Oracle v. Google Trial On Indefinite Hold

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Oracle v. Google Trial On Indefinite Hold

Posted by Soulskill on Friday January 13, 2012 @08:07AM from the hurry-up-and-wait dept.

symbolset writes "The trial in which Oracle is suing Google over Android has been put on indefinite hold by the trial judge, until Oracle comes up with a credible methodology for figuring alleged damages. The trial was planned to start on or after March 19."

47 of 66 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

But he's Larry Ellison... by crovira · 2012-01-13 08:10 · Score: 2

What other proof do you need???

--
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Pricless! by sgt+scrub · 2012-01-13 08:11 · Score: 2

er... The judges decision, not the IP.

--
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
1. Re:Pricless! by poetmatt · 2012-01-13 08:31 · Score: 2
  
  Wha?
  You're absolutely correct. The IP in this case is worth absolutely zero, because the patents in this lawsuit are questionable at best.
2. Re:Pricless! by idontgno · 2012-01-13 08:56 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It's better than that, too.
  Oracle is responsible for delays which is jeopardizing its own case. If you read through the Groklaw articles about this case, it's pretty clear that Oracle's patents are being disintegrated by the Patent and Trademark Office's reexaminations.. They've already lost about half of their asserted claims in the case, and they run the risk of further invalidation of the patents they're asserting here if they delay any further.
  It would be hilariously ironic if they finally come up with a credible damages assessment just about the same time all of their patents completely evaporate.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
3. Re:Pricless! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-13 10:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Actually, most of the herd seems to take your position. Many of us have looked at the patents, as have many others. All but three patents are complete bullshit and extremely obvious. Basically, they should have NEVER been approved in the first place. Of the remaining three, one is seriously suspect but simply required deeper inspection. Which basically means, of the long list of patents Oracle clubbed Google over the head with, only two MIGHT have ANY validity. And of the two, its widely believed only ONE is worthy of any actual research and even that one is reasonably bogus.
  Long story short, if by "masturabte", you mean, "ignore bullshit by ignorant masses on slashdot", then you're spot on.
4. Re:Pricless! by gutnor · 2012-01-13 14:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Too bad the judges are not so discerning with the small people. Oracle needs to come with a convincing methodology. Does the RIAA have one ? Also, since regardless who win, the end-user will not be affected whatsoever - I think that would be better for Oracle to win to highlight in a bit more spectacular fashion the idiocy of the current patent system. (well, hopefully there is still some fun to be had on the mobile market - hopefully they don't settle and cross-license )
Stratospheric numbers by Gibgezr · 2012-01-13 08:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

"For this “delay,” Oracle has no one to blame but itself, given that twice now it has advanced improper methodologies obviously calculated to reach stratospheric numbers." - Judge Alsup He isn't pulling any punches, is he?
1. Re:Stratospheric numbers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-13 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  I understand that Oracle based their damages calculations on the scheme they use for licensing charges.
2. Re:Stratospheric numbers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-13 08:17 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Again, the judge here wants a credible methodology, not the patented numerical rectal extraction technique that Oracle uses for that.
3. Re:Stratospheric numbers by Enderandrew · 2012-01-13 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  I thought they tried licensing Java to Google for Android for just under 2 billion, and now want over 6 billion in damages.
  
  --
  http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
4. Re:Stratospheric numbers by Mathinker · 2012-01-13 08:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  > Oracle has no one to blame but itself
  Where does this judge live? The MPAA, RIAA, and BSA have been doing this for years, now, no? And as far as I know, no US judge has called them out when they cite their "research" as background information in a court case.
5. Re:Stratospheric numbers by gv250 · 2012-01-13 09:01 · Score: 2
  
  Oracle was actually hoping for astronomical numbers. By asking for only stratospheric numbers, they were hoping to appear reasonable by comparison.
6. Re:Stratospheric numbers by Pieroxy · 2012-01-13 09:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  > Oracle has no one to blame but itself
  Where does this judge live? The MPAA, RIAA, and BSA have been doing this for years, now, no? And as far as I know, no US judge has called them out when they cite their "research" as background information in a court case.
  I don't think MPAA or RIAA has been suing anyone on patents grounds yet.
  
  --
  Write boring code, not shiny code!
7. Re:Stratospheric numbers by CarlDenny · 2012-01-13 09:16 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Willful patent infringement is 3x damages. So if they asked for $2billion up front, $6billion is a reasonable extrapolation.
  Not that any part of the patent process in tech is reasonable.
8. Re:Stratospheric numbers by jd2112 · 2012-01-13 09:53 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Using RIAA methodologies results with damages exceeding the entire economic output of the entire world for several decades. MPAA methodologies result in neither Oracle or Google ever having turned a profit despite both being among the most successful companies of all time.
  
