Page 9 of 10 « First 78 9 10
Reply
Thread Tools
danramos's Avatar
danramos is offline danramos
2010-08-17 , 07:41
Posts: 4,672 | Thanked: 5,455 times | Joined on Jul 2008 @ Springfield, MA, USA
#81
Originally Posted by Venemo View Post
It was just a metaphor, sorry if you didn't understand that.
That's alright. It appears that you didn't quite understand. I answered your metaphors with direct answers to what the metaphors were addressing. I'm sorry that you weren't cognizant enough to detect that.

Originally Posted by Venemo View Post
Yep, they did. They also did violate Sun's patents.
You and I don't know that either way. They might have. On the other hand, they might not have. I'd rather wait to see the evidence rolled out and read their arguments to see the details before I presume anything either way. Call it a quirk, if you must, but I prefer to do things that way.

Originally Posted by Venemo View Post
While I don't agree with the existence of software patents at all
We both can agree with that statement.

Originally Posted by Venemo View Post
(there are fortunately no software patents in the EU)
I'm not entirely certain, but I'm pretty sure that the EU has actually managed to begin granting a few EU-wide patents on some software but that they haven't been enforced. I can't find anything on it now but I seem to remember reading something about that a year or two ago.

Originally Posted by Venemo View Post
, but in those unfortunate countries where there are, this is quite legal.
Oops.. it seems you put the parenthesis in the wrong place and left that whole sentence fragment laying out naked, covered in hickies somewhere under a bridge in Amsterdam. Now I'm just being silly, though.

Originally Posted by Venemo View Post
Also, I'm missing an antitrust lawsuit against Google. If they could make one against Microsoft some years ago, they should do it with Google, too.
If you're against the patenting of software, I'm not sure you want Google to lose this one, though.
 
Milhouse is offline Milhouse
2010-08-17 , 07:43
Posts: 3,401 | Thanked: 1,255 times | Joined on Nov 2005 @ London, UK
#82
Originally Posted by egoshin View Post
Actually, bytecode conversion is much less efficient at run time.
Nobody is talking about bytecode conversion at run-time - the conversion happens when the applications are compiled.

Originally Posted by egoshin View Post
Taking into account a lot of tools for syntax parsing it is much easy to create a clean Java compiler.
I really doubt that - creating a Java compatible language compiler that keeps pace with each new version of Java would be a serious undertaking and one that is completely unnecessary when you can just convert the bytecode.

And since being able to convert the bytecode is a necessary requirement in order to assist with the porting of native Java classes to Dalvik it makes no sense to go down the language compiler route when instead you can just convert the bytecode at the end of the compilation process. There really is no need to re-invent the wheel.

Originally Posted by egoshin View Post
Does Google use DX for Dalvik or they just provide DX for people?
Seemingly anyone who creates an app for Android that runs in the Dalvik VM would end up using the dx tool during the creating of their application. This would mean Google, device manufacturers, third-party developers all use the dx tool.

Originally Posted by egoshin View Post
It would be interesting to discover that Google has their own compiler but doesn't distribute it because of copyright/patents/etc.
If that were true it would open Google up to all sorts of accusations from their partners since the playing field would no longer be level. All Android developers should have access to the same SDK and development tools, I'm sure the partners would be pretty hacked off to discover that Google were building their apps with other (better?) tools that were denied to them.

Highly doubt that would be the case.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to Milhouse For This Useful Post:
Rebski is offline Rebski
2010-08-17 , 11:56
Posts: 874 | Thanked: 316 times | Joined on Jun 2007 @ London UK
#83
Originally Posted by danramos View Post
Also, to bolster another point I thought I had right earlier (and apparently did), under the section where it says, "Charles Nutter, explains about what Google did and why he thinks it did it and what might result:"
I think is the complete Charles Nutter piece
http://blog.headius.com/2010/08/my-t...-v-google.html

It is a long read but a great one.
 

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Rebski For This Useful Post:
kureyon is offline kureyon
2010-08-17 , 15:15
Posts: 992 | Thanked: 738 times | Joined on Jun 2010 @ Low Earth Orbit
#84
Originally Posted by danramos View Post
If you're against the patenting of software, I'm not sure you want Google to lose this one, though.
I very much doubt Google will base their defence on the "wrongness of software patents", so why the hell should supporters of no software patents care whether Google wins or not?
 
danramos's Avatar
danramos is offline danramos
2010-08-17 , 19:30
Posts: 4,672 | Thanked: 5,455 times | Joined on Jul 2008 @ Springfield, MA, USA
#85
Originally Posted by kureyon View Post
I very much doubt Google will base their defence on the "wrongness of software patents", so why the hell should supporters of no software patents care whether Google wins or not?
I didn't say or even imply that they would. I was referring to his and my personal interest in the wrongfulness of software patents as a reason not to want want to see Google lose their case in this particular lawsuit.

