Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Did Google Knowingly Violate Java Patents?

Posted by Soulskill on from the pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain dept.

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."

7 of 148 comments (clear)

  1. waiting for details by v1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:waiting for details by poetmatt · · Score: 5, Informative

      where was the "florian mueller contributed to the article" and it's completely unreliable warning?

      This isn't about groklaw, but nothing shows for the judge asking anything other than telling Oracle to explain where it's magic numbers came from. Oh and potentially google seeking discovery sanctions on oracle but it has not been raised by google. That's about it. If this had actually linked groklaw somewhere, which it didn't. There is no "danger" for google in any form, nor did the judge imply it was plausible that google did anything. Where does TFS or the article make that shit up?

      The only person who filed today was google, not the judge. So where does this shit come from? This article is fud.

    2. Re:waiting for details by dch24 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Does a headline that ends in a question mark set off your red flags?
      Can I convince you to buy this bridge I'm selling by hinting at it using a question?
      What if I cobble together a tiny tidbit of info from groklaw with a really inflammatory headline, will slashdot publish it?

      I hope Oracle's lawyers get fired for this case.

  2. groklaw has good coverage on this one by mrflash818 · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Oracle v. Google - Google Moves to Supplement Its Invalidity Defenses"

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110712074100640

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
  3. Re:Judicial mess by bonch · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As sound as legal analysis from an anonymous poster on pro-Google Slashdot must be, I'm afraid you're not as persuasive as you think you are. What's happening is that the judge is pressuring both parties to reach a settlement, which is probably what's going to happen.

  4. All Smart Phones Infiringe by paulsnx2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

  5. Re:Don't be evil... by Compaqt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is pretty generally know if you've been following Java, but since you ask:

    The Java Runtime license states:

    "Software embedded in or bundled with industrial control systems, wireless mobile telephones, wireless handheld devices, kiosks, TV/STB, Blu-ray Disc devices, telematics and network control switching equipment, printers and storage management systems, and other related systems are excluded from this definition and not licensed under this Agreement."

    As for the open source release, that's covered under the Java Language Spec patent grant.

    That only covers fully-conforming versions, not sub or supersets.

    http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Java_and_patents

    It was Sun's intention to give Java away on the desktop, and charge for embedded use.

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog