Slashdot Mirror
Oracle Ordered To Lower Damages Claim On Google
CWmike writes "Oracle has been ordered to lower its multibillion-dollar claim for damages in its patent infringement lawsuit against Google and its Android operating system, court papers show. Oracle's expert 'overreached' in concluding that Google owed up to $6.1 billion in damages for alleged infringement of Oracle's Java patents, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup said Friday in a sternly written order. The 'starting point' for Oracle's damages claim should be $100 million, adjusted up and down for various factors, he said. At the same time, Google was wrong to assert that its advertising revenue is not related to the value of Android and should therefore not be a part of Oracle's damages, the judge wrote. He also warned Google, 'there is a substantial possibility that a permanent injunction will be granted' if it is found guilty of infringement."
What are the chances that Google will:
1) alter the way the Dalvik VM works such that the same source will execute differently, although producing the same results, so that app developers code continues to work, or
2) launch a new language for developing Android apps, but with a conversion tool to take existing source and turn it into whatever the new language looks like (some other variant on c/java/whatever...lets face it they're all practically identical nowadays)?
And THAT is the answer to the question "why did Google not buy Sun". It is cheaper to just some nickels and dimes now. And I guess they didn't need Solaris.
Oracle's expert 'overreached' in concluding that Google owed up to $6.1 billion in damages for alleged infringement of Oracle's Java patents, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup said Friday in a sternly written order. The 'starting point' for Oracle's damages claim should be $100 million, adjusted up and down for various factors, he said. At the same time, Google was wrong to assert that its advertising revenue is not related to the value of Android and should therefore not be a part of Oracle's damages, the judge wrote. He also warned Google, 'there is a substantial possibility that a permanent injunction will be granted' if it is found guilty of infringement."
In other words: Stop acting like a pair of brats!!! ... now shake hands ...
I'd just like to be the first to say, "fuck Oracle".
I hope those bastards fade into irrelevance. I mean, what haven't they done to piss everyone off recently?
My client's CEO has in his office, along with a half-model America's Cup yacht and 18th century Japanese furniture, a large sign that says "THOSE CROOKS OWE US BILLIONS AND BILLIONS!"
All parties are recognizing software patents...
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Mueller said they were gonna get that money. The judge must have gotten it wrong.
How does this work anyway, is there a burden of proof to show you somehow lost $x, where x in this case is 6.1e9?
If Google runs into problems surely they could set up a European company and sell them Android for $1. That way they could at least continue with Android everywhere except the US. Maybe if all the large software companies started moving out of the US then the government would do something about software patents.
Who the heck then will invest for capital intensive research like medicine and semi-conductor fab tech?
Perhaps you're looking at it backwards. With patents out of the picture, there will be a need to do things much, much cheaper and innovation will drive towards increasing efficiency rather than how to protect your monopoly. I love it when the drug argument is used regarding patents. I just answer sarcastically: yeah, because acetyl salicylic acid (more commonly known as Aspirin) which has been out of patent since forever is a real money-loser. You will never find generic/store brand painkillers containing this product. Here ends the sarcasm. Pharmacy companies complain about all the billions it takes to make a new drug and fail to mention that drugs still sell long after the patents expire. It's not like Lipitor has been pulled from the shelves (patent just expired recently). Yeah there's competition - so what? For every Coke there's a Pepsi, for every McDonalds there's a Burger King. Suck it up and earn your money like everyone else.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I'm ready to kill all software patents. Does Android compete with Oracle? (No, Oracle doesn't market phones or tablets and never will.) Does Android compete with Microsoft. (Not really.) Does Android compete with Apple. (No, if you want an iPhone you're not going to buy an Android phone and vice versa.) Did anybody other than Google put in the effort to create Android and deserve the rewards for doing so? (No, they just want to collect money for doing nothing more than filing a patents that they don't even use in this market.)
Who loses when all of these patents are enforced. (We, the public, do - Big Time!)
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
They did a clean room implementation of Java that worked exactly the same way. But it is not Java and uses no Oracle IP. Oracle doesn't own Java. They just own their one implementation of Java.
This is the same way us old people were able to buy cheap IBM clones back in the day. If it had been upto IBM you would still be running a 486 with ISA expansion slots.
