* Posts by Ian Michael Gumby

4454 publicly visible posts • joined 11 Apr 2006

Pecker-checker Becker's hacker wrecker: Saudi cyber-crew stole Bezos' sexts from phone, fed them to tabloid – claim

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

@ YAAC Re: Time to supervillian

I'm sorry, but IIRC, there was a Jaguar commercial that played in the states saying all of the top evil super villains were British?

Take that, America! Huawei flips Trump & Co the bird after reporting double-digit % rise in sales and profit

Ian Michael Gumby
Paris Hilton

Re: Backdoors ?

Err... yes and no...

No in that ...

All countries have agencies that fight for the right to hack your security and kit. Not just the US and quite frankly even the Norks seem better at it that the US... (unless that's a bit of misinformation put out by the NSA to throw us off their tracks...)

Of course in the US we have Clinton's email server. The US ICIG (Intelligence Community Inspector General) warned the FBI that Clinton's illegal server was hacked by several agencies including the Chinese. Even in El Reg, there was an article that once her server was outed, a security professional found her server listed in his database of poorly configured Exchange Servers.

The point is that while these agencies are trying to spy on you... the real issue is misconfiguration, or poor code rushed out to market before its fully baked. (Which is why I said YES & no. )

Paris because she can pull off the tin foil hat look

Stop us if you've heard this one: IBM sued after axing older staff, this time over 'denying' them their legal rights

Ian Michael Gumby

Re: Why are these even legal ?

The company is already gagged. Its called the Data Protection Act and it forbids them from disclosing personal information without consent.

This is not true when they are required by law to present information as a compliance to presenting the waiver of your rights.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Re: Why are these even legal ?

Its a contract.

Its legal if the underlying terms are legal. Meaning if they are compliant with how the contract must be presented and they provide consideration... they are legal.

In this case... for the contract to be valid, they have to show you the list of others being released and their ages to prove to you that you are knowledgeable in that they are not targeting older workers so if you sign, you're making an informed decision. And the consideration are the benefits that they legally don't have to provide, but do.

This is why they are legal. That said... no presentation of the list (voluntarily, not that you have to ask for it before they present it...) , this is not legal.

Geiger counters are so last summer. Lasers can detect radioactive material too, y'know

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Re: False Alarms

There's more to this than just the detection.

You could use it to stop a truck for further inspection, or for a port to pull a container.

But there's more data than just coming from the sensor which you use before creating panic.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Re: Not a nuclear scientist here...

Uhm... this may be a silly question... but what makes you think that they are only monitoring US Ports?

Team America! World Police. (Yes the version w the gratuitous puppet sex!)

(Sorry its Monday.)

But seriously, the proliferation of nukes should scare the shit out of most. Even if you live in the UK and someone did an air burst above San Francisco, (think high EMP low casualties) ... You'd still be royally fscked.

Or NYC.

And vice-vesa. (Living in the US and London taken out w EMP burst.) Are your civilian data centers protected against EMP bursts? I doubt it.

Looking for super speed from Optane? It's doable but quite difficult

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

Confused...

Sorry, but maybe its because its Monday, Or because I need more caffeine... this article didn't make a lot of sense.

I mean I get that YMMV in terms of performance depending on how Optane is used, but overall the article didn't make sense.

I mean using NVMe or Optane as a fast persistence layer for your apps so that the app can flush LRU from memory, would allow for the application to support a larger amount of data. Or is there a better way? The article wasn't clear about that. So what am I missing?

Super-crook admits he nicked $122m from Facebook, Google by sending staff fake invoices for tech kit

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Re: No way he didn't have inside help

Can you say Dumpster Diving?

'Sharing of user data is routine, yet far from transparent' is not what you want to hear about medical apps. But 2019 is gonna 2019

Ian Michael Gumby

Data is the new oil...

Look everyone knows that data is where the money is so we all know that these apps make their money on the back end over the data.

So none of this is shocking.

And while they may 'anonymize' the data... Google knows enough to identify people that have been anonymized.

So there is a clear problem.

I mean suppose you have a blood glucose monitor app for your smart phone.