  --
  Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
9. Re:Stratospheric numbers by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-01-13 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  Would he go for a supracephalic estimate?
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
10. Re:Stratospheric numbers by tlhIngan · 2012-01-13 10:58 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "For this âoedelay,â Oracle has no one to blame but itself, given that twice now it has advanced improper methodologies obviously calculated to reach stratospheric numbers." - Judge Alsup He isn't pulling any punches, is he?
  Well, it's an indefinite hold. Which means that the longer it goes on, the more painful it can get. Oracle may simple just wait until the numbers are right.
  Given $2B in damagers, and Google has admitted to at least 200M Android devices have been activated, that's $10/device. One reasonable method is to see how much Oracle charges for a J2ME license to begin with (it's one of the biggest sources of money in Java - given all the featurephones out there with a JVM).
  Oracle may argue that since Samsung/LG/HTC pay Microsoft around $5 per Android to license Microsoft's patents, perhaps since Oracle's is more fundamental to Android (being possibly related to the whole runtime system), they ought to get $10 per device.
  And they can argue that since the true number of Android devices out there isn't known because of its open-source nature, blah blah blah...
  The MPAA/RIAA can ask for huge numbers becaues there isn't concrete numbers to base their numbers off of. Here there are, at least official Google Android numbers, and they don't work out to something completely crazy like $150,000 per 99 cent track.
11. Re:Stratospheric numbers by DragonWriter · 2012-01-13 12:47 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Well, it's an indefinite hold. Which means that the longer it goes on, the more painful it can get. Oracle may simple just wait until the numbers are right.
  If Oracle doesn't produce a viable calculation (and even before they next produce one -- the court is still considering whether they get a third try or not) then they simply don't get to put their theory on damages forward at all. And they don't have unlimited basis to put forward new theories, they have to cure specific problems in their previously-advanced calculations.
Credible? by Kid+Zero · 2012-01-13 08:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

Credible Methodology? That doesn't stop the MPAA/RIAA....
1. Re:Credible? by epdp14 · 2012-01-13 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Thats why the MAFIAA quickly drops suit when they try their crap against someone with deep pockets. (as Oracle is finding out about Google now)
2. Re:Credible? by hedwards · 2012-01-13 08:29 · Score: 2
  
  Precisely and as long as they can ask for statutory damages there's very little that the judge can do. I think pretty much the only thing the judicial system can do is find the practice unconstitutional.
  This is why courts generally require the plaintiff to prove damages, it's easy to ask for a figure and harder to ask for an appropriate sum.
3. Re:Credible? by Pecisk · 2012-01-13 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't stop MPAA/RIAA to sue people. To win actually...well, it is totally different story.
  This is classic bully mentality. When you answer to their challenge not in their level, they start to drag their feet.
  
  --
  user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
4. Re:Credible? by Citizen+of+Earth · 2012-01-13 10:24 · Score: 2
  
  RIAA: Statutory damages = $150,000, actual damages = $0.50 (lost wholesale price). Amount of punitive damages = $149,999.50, which is 299,999x the actual damages. The constitutional limit on punitive damages 10x actual damages.
5. Re:Credible? by hey! · 2012-01-13 10:54 · Score: 2
  
  That's irrelevant. Oracle is suing a company with the cash to fight back. That makes it a "big" case, and I suspect big cases get better judges.
  In any case crazy damage claims are part of the "shock and awe" campaign by the *AA's. It's the "no bad publicity" principle. If they don't win those damages, the *claim* makes news. If they're awarded what they claim and it's overturned on appeal, they get *two* bites of the publicity apple.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
6. Re:Credible? by LordLucless · 2012-01-13 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  That's because the MPAA/RIAA only sue individuals, not real people
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
humour by rwv · 2012-01-13 08:20 · Score: 4, Funny

From TFA:

After seeing these filings I can't help but note the irony (and hubris) of a company choosing to name itself Oracle when it seems to be incapable of "giving wise or authoritative decisions or opinions."
Is Groklaw usually this funny?
1. Re:humour by HBI · 2012-01-13 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  No.
  