The universities, where most of the research comes from today. 99% of R&D budgets are pure D, research just doesn't happen in the private sector anymore.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
yeah, because acetyl salicylic acid (more commonly known as Aspirin) which has been out of patent since forever is a real money-loser. You will never find generic/store brand painkillers containing this product. Here ends the sarcasm. Pharmacy companies complain about all the billions it takes to make a new drug and fail to mention that drugs still sell long after the patents expire. It's not like Lipitor has been pulled from the shelves (patent just expired recently). Yeah there's competition - so what? For every Coke there's a Pepsi, for every McDonalds there's a Burger King. Suck it up and earn your money like everyone else.
At that point, why waste money on R&D in the first place?
Just wait for your competitor to do it for you, burning billions in the process, then manufacture it yourself at a cheaper price - you don't have R&D money to recoup - and undercut them to death.
Great idea heh.
I think software patents is the thing we should fix now
I am inclined to think that if Oracle wins this, then there are going to be a lot of other places that are going to end being afraid of utilizing Java in the future... which could spell the effective end of Java as a mainstream programming language (although it obviously wouldn't die completely), which can't possibly be good for oracle.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Seriously, at this point they'd probably be better off writing everything for Mono or another CLR clone - it's not like Microsoft isn't already asserting patent claims.
...the judge is trying to pressure both sides into reaching a settlement
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
With Sun, Google would had gotten a gigantic patent portfolio along with a highly successful technical with lots of ideas with potential.
That $6.5B investment would had being a drop in the bucket of money they could had made with everything they would had gotten with the purchase.
"Just wait for your competitor to do it for you, burning billions in the process, then manufacture it yourself at a cheaper price - you don't have R&D money to recoup - and undercut them to death." This accurately describes China's approach to saving R&D expenses.
Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of pure research. I work as at a pharmaceutical company in IT support for just the research labs. Of the labs my department support only a tiny portion do any development work. Almost all of the development work is done by labs in other divisions than the one supported by my department (actually this is changing as due to recent changes in corporate structure those divisions are finding out about us and starting to request our support).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
R&D for prescription drug research is publicly funded and then handed over to big pharma to market. WE pay for the research. There's ZERO benefit to allowing drug patents to exist.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Really? Then why do the companies hold the patents and not the government?
Android sounds like Linux for mobile devices. I'm sure someone will come up with a more accurate analogy, especially since the technology is actually built on top of Linux, but it is essentially a community project stewarded by a commercial firm whose business is built upon selling algorithmic access to its customers. This preserves a certain amount of privacy that many of its customers find acceptable. What is perhaps not acceptable is the NSA's access to nearly every communication firms' backend, but that's another story.
Java is a great technology, but Sun was unable to build a viable business around it, and Oracle acquired Sun largely for litigation potential. Oracle has essentially failed the community in the stewardship of this technology, so this lawsuit is more than a little bit ridiculous. Like many patent disputes, it heaps doubt upon the entire software patent system.
In this time of economic contraction, should we be instigating more uncertainty among important community-orientated technologies? Do we not want businesses like Google building open (and very inexpensive) platforms, and competing primarily upon the quality of their services? Isn't that very much in the interest of consumers?
So companies should work towards creating advancements and innovations and rely on improved efficiency to cover R&D budget shortfalls?
I talked to an actual patent lawyer, double degree, engineering/law. His take on it is software needs it's own type of intellectual property protection And duration should be half that of true patents. In other words, you should have a software patent, but that's it, no patents no copyrights. His reasoning for software having much less protection than patents is that software is much more straightforward, in general, than hardware which is a physical thing. Nor copyrights which protect stuff that takes a vast effort to produce, but nothing to copy.
Companies will do whatever brings in money and nothing more.
If efficiency increases profit, they will do it - and keep it secret how it done if there is no patent protection to keep their edge.
Yes, they can profit from R&D for new products without patent protection, but they would rather just sit on their asses, save the money and let someone else do the dirty work for them - from which they can freely profit from. If it's more profitable this way, and this is what they would do.
It's all about money.