Google can figure who you are based on your digital footprint and some of the metadata from the app provider.

Wondering why 'Devin Nunes herp-face' was trending online? Here's the 411: House rep sues Twitter for all the rude stuff tweeted about him

Ian Michael Gumby
Mushroom

Twitter , FB and Google should be declared Monopolies...

Look, most here don't get it but Nunes can argue that Twitter violates the safe harbor clause.

The point is while these companies are private companies they claim to be an open platform, which they are not when they censor objectively and apply their ToS objectively at the whim of some unknown person.

Its not a question of being held liable for end user generated content, but for denying one group fair access while allowing others to defame them.

For those who claim Twitter has no liability, consider twitter holding back Nunes, Clinton, AOC, or whomever while someone else pummels them with a baseball bat.

The other thing is that should be considered is that these companies are now quasi news sources. Meaning that they should be held accountable. Many Government and businesses disseminate information via Twitter in order to comply with regulations (e.g. SEC's FD law) or to send Amber or Emergency Alerts.

Twitter posts have been shown to move markets.

When there is so much power, they need to be held accountable and the laws granting them safe harbor need to be changed.

Ian Michael Gumby

Re: But he actually has a case...

Reply Icon

Re: But he actually has a case...

"allowed accounts that were against their ToS"

Like Trump's account?

-=-

LOL, Actually you are correct. Trump should be tossed, however, they won't because he's POTUS.

But there is more to this than meets the eye.

Nunes is a lawyer. He picked his target carefully and he's got proof of shadow banning. Among other things.

Ian Michael Gumby

@jfm Re: But he actually has a case...

Yup.

There's more to the case because of the quasi official nature Twitter now has.

But essentially there are limits to 230(c)(1)

AFAIK, Nunes is taking aim at the cover granted to Twitter under 230(c)(1)

If you read his complaint that's what he's aiming to do.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@AC Re: But he actually has a case...

Exactly.

Nunes points to others being harassed and shadow banned.

One example was an account that pretends to be his mom.

(It was finally taken down after she lodged a complaint. )

The point is that no one here really understands the law and the risk Twitter faces.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Re: Agreed

I suggest you actually read his complaint.

And take your head out of your arse. To be frank, if you take politics out of the picture, you may actually start to understand his argument.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@vtcodger Re: But he actually has a case...

Yes you're not a lawyer, nor do you spend enough time around them... ;-)

You are right if this were a simple defamation lawsuit, you'd be right.

But there's more.

Its not vtcodger posting an anti Nunes post/rant/whatever. But an anon account pretending to represent his mom. Which is a violation of their ToS.

There's more to it and that's why he has enough of a case to be able to start the lawsuit and see where it goes.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@J27 Re: But he actually has a case...

Sorry, but your argument falls flat on its face.

This isn't really a 1st amendment issue.

It has to go to the immunity platforms have on user generated content. As long as the content doesn't fall afoul of their ToS, Its allow to stay. No editing on the part of Twitter.

But we know that doesn't happen w Shadow bans.

So the argument is that Twitter shouldn't have said immunity. Nor Google or FB.

They can't claim to be an open forum and censor people while allowing others to openly violate their ToS.

He has enough of a case to initiate a lawsuit in good faith.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Jake Re: But he actually has a case...

Wow.

Free clue... its already been admitted by Twitter, in so many words.

I guess you can't take the politics out of this and focus on the law.

I'll go slow.

Twitter did in fact shadow ban individuals.

Twitter did in fact allow fake accounts that violated their ToS.

Most of the claims made by Nunes are easily confirmed if you take the time to look at Google and YouTube for Twitter execs in the news or in front of Congress.

Now that said... Twitter is going to say that they are a private company and that they have the right to filter the content, at the same time they claim that they don't filter the content and that they are immune from litigation because they don't control the content.

This is the issue. They are sitting on the fence and putting feet in both sides of the argument.

So Nunes has a case because they cant have their cake and eat it too. If they censor you via shadow ban, and then also claim that they don't censor content except when it violates their ToS... they have a problem.