Originally Posted by Rebski View Post
I think is the complete Charles Nutter piece
http://blog.headius.com/2010/08/my-t...-v-google.html

It is a long read but a great one.
Wow... that IS an incredibly good article, btw. THANK YOU!
 
egoshin is offline egoshin
2010-08-17 , 19:34
Posts: 992 | Thanked: 995 times | Joined on Dec 2009 @ California
#86
Originally Posted by Milhouse View Post
Nobody is talking about bytecode conversion at run-time - the conversion happens when the applications are compiled.
I did fast but unclear statement, sorry, reformulating it -

Actually, bytecode conversion in compilation phase is much less efficient at run time.

I really doubt that - creating a Java compatible language compiler that keeps pace with each new version of Java would be a serious undertaking and one that is completely unnecessary when you can just convert the bytecode.
I wrote one compiler from scratch, ported 2 compilers to different architecture and a lot of small stuff. I have no doubts - the bytecode is actually some sort of assembler language and translation of one to another is simple for 90% instructions but is a BIG problem with 10%. The main point is in absence of critical high-level information. Without that it would very inefficient.

Of course, if 2nd bytecode has the same structure (just replaced bytecode ops) - it is not a problem, but I doubt that they follow this way. It should be a serious reason besides Sun's holding rights to have an another bytecode.

And since being able to convert the bytecode is a necessary
requirement in order to assist with the porting of native Java classes to Dalvik it makes no sense to go down the language compiler route when instead you can just convert the bytecode at the end of the compilation process. There really is no need to re-invent the wheel.
Translating your language - "it is much simple to steal then develop". Yes, but in this case anybody understood this from the beginning and if Google went this way then they have a solid legal background, I believe. This product (Dalvik/Android) was created then Google became big, reach and powerful years and they have a lot of legal experts.


Seemingly anyone who creates an app for Android that runs in the Dalvik VM would end up using the dx tool during the creating of their application. This would mean Google, device manufacturers, third-party developers all use the dx tool.
... or may be not (Google).

If that were true it would open Google up to all sorts of accusations from their partners since the playing field would no longer be level. All Android developers should have access to the same SDK and development tools, I'm sure the partners would be pretty hacked off to discover that Google were building their apps with other (better?) tools that were denied to them.
And what? There are many cases then this is a reality. Look around - you have a scarce description on almost any product and brief-and-unclear interfaces but vendor has a much better internals. And in many cases you should pay to get access to this info, not tools! (that is an exact reason why UNIX/Linux is good - open sources)

In my experience I created a package with some 3rd party compiler which we can't ship to customer but provided them header files and some tools to create their applications on top of that. I think it is a perfect match.

But just reminder - it is only a speculation and we don't know - has Google another tool or not.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to egoshin For This Useful Post:
danramos's Avatar
danramos is offline danramos
2010-09-16 , 21:50
Posts: 4,672 | Thanked: 5,455 times | Joined on Jul 2008 @ Springfield, MA, USA
#87
I had to come back to share this EXCELLENT article published on Groklaw today that summarizes Dalvik with specific detail with an eye toward understanding it well enough to follow the Oracle USA case against Google:

What is Dalvik? by Mark Murphy
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...00915143729255
 

The Following User Says Thank You to danramos For This Useful Post:
slender is offline slender
2010-09-16 , 22:11
Posts: 2,829 | Thanked: 1,459 times | Joined on Dec 2009 @ Finland
#88
Originally Posted by danramos View Post
I had to come back to share this EXCELLENT article published on Groklaw today that summarizes Dalvik with specific detail with an eye toward understanding it well enough to follow the Oracle USA case against Google:

What is Dalvik? by Mark Murphy
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...00915143729255
thanks for the link. Article started nicley but where are the rest of it? Guy just did introduction and did not give any answers to questions what were first put on table. Or actually he answered only to one question.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to slender For This Useful Post:
mr_xzibit's Avatar
mr_xzibit is offline mr_xzibit
2010-09-16 , 22:19
Posts: 220 | Thanked: 49 times | Joined on Aug 2010 @ england
#89
thanks for the link. Article started nicley but where are the rest of it? Guy just did introduction and did not give any answers to questions what were first put on table. Or actually he answered only to one question.
sounds like something a politician would do?
__________________
Fav band.SyLOSiS
Playstation® 3 n900 Trophy viewer click here
want a more responsive n900? Click here
 
maluka's Avatar
maluka is offline maluka
2010-09-16 , 22:29
Posts: 741 | Thanked: 900 times | Joined on Nov 2007 @ Auckland NZ
#90
Google is the new Microsoft

Microsoft’s old tactics were:

1. Embrace: Development of software substantially compatible with a competing product, or implementing a public standard.
2. Extend: Addition and promotion of features not supported by the competing product or part of the standard, creating interoperability problems for customers who try to use the ‘simple’ standard.
3. Extinguish: When extensions become a de facto standard because of their dominant market share, they marginalize competitors that do not or cannot support the new extensions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace...and_extinguish
 
Reply
Page 9 of 10 « First 78 9 10

Tags
bride-of-darl, chicks roosting, scoracle

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:47.

Contact Us - Home - Archive - Top