Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Oracle v. Google Trial On Indefinite Hold

Posted by Soulskill on 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."

14 of 66 comments (clear)

  1. Stratospheric numbers by Gibgezr · · 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 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Again, the judge here wants a credible methodology, not the patented numerical rectal extraction technique that Oracle uses for that.

    2. Re:Stratospheric numbers by Mathinker · · 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.

    3. Re:Stratospheric numbers by Pieroxy · · 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!
    4. Re:Stratospheric numbers by jd2112 · · 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.
    5. Re:Stratospheric numbers by tlhIngan · · 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.

    6. Re:Stratospheric numbers by DragonWriter · · 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.

  2. Credible? by Kid+Zero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Credible Methodology? That doesn't stop the MPAA/RIAA....

  3. humour by rwv · · 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 nomorecwrd · · Score: 3, Funny

      The Oracle has always being misleading in its answers.

  4. Re:Pricless! by idontgno · · 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.
  5. Re:Will Oracle Now Drop Java? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  6. Re:Pricless! by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  7. Re:Pricless! by gutnor · · 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 )