As they should!
Unfortunately for Google, the more successful Andriod is, the more they will have to pay out. Oracle should have really bought Sun when they had the chance, now their best option is to settle this ASAP.
Oracle is seeking "billions of dollars" in damages from Google with its sweeping copyright and patent infringement lawsuit over the use of Java on Android. According to an Oracle court filing released on Thursday, Google attempted to hide the scope of Oracle's damages claims and other related information from public view. But …
Oracle *did* buy Sun, otherwise they wouldn't own any of the patents.
Did you mean Google should have bought Sun? I can see no reason why they would have wanted any of Sun's hardware business - the only possible reason would have been for their Patent portfolio but Google didn't seem to have realised that the best form of defence is a large portfolio of your own - hence why they're after the Nortle ones.
Well, seeing as the Oracle Market Cap is floating around the $160bn mark, and would no doubt rise on the rumour of a take over, I'd have to say it is unlikely that even Google could afford it. As I recall, Google has about $60bn in cash and assets, so they could buy up enough shares to get on the Oracle board but would need to sell shedloads of shares and/or assets, and then partner up with some serious venture money, to swallow Snoreacle.
I might down-vote you out of sheer petulance, or I might down-vote you because I am feeling particularly dickish today, or I might down-vote you because you're being a pompous arse, but in none of those situations would I be ranting. Still, never let the facts get in the way of an opportunity to be a smug git, eh.
They love to spread a bit of FUD and they're past masters at the PR black arts. I'm doubtful that they can really get the kind of damages that they're claiming here, but they can certainly seriously impact Google - especially if they pull a Lodsys and find a way of targetting Android developers.
First, I say that oracle's claims have merit. If you look at the claims, they have lost a ton of licensing revenue along with future potential revenue from existing licensees.
Sun wasn't dumb in how they wrote their contracts and were it not Oracle, sun would be suing instead. Why? Precisely because of the potential amount of damages.
In any lawsuit like this, the amount of damages is a SWAG. You guess err estimate high because you only have one shot at the number. This is going to be your max. You then end up negotiating from there. (Assuming Google is going to settle.). If not, then the number is to ball park what they think they deserve.
Now even though I call it a game, the numbers are real. Oracle is correct in their estimates.
Based on a first blush read of the article and not Google's filing, google is claiming that Oracle is using Google's profits from ad revenue on Android apps and not just the revenues from the OS itself. IMHO, Oracle is correct because the phone is a loss leader so Google can profit from their ad revenue.
While I think both companies are evil, Google thinks that they are too big to fail and should be declared a monopoly. ( but that's a different issue) with respect to the issue at hand... oracle has the stronger hand...
that sticks out to me in this whole ordeal is that Oracle couldn't have made the ad revenue Google has if their lives depended on it. It isn't really "lost" revenue. Oracle never would have made that money. If they could have, they would have done so already. I agree they should be given their licensing fees, but the money that Google made using their own talents does not belong to Oracle, who has no discernible talents to speak of.
Sorry to be a broken record, but the advertising money was made using Google's techniques, talents, and software. Sure it was sitting on top of Android which incorporates Java code, and they should pay some licensing fees for that, but nothing else.
It's not the issue of what oracle can make but to disgorge google of the profits they made as a result of their transgression.
You have to look at it from this perspective...
Google is gambling that even if it loses the lawsuit, they then pay a penalty... Lets say triple the license amounts. This amount may seem like a lot of money, but it's a fraction of what they are making off all of the handset's revenue streams.
The concept is to send the message that crime doesn't pay.
Exactly the point I was going to make. Unless Oracle can show, with detailed, dated evidence, that they had plans to do what google did to make shed loads of cash, then all they should be able to legitimately claim is any licensing fees they are owed.
It is a little bit like if an ace motorcycle rider rents a bike, doesn't tell the rental place he plans to enter it into a race, then wins the race and £1m prize money. Does the rental place have any claim to the £1m? No, as they had no way of winning that race. If the policy states there is an extra £100 fee if the bike is used in a race, they would be entitled to that, but thats all.
