Oracle's Java Claims Now Down To $230 Million

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Oracle's Java Claims Now Down To $230 Million

Posted by timothy on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @03:50AM from the mere-pocket-change dept.

jfruh writes "Hey, remember when Oracle decided to sue Google over claims that Android violated Oracle's Java patents and copyrights? How's that working out? Not so well, it seems! Oracle has been forced to take many of its patents out of the lawsuit due to lack of evidence, and the damages in play now are down to a little less than 4 percent of Oracle's original $6.1 billion claims."

23 of 84 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Poor Larry by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 03:51 · Score: 5, Funny

That won't even pay for the mooring fees, let alone an entire yacht!
Abuse of process by mehrotra.akash · 2012-02-21 03:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

the damages in play now are down to a little less than 4 percent of Oracle's original $6.1 billion claims."
At this point, they should just declare that Oracle abused the process and grant Google victory over the remaining patents as compensation/penalty
1. Re:Abuse of process by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-02-21 04:11 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Frankly, both Oracle and Google should just stop fighting immediately and dedicate their effort to reverse-engineering this judge's apparently superb garbage-collecting algorithms...
2. Re:Abuse of process by Gideon+Wells · 2012-02-21 04:27 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I'll play the Devil's Advocate card here.
  Oracle may have been overzealous by a far degree. The process this is taking is likely very stupid. Many have been thrown out. However, that doesn't mean the last few aren't legally sound under the current system/process. Maybe they aren't. The most obvious offenders were withdrawn. It is now time to test the sturdier ones to the law process.
  Who knows, maybe Oracle will loose and set a useful precedent for the Googles?
  
  --
  by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
3. Re:Abuse of process by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 04:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Unfortunately I don't think "stating ridiculously huge amounts" has ever been a disqualifier in the US legal system...
4. Re:Abuse of process by mehrotra.akash · 2012-02-21 05:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What I dont get is how come there isnt a penalty for pursuing a lawsuit where 96% of it is thrown out?
  If Oracle had brought a similar lawsuit on a small firm instead of Google, they(the small firm) would have probably been shut down just because of the costs of the suit
5. Re:Abuse of process by ShanghaiBill · 2012-02-21 06:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What I dont get is how come there isnt a penalty for pursuing a lawsuit where 96% of it is thrown out?
  Are you serious? Who benefits from long drawn out frivolous lawsuits? Lawyers. Who controls the courts? Judges, who are lawyers. Who makes the laws? Politicians, who are 85% lawyers. There is no one in a position to fix the system who has any incentive to do so.
What about the apple patents? by backslashdot · 2012-02-21 04:00 · Score: 5, Informative

At least they aren't going the route of apple which last week, for example, patented an existing 3D eye tracking based icon display system of which there is a demo by someone else in youtube since 2009.
Would the patent office bother to find out? I dont think so.
Don't believe me, compare it yourself:
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/02/apple-working-on-hot-3d-eye-tracking-interface-for-gaming-iphone.html
versus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SImOIMcMlk
If anyone has any connection to the US patent office they should be made aware.
1. Re:What about the apple patents? by Frosty+Piss · 2012-02-21 04:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The patent office rubber stamps whatever comes in, and lets the courts sort it out.
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
2. Re:What about the apple patents? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-02-21 04:23 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Apple's behavior is perfectly fair:
  
  After the apotheosis of Jobs, the reality distortion field was so intensified that space and time itself operate differently within the confines of his mortuary temple. Anybody within the sanctum operates as an innovator-outside-of-time. They may appear to release specific developments at specific points in the pitifully linear 'history' experienced by the unenlightened; but they(how this works is a Holy Mystery; but it is so)are simultaneously are perpetually innovating beyond time, have already invented all technologies worth inventing, and will invent all technologies worth inventing.
  
  Human history is, in fact, simply a mortal's-eye-view of the bestowal of gifts of innovation on various Chosen at various times. The patent office is simply recognizing this.
That's the way it's done by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2012-02-21 04:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

That's the way lawyers and lawsuits work, especially in the Fantasyland of "Intellectual Property" law -- throw anything and everything at the wall, see what sticks. Rinse, repeat.
Business Model by EliSowash · 2012-02-21 04:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

Is it just me, or have lawsuits become a core business model of technology megacorps?
Re:who cares by Short+Circuit · 2012-02-21 04:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

who cares
If Oracle wins, they'll still have a victory under their belt which they could pursue manufacturers of Android devices?

--
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Re:The problem with outlanding numbers by Sique · 2012-02-21 04:13 · Score: 5, Informative

In legislations, where it is "loser pays", this first reference point is important for the later outcome. Google was sued for 6.1bn, valuing the lawsuit at 6.1bn. If Oracle manages to get the 230mil awarded, this means that there were 5.87bn, which they didn't get. That would mean that Oracle has to pay 96% of the whole costs for the lawsuit.

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*
Can Android be stopped because of this? by mounthood · 2012-02-21 04:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

Nobody cares about the money. Can Android be stopped because of this?
Groklaw's latest: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120220133911859

Oracle should think long and hard about whether it wants to persist on the issue of patent infringement or, for that matter, any infringement at all. Those failed settlement discussions probably look a lot more attractive to Oracle right now.

