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."

33 of 204 comments (clear)

  1. Language by Threni · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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)?

    1. Re:Language by PickyH3D · · Score: 2

      And it's terribly slow by comparison to the other options. Even according to their own research.

    2. Re:Language by robertl234 · · Score: 2

      Google had no choice. They needed applications to be able to run on different types of hardware.

    3. Re:Language by Dragonslicer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, brainfuck is much faster [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck] and it's not bloated with the useless stuff (objects, classes, letters, digits).

      Dude, seriously? Are you kidding? Brainfuck is horribly, incredibly bloated. For a real language without all the ridiculous bloat of Brainfuck, there's only one reasonable choice

    4. Re:Language by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      And that is where software patents fail. "Hey, I have an idea, but someone else had a remotely similar idea that I don't really know anything about, but I came up with this concept and wrote my code without pulling it from anywhere else, but somehow that's illegal."

      All patents work like that, not just software patents. That's one of their crucial differences from copyright - the work does not have to be derived to infringe on a patent.

    5. Re:Language by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      But this isn't an issue of compatibility. Even if they replace it with something very different, so long as it has a "virtual instruction set" (i.e. some form of bytecode) and JIT compilation, it'll be infringing. And I find it hard to come up with a VM design without bytecode - it's been around for several decades for a good reason - and I don't see how it could be made efficient without JIT.

      About the only workaround I can think of is to AOT-compile to native code, either on the phone (e.g. when app is installed from the Market), or even by the developer. And they could do it in a back-compat way by automatically compiling all existing Market apps (from Dalvik to native).

  2. Sun by nicholas22 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Sun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They just reduced the cost of a settlement. A permanent injunction is still pretty bad. If they though there was a threat or wanted to pay that much, they could have just taken sun offer at the time for a 100mil.

    2. Re:Sun by robertl234 · · Score: 2

      It cost Oracle $5.6 billion to buy Sun. I guess Google thought it was cheaper to deal with the lawsuit.

    3. Re:Sun by Johnny+Doughnuts · · Score: 2

      Think about how Sun would have taken a totally opposite direction if Google bought them. Instead of Sun starting to suck they're be pretty awesome by now.

    4. Re:Sun by node+3 · · Score: 2

      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.

      Not quite. The reason Google didn't buy Sun is that there's nothing of value for them that they would have gained other than Java. That's a lot of money to spend on just a small subset of Sun's value.

      The rest of Sun in no way promotes any of Google's revenue streams.

  3. Like an election, doesn't matter who wins by countertrolling · · Score: 2

    All parties are recognizing software patents...

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    1. Re:Like an election, doesn't matter who wins by icebraining · · Score: 2

      Software patents do exist, so not recognizing them would be a sign of insanity. And unless they are unconstitutional, it's not the court's job to decide whether they should exist.

    2. Re:Like an election, doesn't matter who wins by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Informative

      In the case of patents, actually, most of the US statutory principles behind patentability have their roots in judicial decisions stretching back almost 200 years in some cases, all of which stem from the Constitutional provision empowering Congress "To promote the Progress of... useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to... Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective... Discoveries."

      Subsequent to various court decisions, Congress chose to codify most of those decisions in particular ways to further define certain requirements. There are a few cases where court decisions were countermanded by Congressional action, such as 35 USC 112, sixth paragraph, and the bit in 35 USC 103(a) about "patentability shall not be negatived...," but for the most part, when it comes to patentability, Congress has just gone along with what the courts have said.

    3. Re:Like an election, doesn't matter who wins by robertl234 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's where you are wrong. In a common law system, which US civil law is largely based on, law is created by the decisions of judges rather than the legislature.

  4. Re:Good lord. by scottbomb · · Score: 2

    Interesting point. One could say that Google is doing Oracle a favor by using Java in the platform. I can't think of ANY software on my PCs that are written in Java but my Android device is chock-full of it.

  5. Re:Under attack from all sides. by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  6. Kill All Software Patents by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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."
    1. Re:Kill All Software Patents by lolcutusofbong · · Score: 2

      I believe you meant killall -9 software patents.

    2. Re:Kill All Software Patents by JAlexoi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Does Android compete with Oracle? (No, Oracle doesn't market phones or tablets and never will.)

      Oracle licenses Java ME to phone manufacturers and Android is destroying that revenue. Though in a good sense, because Java ME should be killed off.

    3. Re:Kill All Software Patents by PCM2 · · Score: 2

      Does Android compete with Oracle? (No, Oracle doesn't market phones or tablets and never will.)

      Oracle markets Java ME, which must be licensed by phone manufacturers, for money.

      Does Android compete with Microsoft. (Not really.)

      Microsoft makes Windows Phone 7. It also has a couple of different flavors of Windows designed for embedded systems, and I see an awful lot of device manufacturers considering Android for those these days (the Barnes & Noble Nook line, for example).

      Does Android compete with Apple. (No, if you want an iPhone you're not going to buy an Android phone and vice versa.)

      Buh? You might as well ask "does Ford compete with Chevy" and conclude that it does not, because once you own a Chevy you're not likely to buy a Ford and vice versa. Competition is something that happens before a company makes a sale. The TV spots, the product placement, the retail channel, the app market -- in short, all the things that make you want an iPhone -- that's the competition part.

      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.)