Any holes in this analogy? It was the best I could come up with
Yeah, your analogy is flawed. Just to point out the obvious one...
Your bike racer rented the bike. (This means he had to sign a contract on the proper T's and C's.)
A better analogy was that he stole the bike. Won the million in the race, was then nabbed for the theft. Suppose that the bike he stole only cost 100,000 pounds. He could always buy the rental company a new bike in addition to the old one.
The biker faces jail time and also has to make or attempt to make restitution to the owners of the bike he stole. The courts could also disgorge him of his profits he made from his illegal action.
(Crime doesn't pay and its important for the justice system of *any* country to re-enforce that concept.) Note that there will always be an exception to that case....
You want a better analogy... Look at the insider trading case(s) which took down guys like Bob Moffat of IBM who would have been the next leader of IBM.
In these cases, the courts not only sentence them to jail time, but they are ordered to make restitution and surrender any profits from the trades plus interest to the courts.
Does that make sense?
Google didn't sign and ignore the T's and C's of a contract, they essentially stole IP so that they wouldn't have to sign a contract and pay fees to Sun/Oracle.
Oh and one more thing... in the bike racer example... The rental company where he stole the bike... they could also give him the option of giving up the million dollars to them and they'll then drop the charges against him. Its not just the jail time but the felony conviction which will screw up one's future.
I agree with what you said, just thought I'd comment on this.
Why have they lost revenue? because android is a much better platform to develop for and provides much more than anything Oracle can offer with what they currently have. If a company making a £400 -£500 phone a few dollars to license jme is insignificant, they go with android simply because it adds a lot more value.
"Why have they lost revenue? because android is a much better platform to develop for and provides much more than anything Oracle can offer with what they currently have."
No, not at all.
Dalvik is a clone of Java. The lawsuit has nothing to do with the merits of the platform, but of a core component of the platform that was created as Oracle alleges to bypass paying Oracle the license to use Java ME.
Could Android exist if it had used Java ME? Absolutely.
...that google didn't buy sun and open source the damn lot. Lets be honest, its not like they couldn't have afforded it. They would have turned java into something super special too.
Ellison is a nut job along with steve jobs. Both are getting a bit too big for their boots imho.
I used to love oracle products, way up there. But they seem to be poisoning everything o/s at the moment.
I hope it all goes in googles favor. as much as google are in it for themselves, they don't seem to feel obliged to try and take everybody else out at the same time. Android is first class, and oracle are just sick that J2ME is a pile of sh** and they didn't think of android.
Sun didn't open source Java at they knew it would have broken the whole point of Java. Write once and run anywhere.
But then you can argue with JNI they did that anyway.
Of course, Java is pretty much dead on the desktop. There are some applications running on it but Java's big market is in web applications or database stored procedures (on Oracle).
"Sun didn't open source Java at they knew it would have broken the whole point of Java. Write once and run anywhere."
Yes, very funny. If it does run anywhere it looks like shit. Not so funny if it's your job, though.
But about Sun not open sourcing Java: what nonsense! Java was actually released under GPLv2 - what do you think OpenJDK is?
The idea is that you can't call something Java unless it passes conformance tests, and so the brand is protected and no fragmentation occurs. That would all be rather reasonable if Sun (and now Oracle) hadn't been awkward about how that conformance testing may take place, playing political games with who and what can pass through the eye of the needle.
Now Oracle is in the driving seat, of course the politics are no better. Still, this is just another Oracle acquisition: Larry's arse will be wiped across the face of Sun's business and he'll be happy to have made a few bucks on the acquisition price by the time all the different Sun technologies are mere memories. And he'll still wonder why he's not the household name that Bill Gates unfortunately is.
>Ellison is a nut job along with steve jobs
Er, are you saying that Google aren't? Oh boy they've hoodwinked you well! The *only* reason Google structured Android the way it did was to create a closed software ecosystem. Java-ish, but not Java enough to be able to run the apps elsewhere. That App lock in just encourages people to use Google services for which Google get ad money.