Pharmecutical companies spend more than twice as much on advertising as they do on research. And much of their research is on updating drugs about to move out of patent protection to get them another 20 year monopoly. And even then their total annual research is less than 30 billion. We'd get more bang for our buck by removing their patents and spending 30 billion on grants for targetted medicines. Then maybe we'd get cures for real diseases, and not another 13 erection pills and non-existant diseases like restless leg syndrome.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
First of all, Viagra was developed to treat hypertension and heart disease. During Phase I testing it was discovered to cause penile erection. Only after it was concluded to have limited effect on heart disease did Pfizer decide to market it as an erectile dysfunction treatment. The other erectile dysfunction drugs were originally developed for treating heart disease as well (although they did not get as far into testing as Viagra before being re-purposed as erectile dysfunction treatments).
Additionally, there have been major breakthroughs in treating many major illnesses in the last 20 years. Unfortunately, most major illnesses of the developed world do not readily lend themselves to a cure. Diabetes is a perfect example of this. Type I diabetes is a result of the pancreas not functioning properly. Until such a time as medical science develops the ability to grow new organs, it will not be curable.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
MOD UP parent, +1 informative.
I wish I had mod points so I could mark this "-1 Batshit Insane".
The practical reality is that Android phones are ARM, in part because Google has promoted using the native development kit for games... Android doesn't really need the cross-platform aspect of Java.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You seem to be confused this is not a case of software patents (at least not primarily, like apple-htc for example). I mean google did not use "the principles behind java". It did not use a new version of the language, it does not use different opcodes, it does not ... Google uses Java, verbatim, Google uses the binary format of java, verbatim (yes they package it *slightly* differently), Google uses the sun jvm (a secondary derivative, but that, too, is illegal), ... You use the very same development tools for java enterprise as you use for android development, which is the big advantage android has above other systems.
Google is guilty of copyright infringement. Java is not public domain, and anything unique about java is protected just like the contents of a book. It is fully owned by Oracle. Google simply took something that didn't belong to them, maimed it against the wishes of the original author (who should have complained sooner), and used it's massive weight to outcompete the original author in a matter of months. I, for one, do NOT think what google did is okay. Imagine this happening to something *you* wrote. I like the result, android is great, but the ends do not justify the means here.
Java is not public domain (actually none of the big languages is), nor is Java freely licenced (like C++ is, for example).
What does 'physical thing' even mean? People are always talking about software as though it's intangible and metaphysical. This is because most people don't understand what's going on; they can't see gears and levers and wheels that can be turned by hand, so they assume that some kind of magic is at work.
There is no fundamental difference between the Newcomen steam engine and Linux's latest execution scheduler.
Everything in this Universe is describable with Mathematics/Logic; everything is just information.
Either patents apply to everything or they apply to nothing.
In most cases, it's not copying that is at issue, but rather compensation for the arduous task of finding the original, and I think therein lies the solution: Should the inventor of rounded GUI elements be compensated in the same ways as the inventor of the LCD screen? The contemporary patent problem has to do with preposterously disproportionate entitlement.
Maybe you should stick to posting about what you actually own and use. NDK-heavy games are commonly non-portable between phones. Part of this is because of optimization (usually there is at least 1 build per SoC manufacturer) and part of it is because they're using unsupported features/extensions on the CPU/GPU and part of it is because of buggy code in the app and drivers or (rarely) the h/w itself. There's just no fucking way to achieve the stability of Dalvik by switching to native development when Samsung, TI, Qualcomm, PowerVR, and Nvidia are rapidly rolling out new platform changes.
Why does everything named Apple look so smooth and polished while other tech companies seem to be in a perpetual mess? Apple makes great products, makes great comebacks, settles even lawsuits suavely. Used to admire Google, but they are no longer the style statement they used to be. Oracle is of course, to a tech illiterate hackernews-reading wannabe, a patent troll.
But you forget the power of fanboys. Just this case alone shows just how unsuitable Java was as a choice but you can't get a fanboy to admit such things. A high level exec can't be a fanboy? Oh but they can. And it explains so many boneheaded decisions. Just using the word suck in any official communication shows enough.
Exactly who thought it was smart to base an OS that you give away for free on software that needed a license fee? Java always had the license hovering over it but some at Google are amazing Java fanboys still dreaming of the day that applets make a comeback. How great is this? They have created a program that allows the writing of javascript in java... why not just code in javascript direct? Because then you wouldn't be using java. Note that some java fans will now claim that you can't write certain thing in javascript... this shows a lot about those people. If you can have a java compiler turn out java things in javascript then a human can BUT maybe you REALLY should be just using the language the way it is supposed to be.