      Of course they did! By no means was Android created in a vacuum. The simple fact that the Android OS uses Java demonstrates that.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
  7. This cannot be good for Java... by mark-t · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:This cannot be good for Java... by bigBlackSabbath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What? Where did that leap in logic come from? Sun had specific terms around using Java in embedded applications. It appears Google realized that, but perhaps felt by using Dalvik rather than a Sun JRE, they would be avoiding that.

      Most mainstream Java programming, involves server-side applications. The outcome of this trial should have no bearing whatsoever on those mainstream uses of Java. At all.

      If Java's mainstream appeal will be diminished by anything, it's the rise of alternatives (e.g., ruby, python, c#, etc.).

      I don't know if you're spreading FUD, you're uninformed, or you just don't like Oracle. Either way, you're speculation strikes me as wild and baseless.

    2. Re:This cannot be good for Java... by Compaqt · · Score: 2

      No, Sun made upwards of $100 million per year licensing Java to the mobile phone industry.

      http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20013549-264.html

      Java was free on the desktop, but not on mobile.

      Since Android was going to to be a unifying OS for all manufacturers, dropping J2ME, $100 million is an eminently reasonable figure for licensing Java to Google.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    3. Re:This cannot be good for Java... by StormReaver · · Score: 2

      This trial doesn't matter either way, as it's going to be appealed by whomever loses. This judge is giving both sides ample ammunition for appeal. Frankly, this trial is a total waste of time, money, and effort. The appeals court is going to grant the loser a new trial, anyway.

      Some of the decisions this judge made are just jaw-droppingly bad.

  8. Just Use Mono by lolcutusofbong · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  9. Re:Under attack from all sides. by cavreader · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

  10. Re:Under attack from all sides. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

    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
  11. Re:Good lord. by igreaterthanu · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'd just like to be the first to say, "fuck Oracle".

    I'm sorry to inform you but you are too late.

    --
    I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
  12. Re:Google didn't use Oracle Java. by PCM2 · · Score: 2

    They did a clean room implementation of Java that worked exactly the same way.

    No, that's not quite right. Dalvik is a new virtual machine which, as I understand it, loads and executes bytecode in a way that's more efficient on low-power devices with limited resources. You start with a Java program, which you compile using the Oracle Java compiler. You then run it through an extra step that transforms the stock Java bytecode into Dalvik bytecode. Dalvik will not run regular Java code until you do this last part.

    That said, it doesn't really matter. Dalvik could be a virtual machine that runs bytecode from a language called Vluuurm, which only runs backwards, and it could still violate Oracle's patents on virtual machine technology.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  13. Google is not the good guy here by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 2

    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).

    1. Re:Google is not the good guy here by LBU.Zorro · · Score: 2

      Er?

      Dalvik bytecodes are not sun bytecodes - they don't work, at all. And I suspect you're misunderstanding what verbatim means - because it certainly doesn't mean 'slightly different'.

      Dalvik was written anew, not developed from a sun JVM. Although how clean-room this is as it was written is to be decided in the courts - and last I'd heard Oracle's contention that this was copied has been mostly shot down, hence the patent claims being the most talked about currently.

      "Java is not public domain, and anything unique about java is protected just like the contents of a book." - Well except for the fact that writing a book does not mean you own the English language, you have some rights over expression of the language in that book and that format.

      In programming the content of the book, the story is the program, the language the book is written in (say English) is the programming language ie Java. So a copyright for a particular program does NOT mean you own every program written in the same language.

      You may be thinking of the class libraries because these provide 95% of the meat of Java, but of course Android uses the Harmony class libraries, something clean-room developed and currently owned by the Apache Foundation so it's not using the Sun class libraries.

      Not a single programming language ever lays claim to the programs written within that language - if one ever did? then it would never be used. Why write a program in order to give it to someone else - seriously, TOS for all languages specifically state that the programs you create in that language are yours!

      So to sum up, Google is only guilty of copyright infringement if (and only if) the Dalvik VM hasn't been clean-room developed correctly - it's not copyright infringement to convert from Java to another language (at any point of the compile process), nor is it copyright infringement to use the same development tools, the Dalvik bytecode is a different language to the Java bytecode.

      What Android cannot (and if you'll notice - does not) do is claim that it runs Java, because field of use restrictions in the JCK and TCK prevent anything other than Java ME running on a mobile device and if a VM has not been JCK and TCK certified then it can't have the trademarked Java coffee cup or use the trademarked Java name and of course since Dalvik doesn't run Java bytecode.....

      The largest part of this case is (as the previous posts mention - they are correct, you missed the point) the patents, as they are much more difficult to deal with. Copyright? Easy just develop it without ever seeing the original and you can't have copied.

      Google didn't take something that didn't belong to them, yes they maimed it against the wishes of the original author (but if the author wanted to prevent this possibility all they had to do was not release it into the public), didn't use it's massive weight to outcompete the original author (seriously? If Sun had opened the Field of Use restrictions then clean-room re-implementing Java wouldn't have been necessary - Java ME was never fit for purpose).

      As for the ends justifying the means? Well considering it appears about the only thing they may have done is violate some patents it's not exactly evil is it?

      I could create a new language that looked the same as Java tomorrow (I'm a fast worker ;) ) and not violate any of Oracles copyrights... Patents on the other hand..

      Z.