Google have taken a gamble on bending someone else's intellectual property to suit their own money making scheme, and it may yet back fire quite spectacularly. They dress it up as open source "from the very bottom of their heart", but that just disguises their corporate profit driven strategy. Google's trick is that most people don't see where the money is coming from. Apple's trick is that despite the obviously high prices people don't seem to care. All companies that have shareholders are obliged to take steps to increase profits, and we shouldn't be surprised to find that some of them are quite good at doing so without a blatant flow of cash.
The closest I've seen to a large company properly donating to the open source world is IBM, and Sun too in the good ol' days. IBM have put $billions of effort in to Linux from which everyone has benefitted. They make money out of it through server and services sales, but otherwise the rest of us use their contributions without a penny heading IBM's way. Sun developed dTrace and zfs and gave them away under their own license. They haven't cropped up as such in the Linux world because GPL2 isn't compatible with the license Sun wrote. You'd have to be very cynical indeed to blame Sun for that! They have been picked up by FreeBSD though. I'm sure there are other good examples too.
Google have open sourced quite a lot, but they're a bit tardy about it with Android, and everything they've done is clearly aimed at capturing more of the search and on-line advertising market. They're not especially good at it though. You think Android is first class; all I see is version fragementation, unfixed bugs, a heavy steer to doing everything through Google's websites, and yet another app ecosystem that makes it difficult to port apps to another platform. Crap. Look at the hounding HTC got just recently when they said that they wouldn't put an already out-of-date Android on HTC Desires. A sign of happy Google customers? Hardly.
"You think Android is first class; all I see is version fragmentation, unfixed bugs, a heavy steer to doing everything through Google's websites, and yet another app ecosystem that makes it difficult to port apps to another platform."
At last, someone else who gets it. Thank you. I get rather fed up with people claiming it to be *cough* open (and worse, thus "secure" or "safe" - those people ought to read the report of the Canadian Privacy Commissioner where Google formally state that they no longer need Streetview WiFi scanning as Android handset will now do that for them).
That's all. If you want to code for mobile use, you choose your walled garden. Just don't be under the illusion that there are no walls..
Not exactly in the same world as the rest of us, but the whole Paris enterprise is controlled by her, she (and only she) takes all the end decisions. I'm not saying she is uni-lecturer material, but someone who doesn't mind taking an ego hit to grow an enterprise which clocks more money per day than most people make in a year is in my view not *exactly* dumb. But jealousy plays a part too, I guess.
Sometimes the mask slips - when her image was used in a previous election campaign the Paris team cooked up a video that could not be more precise in its warning not to involve her than anything else I've seen, and I have seen quite a bit of media and reputation management.
Not world wise, yes - in that world you cannot trust anyone which makes for a bizarre sort of golden cage. But dumb? You have just fallen for the image.
Anon, for obvious reasons.
I have a hard time believing that anyone but lawyers and Android competitors will benefit by this current action but even with that aside consider what Oracle is doing here. First fact is JAVA is 99% a community effort, its success is due not to Sun's investment but by it being advertised as a write once, use anywhere open standard. Google has continued that effort and added to it by now allowing JAVA reuse on the Android platform. The only damage here was that Google didn't erect a toll gate to APP development like every prior wireless OS released to date. So now comes Oracle like a patent TROLL seeing to bend the truth and claim damages on technology that is and was 'open'. Their VM patents are all worthless due to prior art and years of non-enforcement, their case is largely advertising designed to damage Android's perceived value in the market and their damage claims are entirely void of fact. I think its time to ban Oracle products from our companies and drive this TROLL back under its bridge!
But if you look in the mirror... :-)
Seriously? Oracle s for once the injured party. They were open in that they bought Sun for Java. No secret there. They are actively involved in Java development, and they use Java in a large bulk of the products they ship.
This is not the actions of a patent troll.
Google however is trying to steal from Oracle and is abusing the entire Open Source model.
It's amazing how you and others try to justify and defend Google when they are t he ones abusing the system.
"It's amazing how you and others try to justify and defend Google when they are t he ones abusing the system."