This is why Nunes has a case.

You can bet that Twitter is going to first try to get this dismissed and then fight every attempt at discovery.

This is also an issue for Google and FB.

I'm not going to guess how it will end, but on the surface, Nunes has a case and its enough to launch a lawsuit.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

But he actually has a case...

Look, all politicians are knobs goes with the territory...

Yet if you look at his claims... there's enough evidence to show that Twitter did do this... (shadow ban)

That they allowed accounts that were against their ToS because they picked on conservatives.

That they claimed at times to be an open forum, yet at the same time they argued that they are a private company.

The really cool thing is that it will address these mega platforms and their potential legal liability.

FB and Google are going to be watching this closely.

Public disgrace: 82% of EU govt websites stalked by Google adtech cookies – report

Ian Michael Gumby
Coat

Re: "there were 112 companies slurping up information"

How else do you expect the UK Govt. to make up the budget deficits?

Yes! Pack your bags! Blossoming planetary system strikingly similar to ours found by boffins

Ian Michael Gumby

Re: Faster than light not needed?

Most of his novels were juvenile

Ian Michael Gumby
Alien

Re: Faster than light not needed?

Isn't he the cat who could walk thru walls and had a harsh mistress?

Heinlein wasn't so much FTL than he was multi-dimensional although he did experiment w some time travel too. (Think 'Number of the Beast' )

An alien because Thou art god. ;-)

UK joins growing list of territories to ban Boeing 737 Max flights as firm says patch incoming

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Cederic Re: @Blockchain commentard...

I'm not out for crucifying anyone.

But the fact is ... lives were lost.

Who did what and when is important.

Who was involved in terms of aeronautical engineering and software engineering.

The center of gravity change is significant ... what do the engineers have to say and what was documented.

Then you have the sensors and also the software controls.

Its not a question of blame, but to find out what went wrong and fix the process so that it doesn't happen again.

To be clear, this audit will occur because the FAA, lawyers and the company will demand it.

Ian Michael Gumby

@DC Fusor Re: An already safe...

I think the issue is that while its not a completely new aircraft, there are significant changes.

AFAIK the airframe is basically the 737 however they have larger engines which are more fuel efficient and there's a change in the center of gravity.

If the issue is as they suspect, the sensors are set up to keep the plane from having the nose rise to quickly and end up in a stall situation.

The current 'fix' is to turn this off during takeoffs where you're climbing quickly.

If the pilot doesn't, then he's going to be fighting the nose up / auto down and at low levels ... boom into ground. (At least that's what is being said on the news)

With respect to the other crash... there was a question about a bad sensor that was replaced prior to the accident. This begs the question if that it wasn't a bad sensor but the software that controls the input in to the auto pilot that was bad.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Blockchain commentard...

While I appreciate your joke, I have to ask a serious question...

Will some one do an audit of the individuals who worked on this kit?

Seriously I'd love to see their backgrounds and if they are truly software engineers. (Have an engineering degree from an accredited US Engineering school. (US because BA is a US company) )

No joke. I mean going back almost 30 years ago, I was assigned to a project to develop a specialized RTOS and an application to monitor water purification. While it was one of my favorite projects, the only reason I was selected was that I was the only Software Engineer available at the time to do the work. (Talk about luck of the draw).

I have to wonder how much time, thought and energy went in to the design and testing of this code / sensor.

If I were Boeing... I'd do it because its going to be the first thing the FAA and the queue of lawyers are going to want to see.

And this is a bit scary and hits home because I'm on a jet twice a week to and from client(s).

Take Note: Schneider's teeny-tiny Galaxy VS li-ion UPS set to explode onto data centre scene

Ian Michael Gumby
Flame

Re: Fire Risk ?

The interesting thing of Diesel , Natural Gas, etc ... they are stored in tanks, outside of your building.

If you want, you can put 3 sided walls around the tank (cinder block w concrete and rebar inside) to help direct the blast away from the building. The fourth side is open to allow access for refilling tank. (You could even put up a blast wall on that side too but away from the tank. )

Most of the energy and flame from the blast goes up.

