Slashdot Mirror
Did Google Knowingly Violate Java Patents?
jfruhlinger writes "Opponents of software patenting have been rather heartened by recent developments in the Oracle-Google lawsuit, which have seemed to indicate that Oracle's patent case is weakening. But now the judge in the case has some sharp questions for Google, given that Google tried to negotiate with Sun over the patents in question before going on to develop Android without them."
may have been a simple "we see you have patented xyz, would you consider our doing abc a violation, and if so, what's licensing going to cost?"
answer may have been along the lines of "pretty much anything you do we may try to sue you for, so you'd be better off paying us a ton of money upfront now". "OK, no thanks, we'll take our chances in court."
Or it may have been something completely different. But that's just my guess.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Well... I am sorry but I have some bad news for you!
Is that, given that patents are uh subjective, AND that Sun was quite a nice company to open source stuff (that's the impression I have), I think Google said:
"Hmm, if we do X, we might hit on a patent and get a lawsuit, lets see if we can clear it off with Sun, since they're reasonable".
Then when Oracle bought Sun, pretty more for the patents, they decided to take a risk.
That's my opinion on this matter. I don't know anything internally.
Who cares? How does Google's leveraging off Java deprive Sun revenue from its R&D? You know, like what patents are intended for? Fucking lawyers. Unable to create any real value themselves, they resort to contriving some for themselves by destroying it for many others. Utterly, utterly ignoble profession.
garethw
"I'm going to Disneyland!"
"Oracle v. Google - Google Moves to Supplement Its Invalidity Defenses"
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110712074100640
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
Google probably thought that the patents were not valid, but thought that if it were least expensive to license them, they would do it that way. When it wasn't the least expensive way to do it, they chose to proceed and litigate.
I sincerely hope the Judge is smart enough to spot a failure of jurisprudence on behalf of the Patenting Authority. If these patents had been judged correctly the first time, this mess would never of had to been bothered with. I also can’t blame Google for disregarding unrealistic claims of property regarding common-sense programming advancements. The claims are likely rationally un-defendable, like nearly all software patents these days.
Call me a dreamer, but instead of Did Google Knowingly Violate Java Patents? question, wouldn't it sound better better the Did Google know that SUN's patents were invalid and thus there was nothing to violate or pay for? or even Did Google know software patents are invalid?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
This is not news. Yes, google sought a green light from sun. So what? Dalvik is not Java, which is an insurmountable hurdle.
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
What an absolute joke of a judge apparently is on this case.
First, any type of negotiation should never be admissible at all. That's completely against the concept of negotiating in the first place. Why would Google ever attempt to negotiate if it knows it can be used against them? Why would Sun/Oracle ever budge off of a ridiculous amount if the judicial system is going to assume that the mere act of negotiating means that Google "knew of their violation"?
Google has a pretty easy answer for the stupid question - "we figured it might be cheaper to shut them up with money rather than paying for lawyers" when it apparently became cheaper to take their chance in court they moved along. Why exactly is this some admission of guilt?
Every day the courts seem to take one step forward and two steps back.
I think they just tried to work around the only profitable aspect of Java. I'm sure if they thought they would be liable and have to pay for it, they would have just used something else. Not to mention that using Java was more like doing Sun a favor than anything else, despite the implementation. It kept Java relevant while Sun was dying. Google also helped popularize OpenOffice.
I think Sun should have filed the suit before being bought by Oracle. I've heard arguments that they couldn't afford to or whatever, but it still seems as if they implied approval for what Google was doing by not filing the suit themselves. Because Sun didn't file a suit against Google, Oracle just looks like a troll.
How will the court interpret all this? Who knows in these patent cases? This may be redundant, but the patent system is seriously flawed when it comes to software. It gets repeated so much because it's true and it's the root problem in most of these lawsuits.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Knowing you might be sued by a patent troll != knowing you might violate their patents.
Isn't the more logical interpretation that google saw that java already had a history in the mobile space, and rather than re-invent the wheel decided it would be cheaper and simpler to use a java VM, and went to sun to licence the patents needed to do that. That failed, so they said 'alrighty then' and wrote the clean-room dalvik VM which differs from java in a lot of key design decisions. Isn't that how the patent system is supposed to work?
If they'd tried to licence the java patents AFTER they'd written dalvik, that'd be a lot more damning.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
Overall, Alsup seems to be increasing the pressure on both Oracle and Google to settle, according to Florian Mueller, a blogger who closely tracks open-source software legal matters.