Being a fan of something is a very bad way to choose something and Google is now paying the price for it. And we better hope Oracle looses or the Java fanboys will have funded many more lawsuits by Oracle.
go ahead, ask Andy Rubin about the license trap or even just to name why any of the countless alternatives were so bad. He has never answered either. He just likes Java, that is the beginning and end of his reasoning. Maybe Larry and Sergey should deduct the cost of all this from his salary. He suggested after all Google pay for each piece of software they give away. Smart move kid.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Yes - after the development costs have been recouped. And given that anyone can now make it, the margins will be less.
If anyone could copy it right from the start, you wouldn't get the chance to recoup those costs, because you'd never have the high initial margin.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
They can keep secret how it's done, but determining the chemical formula of a new drug is trivial.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Drugs and other medical research should not be performed by commercial entities in any case, there is far too much conflict of interest... For instance, it's far more profitable to keep someone sick and taking drugs than it is to cure them, so the research will be directed at temporarily alleviating symptoms rather than curing the underlying problem.
Medical research should be carried out by charities, governments and other groups who's goal is improving people's health, not making a profit.
When it comes to other products there are different rules... Virtual products like software are protected by copyrights so your competitors cant just create a straight copy... So these and other physical products will take time for the competition to copy, giving you a head start.
What you make of that head start is up to you, rip off the early adopters or earn yourself a reputation? If you earn a good enough reputation, people will still choose your product in future even when cheaper competitors become available as they will always be seen as cheap clones.
Also lets not forget, a lot of R&D is academic rather than commercial.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
I wonder what the implications would be if Google were to license JME (Java mobile edition) from Oracle and replace Dalvik with the standard JVM. This would bring Android into compliance with Oracle's license. All that would be needed is for Android to implement a loader to convert the Android APK into standard java bytecode to run them. This would also allow standard java class files (or .jar) files to be executed as well. The Android API could remain as a compatibility layer on top of the JVM. The original purpose of Dalvik was to get around the issue of resource constraints that existed on early android devices (little memory, slow CPUs), but android devices are now coming out with 1GB ram and 1Ghz dual-core processors so the resource constraints are not such a factor. Oracle has already shown that the standard JVM outperforms dalvik, primarily due to it's more sophisticated and highly optimized JVM (and JIT).
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
This company spits out something else entirely. I propose a new name: Anacle.
The universities, where most of the research comes from today. 99% of R&D budgets are pure D, research just doesn't happen in the private sector anymore.
Intel drops $4 billion a year on their research group. Microsoft drops $10 billion a year. A lot of that money goes for pure research that ends up not commercialized, and a lot of it is directed to universities to work hand-in-hand with the companies. Private funding of grants for university research is huge - it's the dominant share of university research funds. Companies may not do as much direct research as they did, but they still fund the majority of it - they just fund it through the use of universities.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Android doesn't just run on phones. Not all other devices use ARM based processors.
SOME drug research is done by public institutions and is then LICENSED to private companies to bring it to market. The pharma companies then handle the actual challenging part of bringing a drug to market - clinical trials and FDA approval. The pharma companies then pay significant royalties to these public research institutions who make a sizable profit out of the deal. The cost of developing the compound is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of meeting regulatory compliance and these public institutions are not equipped to do this.
Kill all patents.
But understand that this will not happen, because patents depend on government, government is the issuer of patents, governments wants monopolies, thus government wants patents. Government wants to have franchises, monopolies, it hates competition and it destroys it everywhere it sees it, and government likes to control things, to be involved into everything in the economy, where it clearly does not belong at all.
So that's why patents will not be killed, though all patents need to be killed to improve the economy.
You can't handle the truth.
You'd be correct, except you are totally missing the cost of regulatory compliance. Actually coming up with and manufacturing a compound to treat some ailment is cheap and easy. Proving to the FDA that it is safe for sale for some purpose is extremely costly. No one is going to pay the hundreds of millions of dollars to perform these trials if, once approved, anyone can go out and manufacture and sell the same drug for $2/bottle. How the hell are they ever going to cover the margins of millions of man hours invested in clinical trials competing against people whose only operating expense is a small factory in Mexico or China?