That said... there are some newish developments on the Li battery tech that reduces the risk of fire. Still, if it were my DC ... I'd isolate it as much as possible. Definitely a firewall/blast wall and try to direct a blast upward.

Freelance devs: Oh, you wanted the app to be secure? The job spec didn't mention that

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@'s water Re: Yeah...

As someone you'd call a 'brain surgeon' or a really senior specialist in a different field...

Most jobs in IT don't require a 'brain surgeon'.

Do you see surgeons carrying around bed pans?

Or inserting IVs or checking on IVs and administering drugs?

Or filling prescriptions... (yeah robots do that now)

Or running the patient thru X-Ray or for their MRI?

The point is that there are a lot of roles that need to be filled where you don't need to be a brain surgeon.

Take in point all the pseudo 'boffins' who are in to AI and ML. How many of them could roll their own Docker container ? Or could write a device driver?

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@ Bollchit Re: Quality

While I agree with you... did you happen to read that the bulk of even the higher paid group was not statistically significant?

Now there are flaws in the test.

Most good freelancers don't use freelance.com to find work. (They have a good network of friends and clients. )

Second most could not speak English well.

I mean the test caught up a bunch of posers who lied about their ability and charged an arm and a leg while googling code examples without knowing what they were.

It gives this industry a bad name.

And yes, just 'learn to code' is BS. Sure there's a lot of jobs in IT where you don't need to be a serious hard core zen coder or deeply skilled. But unfortunately too many posers want the big bucks and are willing to lie to get it. Caveat Emptor.

I am violently in agreement with you, but still far too many posers in our field.

Adi Shamir visa snub: US govt slammed after the S in RSA blocked from his own RSA conf

Ian Michael Gumby

@Bogle Re: Though it's only fair...

Yeah, but unfortunately there is a portion of the bureaucrats who are BDS supporters.

Just look at our Congress when a house rep makes clear antisemitic statements and isn't rebuked.

Silent Merc, holy e-car... Mflllwhmmmp! What is that terrible sound?

Ian Michael Gumby
Mushroom

Huh?

First FFS! e-Cars do make a sound, you can hear them driving down the road.

Maybe not the loud raw sound of a V8, or V12 growling.

Now if you want to make a sound , lets at least be intelligent about it. Like artificial intelligent.

Lets give our cars a voice and really good sensors. As an example w lidar we can detect a fairly decent almost 3D image down to 1CM.

Suppose you add in sonar/radar so you can find objects with a fast scan and then use the various components to determine whether is animal, mineral, or a human Then using video detecting as well as RF sensors, determine if the person crossing the street is listenting to their phone / ipod, ects... and then in a rude voice tell the pratt to look up, and turn off their device and pay attention.

THere could even be a rude boy package that can further add cat calls or be rude to the offending pedestrians.

And even a more enhanced feature that could identify the person, hopefully a girl, go thru her public facebook photos and chats and then make some other rude comment or snarky comment.

As to why rude or snarky comments?

How would you feel if you had a car driving down the street saying 'Watch out Dearie' , 'Thank you' or 'God Blessed.'

Would that be sarcasm or a pious Prius that you want to beat in with the nearest heavy object.

You. Shall. Not. Pass... word: Soon, you may be logging into websites using just your phone, face, fingerprint or token

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Re: Bill Gates 0 - 1 xkcd.com

Sorry but just go two factor with a simpler password.

US Supremes urged by pretty much everyone in software dev to probe Oracle's 'disastrous' Java API copyright win

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Charlie Re: Before people get in to a panic...

Yes and no.

First, read the judgement. The court explains why its not fair use.

For this to go to SCOTUS, Google or an amicus brief has to show that the court erred in their interpretation of fair use. (You are correct on the bad faith argument)

Because Fair Use is complex, this is possible however it would have to be a really good argument.

This is why I suspect that SCOTUS will not want to hear this case.

If the decision does get upheld by the Supreme Court then I wonder if Oracle is prepared for the inevitable countersuits on things like its core business: lots and lots of database code is based upon the principle of reimplementing existing APIs and this would be a treasure trove for patent trolls.