--
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
The problem with universal languages by sandytaru · 2012-02-21 04:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

- is that you can't get upset when someone uses them universally.

--
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Re:The problem with outlanding numbers by Penguinisto · 2012-02-21 04:37 · Score: 5, Funny

but, "Billions and Billions" does have a nice ring to it.
Only when Carl Sagan said it.
Anyone else just can't quite seem to pull it off.

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Re:who cares by jemtallon · 2012-02-21 04:55 · Score: 3, Funny

Mr. Madison, what you have just said, is the most insanely idiotic thing I have ever heard. At no point, in your rambling incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEkWH8DB7b0
Why didn't Google buy Sun? by WOOFYGOOFY · 2012-02-21 04:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

Seriously does anyone know if they considered it at all and if they did why they chose not to? Sun and Google seems to me to have been a natural pairing. Certainly all the absolutely first rate R and D that went on at Sun would have fit into Google's culture. So why didn't they?
1. Re:Why didn't Google buy Sun? by Glock27 · 2012-02-21 05:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  An excellent point. Google should have, and it was a strategic mistake not to do it. Google uses Java quite a bit internally, it would have not only insulated Google from any Java hijinks, but Google would have (I believe) been a far better steward of Java than Oracle. Google still could have spun off Sun's hardware division, which had not interest for it.
  In fact, Java could finally have become what it should have to begin with, and been the premier client-side language for web development, instead of Dart.
  Oracle buying Sun was a real inflection point in IT history.
  
  --
  Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
  Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Re:who cares by poetmatt · 2012-02-21 06:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

"if Oracle Wins"?
You do realize that they might not even get a settlement - this is assuming the judge even lets this go to trial.
Then again, it's not like they had a case in the first place.
Re:who cares by Bert64 · 2012-02-21 07:27 · Score: 3, Informative

The difference is that MS claimed their implementation was java, which it's clearly not.
Google only ever claimed their language was similar to java, which it is.

--
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Re:who cares by slack_justyb · 2012-02-21 14:56 · Score: 3, Informative

There is a lot that is different here. I think someone needs to enumerate them and I'm sure someone else has already done so. However, since I can find no enumeration actively, I'll do so here. I beg forgiveness to anyone who's already done this because they've most likely done a better job than myself.

Microsoft v Sun - This wasn't a patent case. This was mostly a breach of contract case. Microsoft signed an agreement with Sun Microsystems at the time, to implement a version of the JVM for Microsoft Windows. This was actually par for the course in the start-up days of Java, to have a JVM, the OS maker had to write the JVM and only if they had a signed agreement could the OS maker do so. (It's one of the reasons Microsoft felt really compelled to start .NET)

Back on track... Microsoft put some value added stuff in their JVM that basically made java byte code developed for MS-JVM incompatible with other JVMs. Namely, RNI and J/Direct to name a few. This was strictly not what Microsoft agreed to in the deal. It was found in court that Microsoft had made the MS-JVM specifically with the idea to hijack Java altogether as part of a wider embrace, extend, and extinguish that involved Netscape as well. Bytecode from another vendor would run on MS-JVM, but if the same source was compiled with Microsoft's javac (java compiler) then the bytecode would fail on every other JVM out there. This was especially true with the implementation of Java Sockets which explicitly loaded two different libraries. One for other bytecode and one for MS bytecode.

Now the biggest problem, other than Microsoft had signed an agreement to not do this, was that Microsoft was calling this Java and cited that the agreement allowed them to slap a Java logo on their product. Sun took offense to that idea and additionally sued their butts for trademark infringement. That last part is what is important here. Trademark infringement.

Let's switch over to Google...

In this case we are now dealing with Oracle v Google. The case between the two isn't a single point of law that's being brought up, just like the Sun v Microsoft was contractual, trademark, and anti-trust. What Google did was create a new virtual machine, which is not illegal. However, their choice programming language borrows the Java programming language syntax, which while not illegal, does draw the platform as a whole and the virtual machine in question. Google doesn't brand their platform as being Java and they've signed no contract with Oracle or Sun before that, agreeing that they would stick to the Java spec.

Oracle brings up the issue that Google's implementation pollutes the Java ecosystem, but there again, Google makes no claims to their VM being Java. That said, Oracle still takes issue that you have things like java.lang.String and so forth. Mind you that the Oracle java.lang.String and Google java.lang.String are two different beast. Which brings us to the underlying issue.

Google's implementation of the Java Language Spec (JLS), at least the parts that they borrow, did not come from code that is under Oracle's protection. It came from the Apache Harmony project which is under a different license than the JLS. Thus one point to argue in court is, is it legal to make an implementation of a language, even part of it, that is neither a standard (ISO/ECMA) and not under an open license (remember this was what all the brew-ha-ha was with the Apache split from the JCP.) I can write my own C++ compiler because it is a standard (ISO) so long as I don't use any methods that others have patented. I can write my own Python compiler because it is under an open license, again so long as I obey the license and don't use any already patented methods. Java, however, is neither a standard or under an open license (an implementation is open sourced called OpenJDK but Java the language is still not under an open license.)

Because of this, think of the API (the names of the functions