoti noted, "It's also the first time Microsoft acknowledges the existence of Wine."