There likely won't be. You'd have to show bad faith and that you own the copyright on the APIs along with a bunch of other things.

You would also have to show how a patent troll could sue over a copyright but that probably won't stop someone from trying it. In the US you can sue anyone for just about anything, however it would probably get dismissed outright or before heading in to a court case or discovery.

Ian Michael Gumby

@Hammy Re: Before people get in to a panic...

Sigh.

The courts are using the evidence of what is being presented to them.

Of the code copied by Google, which Google doesn't deny, a very small percentage of the code was different. (Using your number 11,500 only 170 lines were specific to Google)

The courts ruled that this wasn't transformative but mostly copied.

Suppose I write a song. You take my song and change one sentence.

The melody is the same, most of the lyrics is the same. You would lose the lawsuit because your work was not transformative enough. Its theft.

See, I just explained why the courts ruled against Google without this being about code.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Mathew Re: @Graham Before people get in to a panic...

And you and the above posters just don't get it.

I mean what you are saying is correct, however the courts have to rule based on the evidence that is presented to them.

The appellate court will hear facts that may or may not have been presented in the original court case.

This means that if the judge errs in his decision because he misinterpreted the facts then they have grounds for an appeal.

Or if there's case law that wasn't presented or allowed they will hear it.

Or if there's an argument that the judge's ruling ignored... they will hear it.

But you have to make that argument to the appellate court.

Google didn't do that when it came to the decision that APIs were in fact copyrightable.

Got it? So the court didn't err. Google's lawyers did. (oops!)

The appellate court didn't hear any argument from Google that the APIs were not copyrightable.

So its a moot point. So the court has to start with the earlier decision that they are copyrightable.

Did you or any of the others actually read the decision?

Or any of the earlier decisions?

The ruling doesn't say what you think it does.

Again, my money is on SCOTUS not taking the case.

This case will not be a precedent and the world of software development will not melt down over it.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@ Jack ... Re: @Someone Else. A Question:

So... if they are copyrightable ... tell me how what you are doing isn't an act of fair use?

Ian Michael Gumby

@Michael Wojcik Re: @Someone Else. A Question:

Yes, you are correct, he got it wrong.

There's more to it than that, but its not what killed this case for Google.

If you bother to read the judgement, the courts found that Google failed to explain why the appellate court should reverse the decision that APIs are copyrightable. (Its in their decision.)

To be clear... Google blew it and now they can't go to SCOTUS and argue it. SCOTUS won't hear that issue.

So you get down to the argument that Oracle made. What Google did wasn't fair use.

And the courts explain why they agreed with Oracle.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Bronek Re: @Someone Else. A Question:

Sorry mate its you.

You now have a court ruling in favor of Oracle.

In future court cases, lawyers can cite this case, however its very possible that a judge in a different federal district court would rule differently.

There are cases of this happening.

Unlike a SCOTUS decision which becomes a precedence, this may or may not set precedence.

And again, you also fail to understand the ruling as well as copyright law.

I'm not going to sit down and explain it to you, you should try to learn it on your own.

Read the case judgement and you might learn something.

Or you can try to do just what you suggest and then try to sue someone on a single API call. ;-)

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@lurker... Re: Nine Seniles

First, there's a high probability that they will not hear Google's appeal.

Google has to appeal that their use was in fact Fair. They will have to make the argument as to how and why the Appellate Court erred in their decision. If you read the decision, Google cannot argue that the courts erred on ruling that APIs are Copyrightable. They lost that ability because they failed to argue it in the Appellate Court. (Read the decision)

The Amicus Briefs could probably raise this issue, however it could be moot.

Scotus will look at this based on the argument that what Google did was fair use of copyrighted material.

They don't need to know anything about programming.

To be clear, I've had to experience bad judges and lazy judges. But in this case. The court did its job and SCOTUS may not hear the appeal.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Re: Hasn't this been decided in the other direction already?

Please read the judgement.

It talks about the history of the case and the prior court rulings.

It also talks about why the found in favor of Oracle's argument.

