Judge criticizes Google and Oracle at hearing(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Judge criticizes Google and Oracle at hearing
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/21/us-oracle-google-lawsuit-idUSTRE76K7U820110721
11 comments
They could have had Sun for $7.4 billion with Goesling (already there) and MySQL as part of the deal along with all the other departed talent. Personally, I don't know why they didn't go after Palm (much cheaper than these barely alive startups they've been acquiring) either just for the patents alone.
James Gosling left Oracle in disgust, and later joined Google.
And they could have benefitted mightily from acquiring Sun, moreso than simply owning Java. How was Groupon worth 6B in their eyes and Sun not 7B? Maybe hindsight is ruining my perspective more than I can see.
Well my guess is that Groupon is appealing because it is purely an advertising platform, while Sun was a big company with lots of different products. Java was one of them, and while it would have been great in hindsight for Google to take control of the Java related patents, they would have also had to deal with all of Sun's other products (including hardware) which would not have been so appealing.
What would Google have done with Sun's hardware business? Shut it down? Gone into the hardware business themselves?
Groupon is pie in the sky sort of stuff and thus easier to acquire logistically speaking.
What would Google have done with Sun's hardware business? Shut it down? Gone into the hardware business themselves?
Groupon is pie in the sky sort of stuff and thus easier to acquire logistically speaking.
My impression is that the judge is determining the hypothetical damages if Android is found to infringe on Oracle's patents. Of course Google will say that's zero and Oracle will say it's eleventy billion.
The title (here "It appears Google will amost certainly have to pay something to Oracle") is totally wrong.
This is about the parties disagreeing what damages might apply if Google is found guilty. That is by no means certain, and this article doesn't address that issue at all.
It would be extremely unusual if the amount to come out of this phase of the case was $0, but Google is using that to put an argument for a low figure.
This is about the parties disagreeing what damages might apply if Google is found guilty. That is by no means certain, and this article doesn't address that issue at all.
It would be extremely unusual if the amount to come out of this phase of the case was $0, but Google is using that to put an argument for a low figure.
but Google is using that to put an argument for a low figure.
To be fair to Google - doesn't the fact that they even agree to any damages weaken their case? I don't understand why they would have to determine damages before investigating if they infringed or not.
Going with Java and not buying Sun was HUGE mistake on Google's part - major strategic gaffe. You can thank Mark Hurd for the fact that HP did not buy Sun - even then Google would be better off as HP has no history of suing people left and right.
Going with Java and not buying Sun was HUGE mistake on Google's part - major strategic gaffe. You can thank Mark Hurd for the fact that HP did not buy Sun - even then Google would be better off as HP has no history of suing people left and right.
In a patent case, the plaintiff puts forth two arguments for the jury:
1. The defendant infringes the patent.
2. The damages for said infringement should be $X.
The defendant will put forth three arguments:
1. Plaintiff doesn't even have a valid patent. This is really several arguments, directed at pretty much everything that plaintiff must have done for their patent to be valid and theirs.
2. Defendant does not infringe the patent.
3. IF they did infringe the patent, the plaintiff's damage numbers are nuts and the correct damages would be $Y (which is much smaller than $X).
To make their damage arguments, both sides bring in experts on damages, who write reports which are submitted to the court, and then the experts testify about these reports in front of the jury. Before the trial starts, both sides challenge the qualifications of the other side's damages expert, trying to convince the court he's a quack and the court should throw out his report and make the other side offer a reasonable damage theory. That's about the stage they are at now.
1. The defendant infringes the patent.
2. The damages for said infringement should be $X.
The defendant will put forth three arguments:
1. Plaintiff doesn't even have a valid patent. This is really several arguments, directed at pretty much everything that plaintiff must have done for their patent to be valid and theirs.
2. Defendant does not infringe the patent.
3. IF they did infringe the patent, the plaintiff's damage numbers are nuts and the correct damages would be $Y (which is much smaller than $X).
To make their damage arguments, both sides bring in experts on damages, who write reports which are submitted to the court, and then the experts testify about these reports in front of the jury. Before the trial starts, both sides challenge the qualifications of the other side's damages expert, trying to convince the court he's a quack and the court should throw out his report and make the other side offer a reasonable damage theory. That's about the stage they are at now.
And pissing off the judge by making stupid claims
Yeah, this is true. But Google needs to establish their position to the court as being "we don't make any direct revenue off Android".
The whole judge being pissed off is really just theatre. I'm sure the judge expected this, and his anger is more about speeding up the process than anything.
And don't forget the Judge is just as annoyed at Oracle's claims as Google's.
Yeah, this is true. But Google needs to establish their position to the court as being "we don't make any direct revenue off Android".