It's amazing too how far BS like "do no evil" stretches to cover all sorts of sins.. The stunt they pulled in China was awesome - accusing them of hacking so they could pull out without anyone noticing the real reason for doing so was because they could not compete with Baidu without breaking the local laws.
Why not just migrate Android away from Java? I'm not exactly sure what's it's supposed to bring to the table anyway. If a managed runtime really is necessary (and I personally don't think it is), it's not as if Google lack the resources to design a language/toolchain/runitme all of their own. Hell, if Microsoft can do it, Google can. Sure developers would have to learn a new language, but then how many Objective-C developers were there until the iPhone arrived? In any case, once you know one C-style language you're at least half the way to knowing any other.
If they did acquire qt from Nokia's dead, ms puppet hands, they could have the best thing. A native (and web friendly) framework with the bonus of Meego for the future exploding connected vehicles etc.
Of course, they want to control the whole thing and it won't happen.
It's an interesting thought. It's even more interesting to wonder why Google went for Java in the first place.
Suppose the Google design requirements for Android went something like this;
1) cheap to sling together
2) app development not in C/C++, but in a pervasive and slightly trendy language
3) closed eco system - Android apps run only on Android
The answer to 1) is Linux - they could rip that off as much as they like. Android has clearly has been slung together with not much thought given to updates, quality, security, etc. Java would have been a good answer to 2) but 3) gets in the way. Solution - bend Java a bit by using Dalvik, et voila! And it was cheap as chips too - they didn't have to grow a whole ecosystem from the ground up.
Only trouble is Dalvik might not turn out to be cheap at all, and might prove very expensive.
I fail to see in that collection of articles where the question I asked is addressed. As I said, the quality of the content has fallen.
Even if the question was answered somewhere in the collection of articles, it should have been recognized as relevant to the article you originally linked and at least linked by the author in the article you posted. During the core of the SCO trial, from what I recall, that would have been done, therefor I stand by my assertion that the quality of content has fallen.
In addition, maybe it's because of the author's specific biases against the laws in question (which I do share, but am willing to try to put aside), but I find comments like this a tad arrogant:
"But because the US Supreme Court didn't do right"
I would have preferred the decision of the Supreme Court for "in re Bilski" to be broader, but understand the reasoning behind limiting the decision. I certainly wouldn't EVER say "the US Supreme Court didn't do right" as, legally speaking, they are qualified to make the determination and I am not (nor, for the record, is the author of the article). The only groups (legally) qualified to say they were wrong is a later version of the Supreme Court (which is historically VARY rare) or Congress (though passing new and modifying existing laws). To be honest, I find such a comment being publicly made from anyone even marginally associated with law shocking.
Unrelated to the quality of content, since PJ has retired from doing Groklaw, I think it would be nice to have the article header say who posted it. While the validity of the opinion is not a function of the author, Some comments are more understandable from PJ then from Mark Webbink (due to the difference in background of a paralegal vs. that of a attorney).
If Microsoft had stolen an apple from Sun, Google have stolen a car. If microsoft were successfully sued by Sun for developing a similar language, then oracle have a pretty good chance to sue Google for using their source code (and patents). From what I remember from another Register article it's not just patents, it includes the same source code. Google must get some vert good lawyers to get out of this.
despite the semantics they ARE basically being accused of publishing a non-standard JVM. If they where publishing a standard JVM, they would be covered under the patent-grant. Because this does not meet all the requirements of a standard JVM, Oracle's position is that it is clearly not a standard JVM (which is correct. Although Oracle's denial of some implementations to use the test kit is an issue, it's likely to be irrelevant to the court). The argument could be made that it is not a JVM at all, but it does look a awful lot like a duck, seems to quack in a vary duck-like faction, and even tastes rather fowl.
In addition, even if this ISN'T a nonstandard JVM (wee, double-negatives) MS's nonstandard JVM was prosecutable on these patents, therefor the validity of the patents would have already been tested. Ergo it answers the question of if the patents are valid.
>despite the semantics they ARE basically being accused
>of publishing a non-standard JVM.