What people such as yourself don't understand is the primary business of pharma companies is regulatory compliance. The gross majority of people employed by these companies, and the gross majority of their expenses go to making the FDA happy. If you want cheap drugs and to eliminate the need for drug patents, you either need to eliminate the FDA (dumb) or place the burden of testing these drugs on the government and the tax payer (also dumb).
The system we have now may not be ideal, but it works pretty well. It's efficient and promotes innovation. Yeah, drugs are more expensive when they're first released, but the patents are short lived and cheap generics quickly make it to market. If anything, this should be an example of how the patent system should work - patents last only long enough for the inventor/investor to make an ROI before expiring and entering the public domain.
For the same reason everyone else tries to work a little harder and be a little better, be it in the construction industry, the retail industry, the service industry, and any other industry you care to mention. Monopoly encourages laziness, greed and entitlement. An idea for a product design alone should not be used as a club to beat a competitor who possibly offers far better service, distribution, quality, etc. If all we cared about was the bottom line and the price, then we'd all be eating at McDonald's. When you go to a nice restaurant you might consume the same amount of calories and pay far more per calorie. But if you don't see the difference between a candle-lit table and highly trained waiters and a room full of screaming children - not to mention the quality of the food, then I feel for you.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Is that even a so called 'clean room' implementation does not mean you haven't violated one ( or more ). It might protect you from copyright problems pretty well however.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1z-AxgueBRk
Does Android compete with Apple. (No, if you want an iPhone you're not going to buy an Android phone and vice versa.)
That's exactly what competition is, trying to get someone to choose one over the other.
I believe part of his point was that when you can make billions selling insulin (US market $1.4B anually in 2001, sales growing 10% a year, projected $7.5B in 2020), what incentive do you have to research pancreatic replacement?
I understand the point. However, developing a pancreatic replacement requires the ability to grow new organs. Once that has been perfected, there will be years of research to develop the ability to replace the pancreas. There is a lot of research being done on growing new organs. The other thing about diabetes is that most of the most effective treatments for diabetes have been developed in the past 20 years.
The idea that pharmaceutical companies would rather treat illnesses than cure them is based on the assumption that they are working in collusion to not develop a cure. If Pfizer develops a cure for diabetes, not only is Merck not going to make money off of that cure, they are no longer going to make money off of their treatments. As soon as a promising avenue for a cure for one of these diseases is thought of, many of the pharmaceutical companies will be trying to develop it. There are two reasons why a pharmaceutical company would want to develop a cure for something like diabetes. One, they will make money off of it that they will not make if a competitor develops it instead. And they all want the PR from developing a cure for it.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
"determining the chemical formula of a new drug is trivial" Do you mean after the formula is created it is then easy for any one to take the finished product and figure out the formula? Or are you saying coming up with the formula in the first place is trivial? It is trivial to reverse engineer most products and formulas and while the current patent system is creating chaos there still needs to be some way to ensure that in some circumstances and product types the originator has the ability to at least recoup the R&D expense. These silly software patents being granted and fought over today are a perversion of the original intent of the patent system but that should just mean making changes to the patent process instead of eliminating it totally. The first change should be a rule that says the person or company holding the patent has to actually implement the patent. This should help knock out all of the patent trolls who hold patents that they never plan on actually implementing. Hoarding ideas and basically ransoming them to those capable of actually doing something with them should be deemed illegal with substantial financial penalties for anyone trying to do this.
Clearly, given the context, I meant the former.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I see Sun's impact on Oracle after being acquired. Sun spent the better half of the 90's suing Microsoft to remain competitive, now it seems Oracle will latch on to the biggest giant in software in the 21st century in order to remain relevant. Competition through litigation has never worked out well for the company filing the complaints.
I think Oracle just f*cked Java as Google was one of the larger supporters of the Java language, now I can easily see Google creating their own language in spite, Joogle.
Sounds to me like the judge is getting sick and tired of all the posturing that both Oracle and Google are doing...
groklaw has good coverage of the trial as well
http://groklaw.net/
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.