Here’s Hoping Wednesday Begins a Supreme Court Reckoning for Monster Thief Google
A Monstrous Thief with Inordinately Silly Defenses
Monstrous Big Tech company Google (Market Cap: $1 trillion) does a whole lot of throwing its monster weight around - to the detriment of just about everyone else.
Likely the stupidest of the many very stupid defenses of monstrous Big Tech companies like Google is:
“Well, start your own Google.”
Monstrous Big Tech company Microsoft (Market Cap: $1.6 trillion) - tried to do exactly that. They dumped more than $2 billion into their Bing search engine - and wound up with a whopping 2.4% of the market. An absolutely pathetic tally - which makes them the nation’s second largest search engine. Behind Google’s market-dominating 92%.
Which only yet again demonstrates that each monstrous Big Tech company has its monopoly - and builds out all around it. And no company - no matter how huge - can knock each off its particular mountain.
Oh: And when Microsoft gave up the ghost and ceded Search to Google - they cut a deal to sell all the data Bing collects…to Google.
Google crushes most prospective competitors with sheer weight and government cronyism. Most of the rest they purchase before the competitors can get big enough to cause any real trouble.
Oh: And then there is Google’s massive, mass use of theft to keep clear their field.
Google is so monstrously huge, they routinely steal - and then dare their victims to come after them. Just like the biggest kid in the schoolyard taking everyone’s lunch money, Google knows almost no one will - because no one has the ability to take them on.
So when someone does fight back - we should all be rooting for them.
Why…that’s Wednesday. (Has anyone seen my Oracle foam finger? Hint: It ain’t the index.)
Oracle has the added bonus of having a lockdown, air-tight case against monstrous Google. From Wikipedia:
“The dispute centers on the use of parts of the Java programming language's application programming interfaces (APIs), which are owned by Oracle (through subsidiary, Oracle America, Inc., originating from Sun Microsystems), within early versions of the Android operating system by Google. Google has admitted to using the APIs….”
Stop right there. Google admits they used Oracle’s Java APIs. Which they used to build Android.
“(S)ome Android apps found to secretly steal personal information from other apps.”
Because of course.
Oracle requires users of Java - like Google - to get a license. Guess what monstrous thief Google didn’t do?
“How do we know Google knows they stole Android from Oracle-Java?
“The E-Mail That Google Really Doesn’t Want A Jury To See:
“‘Lawyers defending Google against a patent and copyright lawsuit brought by Oracle are trying desperately to keep a particular engineer’s e-mail out of the public eye-but it looks like they’re unlikely to succeed.
“‘The e-mail, from Google engineer Tim Lindholm to the head of Google’s Android division, Andy Rubin, recommends that Google negotiate for a license to Java rather than pick an alternative system….
“‘The second paragraph of the email reads:
“‘“What we’ve actually been asked to do by Larry [Page] and Sergey [Brin] (Google’s founders) 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.”’”
Google for a time negotiated with Oracle for a license. Until one day they stopped.
Google then released Android anyway. Which ain’t legal.
So Oracle sued. A decade later, the case has reached the Supreme Court.
Google’s arguments are decidedly weak. And really rather silly.
Google is actually arguing that if you allow their theft - their victims will be more likely to keep creating things for them to steal. Human nature and 10,000 years of human history to the contrary notwithstanding.
“I just engaged in said Web search. (Though not using Google’s nigh-monopoly search engine, I’d like to point out.)
“And here’s what I found:
“‘(In US copyright law) the doctrine that brief excerpts of copyright material may, under certain circumstances, be quoted verbatim for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder.'
“‘Fair use’ – is me briefly excerpting from someone else’s writing to criticize it in my writing. Or report news, teach or issue reports about it in my writing.
“As I am currently doing with this excerpted legal definition of ‘fair use.’
“‘Fair use’ should exist almost solely in the realm of the written word. Because that’s the only realm in which it makes any real, consistent sense.
“‘Fair use’ absolutely should not be applied to the realm of computer code. Because it is absurd to attempt to apply it to computer code.
“You can not engage in criticism, news reporting, teaching or research – using lines of computer code. The notion is patently absurd.
“Enter the King of Absurd: Google.”
Google is asking the Justices to imagine the following nonsense in print somewhere:
“To quote Oracle’s Java: “1-0-0-1-1-1-0-1-1-0-0-1-0-0-0-0-1.”
Google is trying to get the Justices to buy that the above nonsense - is “fair use.”
Except, of course, the above never appeared in print.
Because you can’t quote computer code “for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research.”
Because you can’t quote computer code at all.
But you can steal it. Which is exactly what Google did.
Here’s hoping the Justices agree.
And rule accordingly.
This first appeared in Red State.