Microsoft was "accused" of creating a non-standard Java implementation despite having promised not to do this (as a part of actually entering a license agreement with Sun, I would recall). I believe the whole point of Dalvik VM has been not having to license the Sun implementation so this is fundamentally different: the MS-Sun row was about MS breaching a contract, this is about Oracle accusing Google being in breach of copyright / patents. Besides, Sun and MS eventually settled, and MS dropped its own Java implementation (apparently they figured that it was not going to be the Windows killer they had feared and there was no need for embrace&sabotage).
That of cause depends on whether Microsoft really pushed hard for the patents to be reevaluated or were they just pretending to have the patents reevaluated to try to lower the settlement were the patent even reevaluated by the patent office. Also Google could have themselves found other work which invalidate the Java patents, something Microsoft researchers missed.
Also Microsoft did not have one Java creators as and ally and on the payroll. I am pretty sure if there is any prior art he would be the best person to know where it is.
You should think of this as a retrial on whether the patents are valid or not. In the end I believe Microsoft settlement was around 20 million dollars, not even close to 6.1 billion oracle is telling the courts google should pay.
Brilliant - gave me a chuckle :) Also wish that was on the cards.
As a significant budget holder for IT spend, I do my best to use companies that are moral, ethical and preferably not run by an egomaniac. I stopped buying Oracle a long time ago (also aware that Google is not whiter than white, but compared to Oracle and specifically Larry they are.......)
I suggest all other IT budget holders do the same. You can find alternatives if you look and you will be doing the industry a favour by not buying Oracle.
why? Is someone trying to suggest that people buy shares to make the world a better place eather than make money? I really wish I could believe that. I know if I did this I would be asked to explain my decision, anything based on personal ethics would get me knocked down instantly.
...can Google afford?
It would be so lovely if Google responded by ``supporting the campaigns'' of enough of them to get software patents outlawed. It wouldn't take them anywhere near one of the $60G @Matt Bryant reports they have. (One thing I'm continually staggered by is just how _cheap_ they sell themselves. Look at any campaign finance report.)
There seems to be a popular misconception in this article that Java isn't fully open-source. Java, or more precisely OpenJDK, is a fully open, fully certified implementation of Java, and therefore under GPL has *no* field of use restrictions. The restrictions are in the testing kit, which means you can't have a fully open and certified Java implementation unless it's derived from OpenJDK and under a compatible license.
However, Android is not (and nor could it be) a certified Java implementation, and therefore the field of use conditions in the TCK would be irrelevant.
If Google had forked OpenJDK rather than Harmony to create Android then it's doubtful Oracle would have a leg to stand on.
> Oracle is seeking "billions of dollars" in damages from Google with its sweeping copyright and patent infringement lawsuit over the use of Java on Android.
"And now, for the claim that the code is actually copied .. It seem to me that this is actually a reimplementation and not a straight copy as Oracle claims".
I'm no fan of Google but I'm dismayed with how Oracle and Larry Ellison are behaving. He is the 5th richest person in the world, so he isn't short of money. I can't help thinking, business people like him treat business more like Fight Club. Its not about the business money any more, its more about the need to keep fighting and winning battles. He is behaving like a billionaire version of a thug.
A great deal of Java is a massive community effort and even its core technology was nothing new even when it came out, but Ellison shows he doesn't care in the slightest. He isn't giving back to the Java community, far from it, he is showing he wants to frankly fuck over everyone, just because he can. Watching this case is like watching the joyful cruelty and sadism of a thug scaled up to a billionaires scale.
He doesn't need to be so ruthless, he has made it, he's one of the richest people in the world FFS. But no, he wants to behave like a patent troll. It wouldn't at all surprise me if he was loving every minute of it, because lets face it, if he wasn't loving it, he doesn't need to do it, because its not as if he needs money. So I can't help thinking, what a sad narcissistic bastard. Why doesn't he just do the world a favor and retire and enjoy his money, rather than behaving like a fight seeking patent troll. :(
Larry is all those things, has been for years.
He is probably the business worlds biggest ever sociopath.
It seems that nothing matters to Larry but winning. At all costs.
