pgsbathhouse

Were you unable to find any supporting evidence in a preliminary research context on this subject?

>Common decency is apparently not valued above political homogeneity in the tech industry.

You are subtly advocating for exactly the thing you are snarkly accusing the entire tech industry of.

>copying implementation code vs copying an API

You said code. Not implementation code.

>Google didn't copy code.

Yes they did.

Google's arguments were already refuted in the earliest hearings. There's a reason this is going to the supreme court, the rulings didn't really match up with accepted evidence and testimony of experts in the court.

Google will lose this. You don't explicitly copy code, take other people's engineers after exiting licensing talks with the company you took from, and have it not be about stealing someone else's intellectual efforts.

The courts have already explicitly denied Google's claim they did this for compatibility or interoperability. The grey area is how much damage Google has done to Oracle, and it's hard to put an explicit price on that. But given the popularity of Android and how Google's has massively benefited from the platform, in no small thanks to the development community around it, and given the absolutely morbid failure of its other community dev efforts it's not really hard to see that Android wouldn't be what it is today without Java; having a familiar platform for developers to code against is priceless (but not legally).

Google wanted all the benefits of using Java without actually paying for it.

Sun put a lot, and I mean a lot of money into Java. Java had well defined licensing terms for how to use their code. Oracle bought Java. Oracle has the rights to license and price their code however they want. Google does not. Google was in talks with Oracle to license Java but backed out when they didn't want to pay to use it. Instead Google took engineers from the company they copied code from, and re-licensed said code.

It's black and white but people's blind hate for Oracle leads them down an argument or view point the courts have already denied and are now ignoring.

Don't sacrifice your principles for some cheap hit against Oracle. If Google can just throw their man power around to ignore your license, your open source license will not matter. You will not get credit for the work you do. Google and others can just feel like they don't want to abide by your license, take your code, and re-license it however they want. It's already hard to enforce any type of open source licence but if Google comes out on top it really won't matter moving forward. That is what is at stake here.

"What we’ve actually been asked to do (by Larry [Page] and Sergey [Brin]) is to investigate what technical alternatives exist to Java for Android and Chrome. We’ve been over a bunch of these, and think they all suck. We conclude that we need to negotiate a license for Java under the terms we need." - Email from Tim Lindholm, a Google Engineer

From the most recent hearing:

"Ultimately, we find that, even assuming the jury was unpersuaded that Google acted in bad faith, the highly commercial and non-transformative nature of the use strongly support the conclusion that the first factor weighs against a finding of fair use." - https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20180327178

>This is a lie. Marketing budgets are approximately equal to R&D

Your own source doesn't even say that. In the exact BBC article you linked:

>But as the table below shows, drug companies spend far more on marketing drugs - in some cases twice as much - than on developing them

Here's some very very basic reading on the subject that you can find in 10 seconds of googling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_marketing

In the literally first sentence on this topic:

>pharmaceutical company spending on marketing far exceeds that of its research budget

Imagine living in a society where supposedly rational, intelligent people hold opinions that don't withstand the test of a few keystrokes; opinions that quite literally aid in the needless death and suffering of others while also just generally being a complete waste of time.

>Most new drugs come out of the US and socialized governments create generics at a fraction of the cost, because they don't have to put any money into R&D.

This is a completely false right-wing talking point. It takes 10 minutes to uncover how just totally bullshit this is.

Don't ever repeat again or anything remotely like it (aka the rest of your post).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK50972/

https://other98.com/taxpayers-fund-pharma-research-developme...

The government never sees a return in any form on the money taxpayers put forth. But private companies do. Just waiting like vultures to snag whatever makes it through the proof of concept phase and claim credit.

>I can't think of anything that the government runs better than the private sector.

ISP's? Roads? Social services? Schools? Emergency Services?

It's strange that if you're going to write this type of essay, it might behoove you to define right and left in your own words so the audience has a baseline for what you're really talking about.

Otherwise you're just saying "I'm right and everyone else is totally clueless. If you don't pick any side you actually have the most ~ ~ enlightened ~ ~ opinion."

I expect nothing less from PG but it's hilarious to see him just blandly admit how intellectually out of depth he is. He's basically ignored the most rudimentary topics in political science and just flat out spread his academic ignorance for the world to see.