This case isn't the same as any of the other cases and if you actually read the court's decision you would understand why.

First in the latest ruling Google failed! to articulate why the courts should reverse their ruling that APIs are not copyrightable.

Then the courts found that Google's actions were not fair (fair use) and thus they had to rule in favor of Oracle. Simply put... this case is being decided that APIs are copyrightable. And while everyone goes in to Chicken Little mode, you have to read the ruling to understand why the courts ruled in Oracle's favor. Google raised an affirmative defense and failed to defend it. One of the major issues.... the majority of the code is not specific to Google. (You can find it for yourself.)

And the kicker... Google got rejected by Sun, yes SUN MICROSYSTEMS for a license before Oracle bought Sun.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@AC ... Re: Judical trivialities written by legal drones..

You really don't know much about the judicial system.

The judge rules on what is argued in Court.

And in this case... Google didn't do a good enough job.

If you read the judgement. The final appeal which Oracle won... It wasn't about copyright but fair use.

Fair Use is a very complex issue under the copyright law.

While everyone is panicking they need to see what the court actually said.

I'll get down voted, but hey, too many clueless fucks don't want to take the time to read, nor really try to understand the US court system. (Yeah I've had to spend far more time than I care dealing with lawyers these days.)

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Wow. Some just don't get it.

This case has been going on for many years.

I really suggest people actually read the actual judgement.

It explains why the courts did what they did.

If you read it, you'll understand that Google's actions are not fair use which was part of their affirmative defense.

The court case is judged by the evidence that was put in front of a jury and a judge.

The court has actually gotten this one right.

I'll wager that SCOTUS will not hear it and those who are pushing amicus briefs have their own agendas. Fair Use will hold.

This won't be a precedent until SCOTUS gets engaged. (Its in a single Federal District Court and it means other Courts can decide cases differently.)

You really, really, really need to read the judgement.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Graham Re: Before people get in to a panic...

Look, I'm not going to play lawyer here... but clearly you didn't bother to read the judgement.

(I even provided a link FFS!)

SCOTUS already decided not to hear Google's first appeal. As to APIs being copyrightable... they are. To a point. There is no SCOTUS decision but a lower court's decision.

From the actual judgement:

Oracle now appeals from the district court’s final judgment and its decisions denying Oracle’s motions for JMOL and motion for a new trial. Google cross-appeals from the final judgment purportedly to “preserv[e] its claim that the declarations/SSO are not protected by copyright law,” but advances no argument for why this court can or should revisit our prior decision on copy-rightability. Cross-Appellant Br. 83.Because we conclude that Google’s use of the Java API packages was not fair as a matter of law, we reverse the district court’s decisions denying Oracle’s motions for JMOL and remand for a trial on damages. We also dis-miss Google’s cross-appeal.

Please read the part in BOLD.

As you can see the courts are ruling that Google infringed on their copyright because it is a fair use issue.

I don't know what Google will do besides try to appeal to SCOTUS.

Will they get heard? I don't know but based on the earlier attempt, I doubt it.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Someone Else. Re: A Question:

Please read my post on this...

The short answer is no. That is not what the court ruling is saying.

Your example would be covered under fair use.

This is not what Google was doing.

The courts actually got it right.

If I had to bet. SCOTUS will again refuse to hear this.

Both companies are dicks , weasels, scum of the earth and evil.

But the underlying facts are that Google was caught trying to pull a fast one and Oracle had deep enough pockets to hire really good lawyers and fight this to the end.

Google can easily write the check and walk away.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Before people get in to a panic...

I'm pretty sure I'm going to get down voted by many but F' it. I think its important to really understand what is at stake here.

This isn't about copyrighting code but more of fair use.