"Yesterday's order concerning the possibility of a staywas bad news for Oracle," Mueller said via e-mail. "Today's notice looks like a clear signal to Google that they should recognize their obligation to pay. But the problem is that Oracle's demands are apparently way above anything that Google could pay without changing its Android business model from 'free-of-charge' to 'fee-based.' I don't know whether Oracle will reduce its demands substantially in order to enable a near-term settlement."
Maybe this has been tried... But if Oracle or Google or Microsoft... Someone with these lawyers on retainer... Will please patent or reverse patent or trademark "first post" and kindly sue Anonymous, we slashdoters will be eternally grateful and go red sox.
Gently reply
its a legitimate question.
think about the last time you saw robmalda.
now think about the last time someone got murdered with an axe.
coincidence?
you see, it all goes back to Woodrow Wilson...
Or am I alone in the belief that the current patent system is a royal pain in the ass and needs to be scrapped?
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
because more likely than not, some of your code violates someones patents, and they could sue your company.
you thought that R&D was a positive, but now you could go bankrupt!
better to not invent anything at all.
yay capitalism.
its a good question, think about the last time you saw larry ellison.
now think about the last time you saw a murdered prostitute.
coincidence?
There's an irritating trend in Slashdot discussions to cite bogeymen to dismiss any news that may be negative toward some protagonist of the community, such as Google. "Oh, there's a statement from Florian Mueller, so the entire article is FUD even though the judge really did ask those questions in his letter. I'm not listening, la-la-la."
If Sun was such a nice company, it became more incumbent, not less, for Google to send a few $million their way, don't you think?
Sun open sourced Java, but not for mobile.
Actually, even if they had, if Google wanted to truly be "not evil", they would have found a way to give some money to a staggering, but highly innovative company.
The only problem with that would be shareholders who would whine, "Why are you giving free money away when you don't have to?"
The fig leaf to protect Google from the "not increasing shareholder value" charge would have been the Sun patents.
Unfortunately, Google chose to ignore them.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
...DEFINITELY smarter than the corporate trolls making this patent mess.
"... as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously."
How his ideas didn't come to more fully pervade our nascent and now crumbling and corrupt democracy, I shall never know.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
" in order for an invention to be patentable, it must not only be novel, but it must also be a nonobvious improvement over the prior art" - http://www.bitlaw.com/patent/requirements.html#nonobvious No joke, the "Upgrade" button is a patent the United States Patent and Trademark Office is currently holding as a protected I.P.. They've clearly failed to perform their due diligence regarding what are technical innovations versus only Trade Secrets. I believe the root of this problem is due to the exponentially faster timescales that complexity now shifts to merely being novelty. The speed of development in software fields is unprecedented and old schools of thought for decades long protections are antiquated. Considering the USPTO was designed to handle the slow advancement of a paper age however, it should come as no surprise to anyone that a paper dinosaur of old bureaucratic methods can't keep up.
A rational reason to inquire about patents you don't think you actually violate is to avoid being shaken down by a patent troll about them. As the tangled web of patent lawsuits in the industry indicates, the likelihood of an illegitimate shakedown is worth a great deal of vigilance. How many companies pay out hundreds of millions a year in licensing of illegitimate patents because they figure it's cheaper than litigating and losing a lawsuit lottery?
muelleralert, so i know when to avoid the article.
I agree with you on all issues save for the fact that, ``...Dalvik does run Java...``
Since this is Slashdot, the more accurate thing to say would be to mention,
``Dalvik runs programs written in the Java programming language...``
because more likely than not, some of your code violates someones patents, and they could sue your company.
its true; and as time goes on, it gets truer, still.
I've heard this said (forgot who said it, but he was a smart man) that a real reason why companies don't opensource things like drivers is because it only makes it easier for other trolls to look at their code and find, via coincidence or not, come patent violation.
so companies are *motivated* to not release source since it does give them protection.
in fact, it gives you and I protection, too.
think about the self-conflict in that! you want to release source but you dont' want to open yourself up to patent trolls.
lose/lose
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Nobody sells a high tech product without knowing that it infringes on some patent you don't own or have license to!!!
EVERY SINGLE COMPANY that ships a smart phone today, KNOWS that they are infringing on a patent held by someone else!
There are over 50 companies that hold at least 300 patents each covering smart phone technology. Who knows how many companies hold patents over various manufacturing technologies used. There are thousands of patents out there on many very basic software techniques. IBM, Motorola, HP, Intel, Apple, HTC, Samsung, Google, Microsoft, all hold thousands of patents that more or less apply to Smart phones and computers. And there are tons more. These are the guys that produce products. Many, many patents are held by trolls that produce nothing but lawsuits.
