
Microsoft, BSA, others file briefs in support of Oracle's appeal against Google - ternaryoperator
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20130220053127277
======
kumarm
Microsoft is in serious trouble and they are focussing on wrong things.

As a company that produced Windows8 apps, its seriously disappointing to see
huge investments in their ecosystem go waste. Microsoft's answer for that?

1\. Throw Dirt at others: Scroogle, lawsuits .... 2\. Hide the stats of their
decline: Windows8 apps dashboard used to show download trends of your app vs
download trends of top5 apps in same category. This provided a way to judge
whether platform is growing. For about 2 months (After initial December bump)
the stats have been on decline. So now they decided not to show it any more.

It is really disappointing to see MSFT fall and not even make a serious
attempt.

~~~
OGinparadise
_Microsoft is in serious trouble and they are focussing on wrong things._

Chew gum and walk at the same time sort of a thing. Microsoft is more than one
person so they have the resources to do many different things at the same
time. My guess is that it's in Microsoft's interests to have as many rights as
possible over code and languages. Also screwing Android and Google wouldn't
hurt their business.

Google and MS have been going at each other for a decade plus, with attacks
and counter attacks. Google won the latest round by having FTC not press any
changes and by having MS pay a huge fine to EU.

[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e748bfc8-8682-11e2-b907-00144feabd...](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e748bfc8-8682-11e2-b907-00144feabdc0.html)

March 6, 2013 6:56 pm

" _Google tip-off leads to Microsoft EU penalty

Google has struck a €561m blow to Microsoft after the EU’s competition
authority heavily fined the maker of Windows for settlement breaches secretly
flagged up by the US internet group._"

~~~
magicalist
I can't see that because it's paywalled, but here's another source:

 _"According to sources quoted by the Financial Times, it was Google (along
with Opera) that tipped off the EU about the lack of browser choice in
Windows, putting the whole investigation in motion."_ [1]

The situation doesn't seem all that comparable with the FTC investigation,
since this fine was for a breach of a settlement Microsoft had made with the
EU. I've never thought the browser ballot was a very good solution, but I'm
not feeling a whole lot of sympathy here since Microsoft agreed to it, but
then didn't include the ballot for _15 months_ and didn't reinstate it after
it received initial reports that it wasn't showing up.

You also ignored that pesky "along with Opera" for the sake of a nice
narrative, though to be fair, the reporters also downgraded the importance of
it in pursuit of the same thing. Considering that all you needed to "catch
them" was to install Windows 7, this was really just waiting for someone that
would notice the lack of the ballot that also had the channels to alert
someone who would care.

I think this is missing the OP's point anyways, which is that if the
perception of developers is that Microsoft's platform is hurting, then they
need to publicly focus on positive boosting of that platform. This is the same
complaint many have had about the whole scroogled thing.

[1] <http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/07/google-microsoft-eu-fine/>

~~~
OGinparadise
You're nitpicking and /or not reading carefully: No one said they're
identical. The point was that Google and Microsoft are using all tools at
their disposal against each other.

>> _I think this is missing the OP's point anyways, which is that if the
perception of developers is that Microsoft's platform is hurting, then they
need to publicly focus on positive boosting of that platform. This is the same
complaint many have had about the whole scroogled thing._

I guess you didn't read my comment, because I addressed that. But I suspect
that as soon as this lawsuit is over the one and only person working at
Microsoft <http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=MSFT+Key+Statistics> will focus all
his energy on boosting their platform.

~~~
magicalist
> The point was that Google and Microsoft are using all tools at their
> disposal against each other

No, that's exactly what I was addressing. Reporting Microsoft for breaking
their own browser ballot is not comparable to, say, a long running plan to
hobble Google by antitrust rulings in the US and the EU[1] or an ad campaign
modeled after negative political ad campaigns. So portraying this as some sort
of no holds barred fight when one side is hardly playing is rather
disingenuous.

Microsoft has improved in so many ways over the late 90s, it's kind of
appalling to see what their obsession with Google does to them. I really don't
understand it, except maybe just the old guard remaining in positions that can
still make these things happen.

And please stop suggesting that we think that all the Windows engineers were
retasked to file legal briefs in Oracle v Google. That's, again, exactly the
point I was addressing. It's difficult to be excited about those engineers'
work when their legal and marketing teams seem to think that the only way to
"win" is to make the other guy look worse than they themselves are acting.

[1] [http://readwrite.com/2013/01/03/googles-ftc-settlement-is-
an...](http://readwrite.com/2013/01/03/googles-ftc-settlement-is-an-epic-fail-
for-microsoft)

~~~
OGinparadise
_It's difficult to be excited about those engineers' work when their legal and
marketing teams seem to think that the only way to "win" is to make the other
guy look worse than they themselves are acting._

Do you only feel that way for Microsoft? Because you could say the same for
Google, Apple, Oracle...and virtually any huge company that such department.

My last comment in this thread anyway, I give up with you.

------
breck
Funny, I just came across this, written in 1993:

> "Oracle Corporation has taken a public stand against the patentability of
> software and has forsworn use of its own patents except to counter-sue in
> infringement claims."

(<http://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/chapter2_105.html>)

Does anyone know the history of Oracle's position on software patents?

------
mcmc
Microsoft owns the .NET ecosystem; they probably are looking to expand/protect
their rights on C# et al. more than they want to make a direct attack on
Android... (though it is a nice bonus for them.)