If he has a motto, I'm sure it is a simple one like "Crush Your Enemies. When you have them groveling at your feet, begging for mercy, crush them again".
And it appears that *everyone* is Larry's enemy.
Larry read and understood "The Prince" and "The Art of War".
Corporate law dictates that corporation behave with a profit motive and many laws specifically require active defense.
Too many uneducated and ignorant commentards here, unfortunately, reflected by the high "downvote" levels of comments made by people with a clue.
So Oracle are claiming beeelions. Big deal.
Google filed for leave to present a Daubert motion. That's lawyer-speak for "bollocks". They are disputing Oracle's assessment of damages.
Now look at how long it took for the judge to grant that motion...
"Oracle seeks billions".
Every former Sun client knows this, there's not much more to tell. Oracle treats customers as honeypots and makes no secret about it too.
Better put: What Sun managed to perform for $180,- a year will take (wh)Oracle approx. $620,- a year. Its clear that IT service isn't their strongest point (even with the high potential staff of Sun under their dominion) yet grossing in money is what they know all too well.
Want to run a sane firm? Steer clear from (wh)Oracle!!
No pun intended what so ever; we moved our Solaris servers to MS 2k3 servers (I'll be honest: we're a low budget firm). As much as I love Linux for internet servers; the upgrade cycle (upgrade to $new-version before updates stop) is too steep for our 2 office servers (I know about Ubuntu LTS; last time I tried the upgrade I ended up with a situation where a clean re-installation would be more productive; no thanks! (no disrespect here mind you)).
Why I brought this up?
Because I was honestly amazed at the sheer level of support which PostgreSQL provided for Windows!
No pun intended here; that stuff goes deep! And here I was already impressed with them on the Linux environment (the only thing which I think MySQL has the upper hand is database authorization; better put: the flexibility in it).
And when I state "steer clear" I mean it. Example; we moved all of our stuff from MySQL to PostgreSQL and replaced everything which couldn't provide anymore. Costly move, but in the longer term I truly believe we'll be better off (I also don't trust MySQL anymore, sorry guys.. (wh)Oracle is just too oppressive here).
And for the record; if it weren't for (wh)Oracle I'd still pick MySQL over PostgreSQL. Apart from the authorization scheme no negative comments; its just that I like(d) MySQL better. But I dislike (wh)Oracle's company policy even more (and THAT influences my income; as such the choice is relatively easily made).
As said; I represent a low-budget firm. "influencing income" doesn't mean my second boat might be postponed. It will simply affect if I can have a little nicer stuff on my bread or not).
My stance? <censored> you (wh)Oracle!
@ShelLuser: As much as I love Linux for internet servers; the upgrade cycle (upgrade to $new-version before updates stop) is too steep for our 2 office servers (I know about Ubuntu LTS; last time I tried the upgrade I ended up with a situation where a clean re-installation would be more productive; no thanks! (no disrespect here mind you)).
What do you mean by "upgrade cycle" and why would anyone be forcing you onto a steep whatever. Once the thing is working and apart from security patches, you don't ever upgrade a running system.
So say Oracle win against Google and stitch up the whole Android market. Surely - assuming Apple retain their market share - that will possibly get mobile/pad developers and suppliers thing about other unconstrained (by patents) platforms - say WP7 and WebOS?
This could have the rather amusing result that Oracle would boost HP's offering at the same time that they're trying to stitch them up with the Itanium debacle. Sweet.
All I can say is dont use Java for android - try Necessitas or some other C++ setup to compile for android.
There cant be more than 1/2 million really useful and GPL'd apps that can be be ported to android by a batch file once a few teething troubles are worked out.
So that would be two fingers up to oracle and apple and MS all in one go. And I get the £200 handheld that has been technologically possible for about 5 years now...
When you have those two companies, Oracle the sociopath, and Google the disruptor, playing against each other it will be neat to see what happens. I will bet that Google with their love for screwing up everyone's business model just to see if they can do it may now turn their attention to creating some free Oracle substitute. They could turn a few of their high IQ's onto it and probably get it done in a week or two.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022