If you go to the Wikipedia entry on the case you will find this gem:

The Court found that as a matter of law, Google's use of Java could not have fallen within fair use, even if all factual matters decided by the jury had been in Google's favor. The Appeals Court found that Google's use of API code declarations had not met any of the four current criteria for fair use, but was merely untransformed reuse. It had not been transformative, since it was used for the same purposes without even minimal changes or rewrites. It was not minimal, since it was agreed that only 170 lines of the 11,500 lines copied were needed for Google's purposes. It was not within any example of transformation, nor intended to permit third party interoperability, since Google had made no substantial efforts to use them for the purpose of third party interoperability. (In fact it found that Google had tried to prevent interoperability with other Java and had previously been refused a license by Sun for that reason.[12]) It was not transformative in the sense of a new platform either, since other Java smartphones predated Android.[62] It was plausible that the use had harmed Sun/Oracle – perhaps to a great extent if Oracle were to be believed – since as a result, vendors began to expecting Oracle to compete on price with a freely available derivative of its own language, and to require very steep discounts and undesired contractual terms.[62] Therefore, Google's use of the Java code and APIs failed to meet all four of the currently accepted criteria under which fair use would be possible.[62]

You really need to get a single malt, pint, coffee, or tea and sit down and read the following:

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-1118.Opinion.3-26-2018.1.PDF

The courts are saying that Google's use was not 'fair use'. So for everyone who's up in arms that now this ruling breaks the industry... its false. Fair use still applies. So you can freely use APIs as they were meant to be used.

Sorry, but while both companies are evil, if you're being objective and take the time to read the court's decision... It was the right one.

What I found interesting in the Wikipedia doc:

(In fact it found that Google had tried to prevent interoperability with other Java and had previously been refused a license by Sun for that reason.[12])

So there is more to this case than just Oracle being dicks.

Hey mate, are you dense? Why, yes. Yes, I am, says the NAND in Micron's new client SATA SSD

Ian Michael Gumby
Thumb Up

180TBW

That means you can write/rewrite the entire 2TB drive 90 times.

For most of us... it means that the drive will last longer than your pc.

Crowdfunded lawyer suing Uber told he can't swerve taxi app giant's £1m legal bill

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Lusty, Re: Who is ultimately responsible for collecting/paying the VAT

Ok, that makes sense.

In the states... it would be a case of Uber being a tax dodge. So where I said he'd sue for 1 billion if he wins this lawsuit, it would be that the IRS would go after Uber, and then as the whistle blower, he'd get a reward which would be substantial.

But then again. this aint the US.

To give you an example... the HSBC employee who blew open the US tax dodgers who had overseas accounts and were under reporting income.... while he faced jail in Switzerland, he was up for a massive reward as the whistle blower. Millions IIRC.

Ian Michael Gumby

Re: Who is ultimately responsible for collecting/paying the VAT

So the article isn't about the outcome of the trial.

It appears, if I understand this , the argument is that the Lawyer wants to cap his damages if he loses.

If he wins, he will then be able to sue Uber again for a 1 billion in a follow up lawsuit. That's his huge payday.

Tech industry titans suddenly love internet privacy rules. Wanna know why? We'll tell you

Ian Michael Gumby
Black Helicopters

@ Bomb Bob Re: laws of this nature need to be enacted by U.S. Congress

You are right, however we know that Congress is the best congress that money can buy.

They will offer a law that weakens what California got right, and we should have something close to GDPR which these companies are dealing with because they do business with Europeans.

Decoding the President, because someone has to: Did Trump just blow up concerted US effort to ban Chinese 5G kit?

Ian Michael Gumby

@ Sp Re: Let's see

Look, I think you're missing the point that the ACs are making.

How do you know that China hasn't?

How politics works, part 97: Telecoms industry throws a fundraiser for US senator night before he oversees, er, a telecoms privacy hearing

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Sloppy Crap Re: The more things change, the less they really do.

I think you missed AC's point.

Pelosi is the richest woman in Congress.

The allegation is that she got wealthy because her husband was a lucky investor in Silicon Valley Tech companies.

The AC is hinting that he's been given an inside track to invest that isn't open to others.

There should be term limits.

Redis kills Modules' Commons Clause licensing... and replaces it with one of their own

Ian Michael Gumby

@JulieM Re: Wow, they finally got it!

Yes.

Pretty much. Its not stealing because you're giving away your code for free. No strings attached. (Ok some strings but really meaningless. )