Oracle Declares War on Cloud and Open Source

The author is merely prognisticating before a judgement has actually been rendered.

> ...in a nation governed by the rule of law...

Ah, there's the rub.

The rub is that Google is not hamstringing software development and innovation, and Oracle is doing so. Oracle is actively engaging in a suppression strategy, while Google is is defensive with copyright and patent rights. There's a marked difference for what it means to the consumer. In a B2B setting, both models are equally palletable. In a business to consumer setting, Google's model is much more palletable.

For the consumer, you have the right to not use Google's services. You can use Bing, Yahoo, whatever, for search. You can use Hotmail, AOL, etc. for web mail. You can use Amazon or Apple for your mobile apps. You have choice.

But, if Oracle makes Android illegal with their BS patents, they have eliminated, or at least limited, choice. If Oracle threatens software development, by making APIs copyrightable, they have limited innovation. They also will have opened the door for others to do the same, thereby harming (the US) economy.

Oracle is a much greater threat,... by far. Also, based on the temperaments of their respective CEOs, Oracle is a much more "evil" corporation. Hands down.

Quoting:that mining their customers' data ...

Unless Google is stealing their customers' data. ... that mining data about their customers ... sounds more accurate.

The way I look at it, unless Google hijacked your information from somewhere else, where it was secure (not freely available, because you released it), it's actually Google's information ABOUT you,... Not YOUR information. You don't want them to have it? Don't participate with their services.

The only time I am aware of where they actually proactively gathered information, without consent, was the WiFi War driving fiasco. To my knowledge, they didn't use any of the personal information they acquired, but only the geographic location of WiFi routers to aid in map location.

@JaseP --

Not necessarily. There is the little matter of Google Docs and GMail and Google Voice and -- oh, yeah -- YouTube.

I agree with dino. Neither of these companies are to be trusted. Both are threats, just in different ways.

@Dino:

But, Dino, those are Google services,... YouTube's owned by Google. If you are using their services, beyond anonymous browsing, you are registering your information with them. You are giving them a "file" on you, so to speak. Don't want to have your information in their servers??? Simple, don't use their stuff. Use something else, build your own,... whatever. Those are the reasons I didn't buy (or rent) a commercial PVR, but went with LinuxMCE instead. If you are upset about changes in licensing terms, that's more understandable. But, still,... You can always opt out. Don't want them spidering your mail to build an ad profile for you? Encrypt it, or use another service.

Don't get me wrong, I think their wardriving thing was borderline sleazy. But I actually like that Google Maps locate function works without a GPS lock. Accurate?!?! Only down to about half a city block (average). But, it's a nice thing. And, yes, I realize they are using that info to get a more precise profile on me. Once again, I'll say that I'd rather get ads that I'd be more interested in than ones that I don't. Maybe I'll never see another Microsoft ad?!?! Here's hoping, anyway.

Sure, but the data is something apart from the file. And yes, I didn't say there was anything illegal about it...although, I wonder about the extent to which we're looking at contracts of adhesion.

Is it a contract of adhesion when you buy a burger at a fast food place?!?! Sure it is... But it's a commodity service, just like search, web mail, calendaring, mapping, e-commerce... Just because it's an adhesion contract doesn't mean it's automatically bad/discouraged/illegal/whatever. Purchase of clothing, retail goods, etc. is almost always a contract of adhesion. But those transactions aren't illegal.

@JaseP --

I believe that the legally significant question is whether there is anything that would surprise the ordinary person. The idea is that we don't read -- and can't be expected to read -- every piece of paper put in front of our eyes.

Let me just put it this way: I am slowly migrating off of all Google services because I don't want them mining my data. I mainly use DuckDuckGo as my search engine. StartPage/IxQuick are also good. I plan on starting a migration off of gmail shortly as well. Google Maps is good, but I can use OpenStreetMap or Mapquest and achieve the same result without having my data collected.

Recent story on Ars Technica:

Private: some search engines make money by not tracking users (DuckDuckGo and Ixquick take a tiny bite out of Google)

http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/05/private-the-search-e...

Blekko is another valid choice. It does collect data but promises to purge it within four days and not share it with anyone. I like the DuckDuckGo and IxQuick/Startpage security model better but the point I'm making is that there are reasonable alternatives to Google out there. I'm finding everything I'm searching for, too.

So, Caitlyn, you have choices... Good. I like Google,... And you (apparently) hate them. And I respect your right and decision to disagree with their policies and practices. I, personally, find their policies and practices acceptable, and their services very convenient. I know (for the most part) what they are doing with my data, and don't mind. I guess I'm officially and permanently, "on the grid," so to speak. I genuinely believe them, when they say their mantra is, "Don't be evil." I do not see them as malicious. I very much see them as opportunistic. But, in a way, I almost admire them for that.

I don't hate them. I just don't want them collecting and selling data about me. I consider the lack of an opt out to the data collection evil. You are free to make whatever choice you want. I don't understand your hostility.

Yes I'm using IXQuick all the time now.

I tell them I'm an 87-year-old Bulgarian widow.

You mean you aren't?

Of course not!

(Hungarian, actually)