  --
  HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
2. Re:humour by nomorecwrd · 2012-01-13 08:46 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  The Oracle has always being misleading in its answers.
Will Oracle Now Drop Java? by turkeyfish · 2012-01-13 08:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

Now that their primary purpose for buying Sun's Java technology is no longer useful to them, ie leveraging Java as a way of extorting profits, will Ellison abandon Java? Both are costing him a lot of money without material benefit. At some point will he give up the ghost and just abandon the whole thing or will he keep pumping money into it, hoping against hope to hit pay dirt?
1. Re:Will Oracle Now Drop Java? by sourcerror · 2012-01-13 08:55 · Score: 2
  
  Lot of Oracle products rely on Java (data mining/business analyst stuff), so it's not very likely. They just like too much governing over JSR/JCP.
2. Re:Will Oracle Now Drop Java? by PerfectionLost · 2012-01-13 08:57 · Score: 2
  
  Doubtful. PeopleSoft runs on a backend of Java Application Servers like tomcat or BEA (which they also own), and PeopleSoft is extrodinarily profitable.
3. Re:Will Oracle Now Drop Java? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-13 09:00 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Now that their primary purpose for buying Sun's Java technology is no longer useful to them, ie leveraging Java as a way of extorting profits, will Ellison abandon Java? Both are costing him a lot of money without material benefit. At some point will he give up the ghost and just abandon the whole thing or will he keep pumping money into it, hoping against hope to hit pay dirt?
  Ummm, no. The main reason Oracle bought java is that almost all of Oracle's software stack depends on java.
  Without java, Oracle would be nearly helpless. A hostile java owner could cause Oracle an enormous amount of grief.
  Anything else that Oracle can get out of java is just icing on the cake.
4. Re:Will Oracle Now Drop Java? by phorm · 2012-01-13 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  My mother's Blu-Ray player runs Java.... it's surprising (and a bit scary) how many places it turns up.
Smooth judge by TankSpanker04 · 2012-01-13 08:36 · Score: 1

FTFA:
"But Google's petition to the appeals court over the email is also in the way, according to Alsup's ruling Thursday. "If Oracle will waive reliance on that email, then this roadblock would vanish," he wrote."
It's interesting to me that the judge is the one assisting in negotiations between Oracle and Google instead of general counsel. It seems obvious to Alsup even before trial that neither the clumsy infringer nor the litigious patent troll will otherwise meet in the middle.
who is this guy? by Un+pobre+guey · 2012-01-13 08:47 · Score: 2

What? What kind of judge doesn't impose ex recto damages? What planet is he from?
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-01-13 08:50 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
A Matter of Perspective... by billybob_jcv · 2012-01-13 09:00 · Score: 1

"For this 'delay,' Oracle has no one to blame but itself, given that twice now it has advanced improper methodologies obviously calculated to reach stratospheric numbers,"
"stratospheric numbers" for the rest of the world is pocket change to Larry.
My dream outcome... by exabrial · 2012-01-13 09:17 · Score: 1

Android made Java relevant in the mobile smartphone revolution. J2ME is so 1999.

As such, Android is good business for Oracle. They should strike a deal where Oracle becomes a stakeholder in the Android Open Source project. The, a cross-licensing patent deal. The finally, hold hands while they piss on Jobs' memorial, and sue Apple back into the insignificance where they belong.
1. Re:My dream outcome... by binarylarry · 2012-01-13 16:18 · Score: 1
  
  Larry Ellison was Steve Job's best friend, literally.
  
  --
  Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
English Translation by DarthVain · 2012-01-13 09:25 · Score: 1

Oracle, why don't you come back and talk to me when you decide to stop being retarded OK?
On-hold but not cancelled by phorm · 2012-01-13 09:26 · Score: 1

Rather than an "indefinite on-hold period" where the lawyers are on standby, why not give them a hold period with a firm deadline (after which the case is dropped if Oracle can't produce)?
"uh, I don't have everybody's money. by swschrad · 2012-01-13 10:33 · Score: 1

"that's my methodology, judge. got any cash? hand it over. I've got a devil beard and I'm impatient."
perhaps the judge should declare Java free to all birds, beasts, and men of good character in the realm.

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Re:The Oracle by TaoPhoenix · 2012-01-13 12:30 · Score: 2

Can we get some Matrix Analogies?

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Grocklaw ultimate irony by Will.Woodhull · 2012-01-13 13:15 · Score: 2

To quote Slashdot's favorite legal assistant:
"After seeing these filings I can't help but note the irony (and hubris) of a company choosing to name itself Oracle when it seems to be incapable of "giving wise or authoritative decisions or opinions."

--
Will
Oracle damage calculation method by mbkennel · 2012-01-13 13:21 · Score: 2

Larry: I hold up my pinky, and it tells me the number. Like a fucking oracle, it is.
That's easy by strangeattraction · 2012-01-13 16:31 · Score: 1

What is the total amount of damages from something you in no way make money from? $0 duh>
You cannot make this $&%! up. by clyde_cadiddlehopper · 2012-01-14 05:21 · Score: 1

The inflated damage amount was calculated by Professor Cockburn.

--
Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden