Oracle Thinks Google Owes $6.1 Billion In Damages

An anonymous reader writes "When Oracle acquired Sun in 2009, the company got its hands on a lot of desirable technology. While OpenOffice may have fallen by the wayside, Oracle isn't about to let the Java programming language and its associated patents remain untouched if they can generate some additional revenue. In fact, the company is currently in the middle of a legal battle with Google over those patents that could potentially net Oracle billions and leave Android crippled. In August last year Oracle sued Google for infringing Java patents and copyright by developing Android. Oracle argues that Android uses technology derived from Java and therefore infringes multiple patents. It wants compensation, but with most court documents and details not publicly available, it's hard to know specifics. However, new documents made available late last week revealed just how much Oracle thinks is an acceptable damages payment for Google to make. According to an expert Oracle hired, Google could be looking at a bill between $1.4 billion and $6.1 billion for its alleged infringements."

Comments

Re:New Google Strategy

[ackthpt]

Even if your strategy wasn't impractical, what would make you think that Google would want to make Java public domain?

Google, for all their recent goofs, still believes in making things available - grow through acceptance and use of technology, rather than standing over customers and developers with a fee schedule and a large club.

Re:New Google Strategy

[Amouth]

they only need to own 51%

Oracle's Market Cap = 161.13B

Price to control = 80.565B

Google's Cash on Hand = 36.67B

so yea they are short a bit..

Re:Obligatory

[micheas]

The former head of RedHat's legal team took over groklaw.

Re:Compensation for Java?

[poetmatt]

Note the updates from Groklaw. (link to article)

UPDATE

Just in case you missed it (or simply don't want to spend your time searching for it, there are at least three important takeaways conveyed in the Google brief and related documents:

        * Cockburn ignored prior negotiations between Sun and Google in which Google was offered the opportunity to license these and other patents for a fraction of Cockburn's present estimate;
        * Cockburn ignored other licensing transactions in which Sun licensed these patents for a fraction of Cockburn's present estimate (and these other licensing transactions will almost certainly become a limiting factor on any royalties Oracle may be awarded); and
        * Cockburn bases his estimate on worldwide sales of Android devices and Google revenue, despite the fact that the devices are made and used (and thus the infringement occurs) outside the U.S. and is not subject to a U.S. patent claim.

All of this serves to indicate that the Cockburn report, while sensational, has little or no bearing on a likely outcome of this case