The whole judge being pissed off is really just theatre. I'm sure the judge expected this, and his anger is more about speeding up the process than anything.
And don't forget the Judge is just as annoyed at Oracle's claims as Google's.
It's pretty clear this man is going to hate both Google and Oracle. Oracle owns Java and Google is claiming that all technologies besides Java "suck".
As usual, digging deeper reveals the true story:
The federal judge's middle name is, quite literally, "Haskell":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Haskell_Alsup
The article cleverly hides this so that a layperson can't realize that his true disdain is for these two behemoths because they're not using LFSPs and a particular one, at that.
As usual, digging deeper reveals the true story:
The federal judge's middle name is, quite literally, "Haskell":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Haskell_Alsup
The article cleverly hides this so that a layperson can't realize that his true disdain is for these two behemoths because they're not using LFSPs and a particular one, at that.
Why didn't Google buy Sun when Sun was looking for a buyer? Google based its operating system on a patent-encumbered language like Java. They had licensing issues with Sun around Java even before Oracle bought them. Why didn't they buy Sun?
I can't shake the feeling that it's because they didn't want to play the bad guy. Sun was hemorrhaging money. Layoffs were going to have to happen.
Either that, or they were not sure that they could affort to outbid Oracle?
The fact is that Oracle can make much more money from Sun aquisition than Google ever could. And part of that moneymaking include suing everyone else.
The fact is that Oracle can make much more money from Sun aquisition than Google ever could. And part of that moneymaking include suing everyone else.
Doesn't this all end when Google decides they have a patent on something related to Oracle's products? It's like mutually assured destruction, except the losers are the small countries without any nuclear weapons.
In general, Google has not aggressively patented things. They have been issued ~300 patents. Compare to IBM's over 26k patents in the US alone. Essentially they showed up to a nuclear weapon fight with a bouquet of flowers.
EDIT: I realize IBM is 100 years old and Google is 10.. they're still way ahead in patents-per-year, and the 26k is only active patents.
EDIT: I realize IBM is 100 years old and Google is 10.. they're still way ahead in patents-per-year, and the 26k is only active patents.
Might be wishful thinking, but this crossed my mind:
The only winning move is not to play...
The only winning move is not to play...
Remember the context of that. It's not a general statement (even if the authors would agree with the generalized "don't fight" version); it's in the context of two sides armed to the teeth. If only one side is armed, there is the "nuke the other side" solution, which at least in the way the computer was measuring works just fine. And in this case we aren't talking about literal deaths, so it applies even moreso. MAD doesn't work as a strategy when you don't have the A or the D.
In general, Google has not aggressively patented things. They have been issued ~300 patents. Compare to IBM's over 26k patents in the US alone.
Is it possible that Google's patent assignment policy has affected those numbers "in Google's favor"? [1]
For example, could the policy be that patents are assigned to employees, but employees grant Google a non-revocable perpetual license to use those patents?
(IANAL, etc...)
[1] i.e. Fewer patents assigned to Google = less aggressively patenting.
Is it possible that Google's patent assignment policy has affected those numbers "in Google's favor"? [1]
For example, could the policy be that patents are assigned to employees, but employees grant Google a non-revocable perpetual license to use those patents?
(IANAL, etc...)
[1] i.e. Fewer patents assigned to Google = less aggressively patenting.
I imagine those Nortel patents might have helped here too.
I'm loving this judge.
Be careful of what you read..there are a lot of biased mouth-pieces adding their two cents in the reporting..
A less biased report that actually matches what the judge said: http://www.mercurynews.com/weird-news/ci_18525231?nclick_che...
A less biased report that actually matches what the judge said: http://www.mercurynews.com/weird-news/ci_18525231?nclick_che...
I love to see Google squirm. They've made enough webmasters squirm over their Panda update. Now it's their turn.
The only people I've heard complain about Panda are the SEO and content farm crowd. I'd pay those guys to whine at my wedding; a sweeter song has ne'er been sung.
The only people I've heard complain about Panda are the SEO and content farm crowd.
I'm not a member of either crowd. Here's me complaining: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2767018
And I'm not the only one who has a quality site that was adversely affected. There was collateral damage. It would have been practically impossible for there not to be. The only question is the matter of scale.
I'm not a member of either crowd. Here's me complaining: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2767018
And I'm not the only one who has a quality site that was adversely affected. There was collateral damage. It would have been practically impossible for there not to be. The only question is the matter of scale.
"Zero is ridiculous," said Alsup, who rejected Google's argument that its ad sales should not be included in estimating damages from the Android system.
"They're totally wrong on that," Alsup said.
Alsup is the judge.