All those people that got lasik eye surgery will now be kicking themselves.

Very true.

If it wasn't for email I wouldn't even know about all these new social networks that are constantly springing up.

I agree IE isn't that hard to support anymore. I build websites for companies in various sectors including corporate clients. IE is still the dominant browser in some segments but not as much as it used to be.

For sites where the users tend to be more tech savy, and browse mainly from home IE isn't that popular. Maybe around 30-40% of these users are using IE.

For the business sites where visitors are generally browsing the site from work for business related reasons IE is still very strong. Around 60% and the most popular version is one version of the latest because of how software on corporate desktops is managed. It used to be a lot worse. 2-3 years ago IE was at around 90% for these client sites.

IE is still an important browser to support but if you limit support for certain areas, such as the admin area the site in TFA does it for, then you can be more restrictive on browser support because you have a limited set of users accessing those pages.

If you build websites for people that will be accessing the sites primarily from work, ignoring IE is shooting yourself in the foot.

Not sure why it's such a sticking point so let me be clearer. Obviously when I refer to "Google" I'm talking broadly about the organization, considering a company has no free will and can not choose to do anything. Specifically I'm talking about the part of the organization that worked on Android. In this group I'm also including any contractors Google or it's subsidiaries might have hired. Instead of spending time trying to track down all the people that were involved with the code inside and outside of Google I just use the word "Google" to lump them all together. Because as I said, in the end it's their responsibility.

And I didn't infer anything from that line you're referring to. I was asking a question hoping to get an answer.

9 lines of what everyone thinks is trivial code would be faster to type than it would be to look up to copy and paste.

And the 9 lines is less than 2% of the code that was found to be infringing.

What I am inferring is that if Google didn't know that any of the code was infringing, that they knew that they told their contractor to develop a clean implementation, that information was likely communicated to Sun (I seem to recall some sort of conversation taking place but don't have a link) then any implied license Google thinks they had because of Sun's affirmative acts shouldn't be a factor because they were based on the belief by both parties that the code was not infringing.

Ironically doing a Google search for "Adnix and Preachnix" and clicking on the first page gets you a page full of ads, a popup and a warning message when you try and browse away. :)

Local broadcasts are free. Well sort of. You can still get over the air local channels most places but maybe 80-90%+ of people receive their local channels through cable tv, satellite, fios, whatever.

These companies can't just tap into the local airwaves and rebroadcast these channels. They have to pay for it and ever year or so there's a major issue with the contract of some channel holding out for more money.

The traditional broadcasting model is dead. The new one is get paid by advertisers, get paid again by distributors.

Though I can imagine dish caving just like tivo did.

I take it assembly and microprocessors weren't part of your education?

Because it doesn't matter whether it was a contractor or not. Google is ultimately responsible for abiding by the law with the products they release whether they were written by employees, obtained through an acquisition or created for them by a third party at their request.

I'm not talking about rangeCheck specificially but the entirety of code that the judge ruled was decompiled and copied from Java.

That leaves the question of whether the contractor copied other parts of the Java that are not as easy to identify or if they decompiled and copied then rewrote to make it look like it wasn't copied. Maybe they didn't do that with this function because it was trivial. Who knows. But to me this just doesn't look good.

I don't see Oracle as the bad guy here. They had their (Sun's) IP stolen and are right to seek damages.

I don't see Google as a bad guy here either. Their intention was not to violate Sun's IP.

Things got screwed up and now need to be resolved. In a perfect world Sun would have successfully negotiated a deal when Google initially approached them. That didn't happen and now here we are.

Uhm... that's my point. Noser took short cuts to deliver on their contract to Google. Those shortcuts where violated Sun's IP. Violating Sun's IP helped them get android out quicker and provided financial benefits.

Just because Oracle can only legally prove that there was a limited amount of IP theft going on, doesn't mean that it wasn't more widespread. That's what it makes me believe anyway.

Because car analogies are so much fun. If the car was a limo and Google was a limo service, Just because Google upgraded their car after finding out it was stolen doesn't mean Sun/Oracle isn't entitled to loses.

Source?

If they wanted a clean room implementation they should be decompiling code at all.

I made the mistake of lumping in this method with the other decompiled code and you seem to be making similar mistakes.

The 9 lines of code were copied. They were copied by a Google employee Josh Boch. Josh actually wrote the code that is in the JDK while working for google but on his own time. He assigned copyright for that code to Sun.

The reason Google expressly directed them not to is because they wanted a clean room implementation that would not be encumbered by Sun's IP.

They didn't get what they paid for. It may be the contractor's fault that Sun's IP was violated but Google did reap the benefits of that violation. If it was the contractor's fault that the Sun's IP was violated, Sun now Oracle still has a valid claim for damages. Oracle may want to seek remedy against their contractor for failing to deliver as promised.

It doesn't really matter who decompiled the files. The point is that they were decompiled and copied.

If I hire you to go buy me a car and you do so I pay you for it. If it turns out you stole the car, should I get to keep it?

That also leaves the question of whether that contractor, or other contractors had violated Sun/Oracle copyrights in less obvious ways.

Then you might want to try reading at least the text of the link I posted if not the linked court documents themselves.

And maybe this 9 lines of code don't seem like a big deal? What about the other hundreds of lines that were decompiled and copied? There's no story about that? This filing has some more information. http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2010cv03561/231846/1157/

The most interesting point is if Bloch did work on the code for OpenJDK and also worked on Andriod code, doesn't that throw the whole "cleanroom implementation" out the window?

What does it matter how easy the code was to write? And if it was so easy why did google need to copy it?

I tried to submit this over the weekend but it wasn't selected. http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/05/google-oracle-decompile/

"Judge William Alsup ruled that evidence presented during the trial had shown that Google infringed on Oracle’s copyrights by decompiling eight Java files and copying them in their entirety for use with Android."

As someone who really likes Java and Google I don't like this lawsuit one bit.

Sun created Java and mostly gave it away for free except for the mobile part which they were licensing to create revenue. Sun and Google couldn't come to terms regarding licensing and Google decided to just make it themselves.

Sun didn't seem to care, or didn't have the money/will to fight it. Then comes Oracle.

Please resolve this amicably soon. I don't like it when mommy and daddy fight.