Slashdot Mirror


Legal Analysis of Oracle v. Google

snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Martin Heller provides an in-depth analysis of Oracle's legal argument against Google, a suit that includes seven alleged counts of software process patent infringement and one count of copyright infringement. 'Oracle's desired relief is drastic: not just permanent injunctions, but destruction of all copies that violate copyright (thus, wiping all Android devices), plus triple damages and legal costs. Also, it demands a jury trial,' Heller writes, and while this amounts mainly to saber-rattling, the Supreme Court's recent Bilski ruling did not completely invalidate software process patents despite their shaky ground due to prior art."

11 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. Infoworld? by eldiabloencarne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Where's Groklaw in all of this?

    --
    La vida vale puro chili
  2. This is in depth analysis? by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'll sum up the article:

    1) Oracle is suing Java over Android.
    2) Oracle hired a really good lawyer, so they must be serious.
    3) I sure hate software patents.
    4) Oracle would like all copies of Android destroyed, but this isn't likely.
    5) Sun might settle out of court.
    6) Did I mention I hate software patents?
    7) You should try to make life harder for Oracle, since I hate software patents.

    With all due respect to the author, half the posts on this Slashdot thread will probably have as much to say and contain as much useful information -- but really, maybe whoever wrote/published the article summary is more to blame for claims the article just doesn't live up to.

  3. Re:Google should publish the Android layer under G by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not saying that Oracle has a legitimate case, but I don't see how Android being GPL'd would invalidate any of their claims if you assume they are valid to begin with.

    If the idea is that making Android free eliminates Oracle's ability to litigate against it, consider that a stubborn enough man will insist on trying to get blood from a stone, and Larry Ellison is several orders of magnitude more stubborn than that.

  4. Two short pages are "in-depth analysis" ? by kclittle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only thing "in-depth" about this article is the fact the author seems in over his head.

    --
    Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
    1. Re:Two short pages are "in-depth analysis" ? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's InfoWorld. There's a reason that my user CSS adds [IDIOT WARNING] in red after any links to their site...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  5. Did they buy Sun for this? by fvandrog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd almost suspect they just bought Sun to use the cited patents in court. The patents are so broad and ill defined that if they uphold there are not many processes that do not violate them. (Heck -- my coffee-maker probably violates them!)

  6. Mods ... by udippel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Please, mod up the submitter. Submitting is his good right, and we should reward his efforts.

    Please, mod timothy down for accepting a boring, not-even-a-story.

    Please, mod the original author 'overrated', since his story should never have made it into infoworld in the first place.

  7. Re:Google should publish the Android layer under G by nacturation · · Score: 4, Insightful

    patents != copyright

    GPL is a license which grants certain rights using copyright law. This has no bearing on patent infringement.

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  8. Re:Groklaw was WAY more informative by DrXym · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Sun sued Microsoft successfully for their embrace and extend of Java. They claimed it damaged the Java dream of single binaries that run everywhere. Most of us on slashdot agree with that notion as a Microsoft version of Java would make Sun's Java appear broken due to their huge distribution model.

    Not the same at all. Google has never claimed they have implemented Java, hasn't licenced the tech from Sun, hasn't used the Java trademark or logo. Microsoft did and proceeded to make their version incompatible. Android uses Java as the programming API but the actual bytecode and VM it runs under is completely different.

    Partly this is to skirt around this issue, but also I suspect because it is genuinely more efficient. Dalvik is an incredibly lightweight VM, perfectly suited for its use.

    IMO Oracle is just angling for a piece of the pie. Their own efforts with Java ME failed because the tech was allowed to stagnate so it was a no brainer that people moved over to Android. ME is okay, but it's just not up to the task of powering a smart phone. It's too bad for Oracle, but really they only have themselves to blame. The odd thing is they could probably still carve out a niche on Android if they ported JavaFX across - it would probably be quite a nice fit.

  9. Re:A jury Trial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Also demands a jury trial"

    So you're going to grab a bunch of people 'off the street' and try to get them to understand what patents are, what software is and how this software infringes this patent. This will defentally give an honest and fair trial.

    Well, based on "destruction of all copies that violate copyright (thus, wiping all Android devices)" I'd say that Oracle isn't aiming for a trial. Bringing a lawsuit like this looks very much like corporate extortion to me.

    But then, I'm neither a lawyer nor an American.

  10. Re:Google should publish the Android layer under G by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The real problem with my long comment is that you didn't read it.

    Maybe because it was too long... ;)

    I did read it, but the assertions you made in the rest of your comment showed a lack of understanding of how this legal process works.

    Patents are not copyrights and it doesn't matter if Google used Oracle's code directly. Except that ironically if Google did they would have a better case to defend themselves.

    The absurdity of patents is the fact that you only have to make something that does something similar to be in violation of a patent. To use a slashdot car metaphor/story - Robert Kearns invented the intermittent wipers and was granted a patent. He went to the big three automakers and they refused his offer to sale them the right to use them. Ford motor company decided that they could make their own intermittent wipers, and eventually Robert Kearns sued Ford for patent infringement. Ford settled the case for $10 million. Kearn subsequently sued Chrysler and ultimately won in court a judgement of $30 million. This was even with the auto makers arguing that the patent needed to meet some standard of originality and novelty.

    Sun was granted these patents as they relate to virtual machines. Google appears to have created a clean room implementation that mimics the behavior described in those patents. Oracle the purchaser of Sun feels like they have case for patent infringement against Google and sued. Google can not refer to Microsoft's ".net" as a counter example, since Microsoft and Sun entered into a cross licensing agreement in 2003 as part of the settlement of the long dispute over Microsoft's handling of Java. Both sides have sufficient money to make this a long and drawn out court battle. Google has more to lose than Oracle. Oracle understands this and upped the ante with the severe damage relief being demanded.

    I will not be surprised in the end that this is settled without a court judgement with an establishment of cross licensing agreement and some money heading Oracle's way. It's not about "right" or "wrong"... it is all about the Benjamins...

    --
    These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...