How then can any company hope to build a product that is free and clear of patents?
If knowing you might have patent issues means something significant, then ban all high tech products! Including frankly most medicines. Including every modern car. Including every T.V. Including ever significant piece of software!
In light of this rather obvious fact, what is the point this Judge is trying to make? How is any product any different?
You decide!
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
that when a prostitute is murdered, someone has to have been the murderer.
critics point out that sometimes people are murdered without anyone actually murdering them.
(i.e. my elaboration is that headlines and news stories can be really, really wrong)
This line of questioning might have nothing at all to do with whether any of the patents are actually valid or infringed. It might just have to do with whether, if it was done, it was done willfully.
OTOH, it may be the judge's strategy to try to get google thinking about possible treble damages. He's probably trying for anything that might lead to a sooner settlement and cut his workload.
I'm Jim James. Next on Talk Town, we will have people on from both sides of the issue to discuss it. get your calls in! and now we pause for this break.
And we're back at Talk Town. the topic today is decora: unimaginative hack? we have EJ Jones from the Washington Center for Economic Progress, and Stavai Smith from the Institute for Freedom and Governance. Thank you both for being here.
- Thank you
-- Thank you
EJ why dont you go first. Is decora a worthless, mindless hack, filling up the internet with repetitive, pointless garbage?
- Jim, I think we really need to look critically, going forward, as to what the organizations and academics who have studied this issue have to say about it, because they are really the ones who will have to do the heavy lifting when it comes time to implement these policies.
Stavai, your response?
-- Well, Jim, what we have seen in the past, is that these systems have really brought about a need for more oversight and more intervention, because typically what you see in an environment of low interest rates is a move by policy makers to shift the burden from the rate payers to the bond holders. Typically that only happens when w
I'm sorry but we are out of time. I'd like to say thank you to my guests. EJ Jones from the Washington Center for Economic Progress, and Stavai Smith from the Institute for Freedom and Governance. Today we have been discussing decora: worthless hack, or enemy of the state? Thank you both for being here.
- Thank you. It's a pleasure
-- Thank you, Jim I always enjoy doing your show
Well, I always enjoy having you. Next week. Anonymous Cowards: are they all morbidly obese cat hoarders, wallowing in piles of old newspapers and feces until one day they are found dead by the landlord? My guests will be Noam Chomsky of MIT and Stephens Jameson from the Initiative for Coalitions and Repercussions.
This, is NPR. National Public Radio.
"Patents, eh?", he asked him knowingly.
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
Google has tried to negotiate the right to use the patents. As it has failed, Google has done all the technical possible efforts (dalvick, ...) in order to avoid patent violation and still have a fast and usable language. ...) has still been violated, either it is a small violation that could be fixed by a small technical change, either this makes void all the work of Google and this removes all the point in having language syntax and libraries free.
I think that Google has been very creative to keep the language syntax and the libraries almost identical (they are both patent free) and to not copy any other aspects of Java.
If a real patent (not trivial,
In fact, I do not see any acceptable justification of a win of Oracle in this match. IMHO Google must win or all the legal system is rotten.
Mark Webbink has taken over as editor, even though PJ doesn't seem to be able to resist posting every now and then. I presume that as he was red Hats general counsel and is a Law Professor his view is one to take seriously, whether you agree with it or not.
The letter appears to be recent, filed Tuesday, and Groklaw doesn't appear to have got round to analysing it. They often provide paragraph by paragraph analysis and that takes more time.......
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
If this judge were honest, they'd see that until they invalidated the patents, Google was forced to negotiate to license them first. Google is just trying to do some "progress in science and the useful arts" despite those patents. But patent holders like Sun have no obligation to allow their government-issued monopoly to be used for progress. In fact they practically always obstruct progress by others until their price is paid.
Just because you offer to give some gangster your wallet when they have their gun on you, but you get away when they blink, doesn't mean the gangster had any claim on your wallet in the first place.
Unless the judge is in the syndicate with the gangster.
--
make install -not war
It seems to me that the court shouldn't use some negotiation against them. We live in a day and age where it's often cheaper to pay off an invalid patent claim than to try to fight it, so every company has to figure out what it's going to cost them to make a deal up front.
It seems to me, that's not an admission by the defendant that they thought the patent would be infringed, or was valid - simply that they were trying to decide if it was worth fighting or not.
Sit right down, Chris Hanson will have a word with you.
Android uses a register based VM instead of a stack based VM (for performance reason), so I'm not sure it's that easy for theam to stay clean.