Topic: Oracle seeks 'billions' with Google Android suit

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

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.

"Oracle’s ‘methodology’ for calculating damages is based on fundamental legal errors and improperly inflates their estimates,” a Google spokeswoman said in a statement.

Google challenged the legitimacy of that evidence, claiming Oracle had redacted and deleted material from those six page of code.

[Nemesis]

I don't know if anyone else is really interested in this but they are approaching the actual trial.  Due to multiple patents being invalidated and in part due to Oracle ignoring the judges orders (3 !!! times) in producing damage reports the remaining damages (including patents currently being challenged) is in the general neighbourhood of $100 million. 

Google wants the trial delayed until the patent challenges are over but the judge agreed with Oracle and the case is going on with the assumption that the remaining patents are valid.  If I understand things correctly Google isn't going to be allowed to even tell the jury about patents that are currently considered to be invalid but with that finding being appealed, Oracle will be allowed to present them to the jury as valid.

[Nemesis]

Looks like the trial is pretty much over.  A more or less clean sweep for Google.  No BEEELLIONS for Oracle.

[Nemesis]

A very important ruling has now been made:

Link to full article

Feast your eyes on this! Oracle's Java APIs, specifically as used by Google, are not copyrightable. "Therefore, Oracle’s claim based on Google’s copying of the 37 API packages, including their structure, sequence and organization is DISMISSED," the judge writes. I haven't read everything yet myself -- it's 41 pages long -- so let's read it together. But here's the key paragraph from the Summary:

API's can't be copyrighted.  A needed ruling for compatibility work.

[Nemesis]

The Finale - for now . . .

Link to full article

In a hearing in the US District Court today, it was determined that Google will pay a net total of nothing for Oracle's patent claims against them. In fact, Google is given 14 days to file an application for Oracle to pay legal fees to Google(in a similar manner to how things are done for frivolous lawsuits). However, it is not quite peaches and roses for Google, as Oracle is planning on appealing the decision in the case.

I wonder if Google will offer a deal.  No appeal and they don't file for costs?

[Nemesis]

The Judge denied Oracles request that he over turn the Jury decision and denied their motion for a new trial.

Google is requesting that Oracle pay their costs over $4 million.  They may get it.

Now to see of Oracle is foolish enough to appeal this.

[Nemesis]

An interesting order in the case:

"The Court is concerned that the parties and/or counsel herein may have retained or paid print or internet authors, journalists, commentators or bloggers who have and/or may publish comments on the issues in this case. Although proceedings in this matter are almost over, they are not fully over yet and, in any event, the disclosure required by this order would be of use on appeal or on any remand to make clear whether any treatise, article, commentary or analysis on the issues posed by this case are possibly influenced by financial relationships to the parties or counsel. Therefore, each side and its counsel shall file a statement herein clear identifying all authors, journalists, commentators or bloggers who have reported or commented on any issues in this case and who have received money (other than normal subscription fees) from the party or its counsel during the pendency of this action. This disclosure shall be filed by NOON ON FRIDAY, AUGUST 17, 2012."

There was a lot of blogging and articles during the case about how Google would have to pay billions.  Now we may see how much of that was paid for by Oracle.  It might set up a new lawsuit by Google against Oracle for damages.

[Brush Wolf]

An interesting order in the case:

"The Court is concerned that the parties and/or counsel herein may have retained or paid print or internet authors, journalists, commentators or bloggers who have and/or may publish comments on the issues in this case. Although proceedings in this matter are almost over, they are not fully over yet and, in any event, the disclosure required by this order would be of use on appeal or on any remand to make clear whether any treatise, article, commentary or analysis on the issues posed by this case are possibly influenced by financial relationships to the parties or counsel. Therefore, each side and its counsel shall file a statement herein clear identifying all authors, journalists, commentators or bloggers who have reported or commented on any issues in this case and who have received money (other than normal subscription fees) from the party or its counsel during the pendency of this action. This disclosure shall be filed by NOON ON FRIDAY, AUGUST 17, 2012."

There was a lot of blogging and articles during the case about how Google would have to pay billions.  Now we may see how much of that was paid for by Oracle.  It might set up a new lawsuit by Google against Oracle for damages.

Much of that was likely just Google is big and evil, they must be guilty just as you see when Microsoft is under the microscope.

[Nemesis]

Much of that was likely just Google is big and evil, they must be guilty just as you see when Microsoft is under the microscope.

Google is generally not seen as being that evil.  Oracle on the other hand is.  So seeing all the pro Oracle stuff was surprising especially given that the evidence went the other way.

One blogger came out a few months ago admitting to doing consulting with Oracle - totally unconnected with his pro Oracle blogging of course. 

I do wish that Novell and IBM could get similar rulings against SCO to see how many of the pro SCO bloggers and "journalists" were on the payroll.  One was described by the judge in the Novell case as having an "Unwholesome relationship" with SCO.