~~~
mtgx
Weren't some people here suggesting some months ago that Google could use C#
as an alternative to Java for Android, _because_ C# is an ISO standard or
something, and it's protected _against_ Microsoft doing what you're
suggesting?

I don't know much about the C# license, but to me suggesting Google would use
C# seemed very strange, and probably very foolish on Google's part if they
were ever to do that, but a lot of people thought that would be a good idea at
the time.

Either way, I think this is just another vector of attack from Microsoft
towards Google to hurt them, along with stuff like #droidrage, scroogle, the
push for the Google search anti-trust, and now the push for the Android anti-
trust in EU, too. They just want to hurt Google, badly. It doesn't really
matter how they'll do it. They'll simply explore and take advantage of all
opportunities to do that. It's actually a very similar strategy they've used
in the past like a decade or more ago. Microsoft hasn't changed.

~~~
Locke1689
C# and the entire .NET platform is an ECMA standard.

Mono is a non-MS backed implementation of that standard. All of these uses of
C# and .NET are legal, as far as I know.

On a side note, I've noticed that pretty much every Microsoft story posted on
HN includes an antagonistic comment by you. It seems like you have quite the
grudge against Microsoft.

For example, here is a comment by you dumping on Microsoft after TypeScript
was released -- a completely open source language contribution that was also
accompanied by plugins for non-MS editors/IDEs.[1]

I don't even really feel like discussing things with you. You've obviously
made up your mind.

[1] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4599115>

~~~
Toshio
> "I don't even really feel like discussing things with you. You've obviously
> made up your mind."

This is ad-hominem of the covert kind, in my opinion. Would you mind making an
effort to stick to discussing the topic at hand?

~~~
Locke1689
It's not ad hominem at all. It's statistical. If someone insults Microsoft
every chance they get, they probably have a grudge against Microsoft.

------
TeeDub
So, I understand that FOSS is great and we all want more open software because
there are tangible benefits to working with open software.

I'm less clear on why API's shouldn't be copyrightable. An API isn't just a
few lines of code. It's often an intense creative endeavor that ultimately
represents a very specific (sometimes innovative) way of looking at the world.
Sometimes, those views are uniquely terrible or uniquely elegant... but what's
clear is that they are not "natural" in the way that a mathematical equation
or physical law may be. It's clearly an act of creation, at least in my mind.

With that in mind... What are the best reasons to deny copyrights to API
authors in a legal system that allows writers (who create intense creative
endeavors representative of very specific and often innovative ways of looking
at the world) copyright protections?

(Mind: I'm not against reforming said legal system; however, given the status
quo, I'm not convinced about the differentiation between an API and a written
work as creative (and copyrightable) works.)

(Disclaimer: I'm a huge fan of open source and being as "free" as possible. I
love Creative Commons and fiercely enjoy the freedoms that FOSS can provide to
developers and consumers. I think that API's are something that should be open
rather than closed, but I don't think that means that all API's MUST be
copyleft / public domain.)

~~~
kkowalczyk
Because APIs are more functional than creative.

Imagine an Array class. How many names can you come up with for: "number of
elements in an array"? Count(), Size(), Len(), Length(). Those are 4 common
names.

Now imagine a system where you can copyright those names. The first 4 people
who use those obvious, functional names get a monopoly on their use because
that's what copyright is: a government granted monopoly.

We have hundreds of languages, and many languages have multiple Array classes.

Can you see how such system would destroy our ability to write understandable
code?

An API is a very small part of the overall code.

If you want to compare this to writers: code is the novel and it does get
copyright protection, just like a novel.

API name is like a chapter name and just like Melville doesn't get copyright
(i.e. exclusive use) of "Loomings", a programmer shouldn't get a an exclusive
use of Array.Count().

~~~
kvb
Just as I can copyright a work such as a novel that contains the word "Count"
even though I might not be able to copyright an isolated sentence containing
it, I think there's a good argument that something like the Java standard
library API hangs together and should be subject to copyright even if a single
method signature would not.

~~~
wvenable
Copyright covers only the expression. For example, in a C program, the header
files can be copyrighted. I think it's pretty fair to argue that Sun can
copyright their expression of an API. However, you cannot copyright facts. I
would argue that the array class having a sort method is a fact. And therefore
I should be able to create my own expression of that fact.

------
pointyhatuk
Why Microsoft is involved I don't know. I know their market share of windows
phone is a bit crappy [1], but posturing themselves as opponents to Android
isn't going to help their image either to the industry or the public and
therefore their market share.

I would have thought they'd get the point by now and stop acting like asshats.

Oh and unsurprising SCO mention. This crap has been going on behind the scenes
forever.

Watching the corporate battleground is tiresome and makes me drift away from
all parties.

[1] I own a windows phone before anyone marks me up as a hater.

~~~
CaveTech
Microsoft is not shy about "posturing themselves as opponents to Android", and
has been doing so for a _long_ time. It's not really a surprise here.

~~~
hkmurakami
IIRC MSFT gets paid a royalty of $10~$15 per copy of Android deployed by
carriers, so they do have a hedge.

(Though the fact that they have that hedge in place at all is proof that they
are "opponents of Android" which they naturally have to be given their agenda.
That makes me think though, is there anything preventing them from jacking up
that price 2-3x once WinPhone 8 launches?)

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Though weirdly they are also complaining to the EU that Google is competing
unfairly by selling Android below cost. How you can say that about a product
you yourself are charging 15 bucks for is beyond me (disclosure, I think that
figure is mostly Microsoft PR/FUD to scare people away from android. Not very
successful though.)

