Oracle and Google Settlement Talks Falter; Trial Set for April 16

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Oracle and Google Settlement Talks Falter; Trial Set for April 16

Posted by Unknown on Monday April 2, 2012 @02:01PM from the let-the-games-begin dept.

Fluffeh writes "Recently, a Judge ordered Oracle and Google to have yet another sit down and chat, but these talks have come to an impasse: 'Despite their diligent efforts and those of their able counsel, the parties have reached an irreconcilable impasse in their settlement discussions,' Judge Paul Grewal of US District Court for the Northern California wrote Monday. 'No further conferences shall be convened. The parties should instead direct their entire attention to the preparation of their trial presentations. Good luck.'"

118 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

good luck and good night by turkeydance · 2012-04-02 14:04 · Score: 0

what he said
1. Re:good luck and good night by FoolishOwl · 2012-04-02 15:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I know "good luck" is an innocuous expression of goodwill, but it always seems a little weird to wish someone good luck in a matter that's supposed to be decided solely through legal reasoning -- especially when it's the judge wishing luck.
2. Re:good luck and good night by scdeimos · 2012-04-02 17:05 · Score: 2
  
  "Good luck" was from the submitter (or one of the /. editors), not from any of the source material.
3. Re:good luck and good night by grouchomarxist · 2012-04-02 17:37 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, it looks like the judge said "good luck" http://www.scribd.com/doc/87691774/Oracle-Google-fail-to-settle-court-order
4. Re:good luck and good night by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-02 17:38 · Score: 0
  
  "Good luck" was from the submitter (or one of the /. editors), not from any of the source material.
  Wrong - it was from the Judge. Read the scribd link.
5. Re:good luck and good night by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-02 19:31 · Score: 0
  
  Referees frequently say it before rugby & football games.
  I agree it sounds odd - good luck for Blackburn pretty much equals bad luck for Man Utd.
  Maybe he means "I hope nobody has a heart attack".
Oracle and Google should compensate the jury by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-02 14:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'd be mad as hell if I was on that jury for weeks or months and got some stipend like $50 day, parking tickets not included.
1. Re:Oracle and Google should compensate the jury by msauve · 2012-04-02 14:54 · Score: 1
  
  After all, $12 million is less than they will be paying the lawyers.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
2. Re:Oracle and Google should compensate the jury by FatdogHaiku · 2012-04-02 14:59 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I'd be mad as hell if I was on that jury for weeks or months and got some stipend like $50 day, parking tickets not included.
  Jurors are paid an attendance fee of $40.00 per day. Regardless of means of travel, jurors also receive round-trip mileage from their home to the courthouse at the rate currently authorized by the Internal Revenue Service. The court validates juror parking at specific parking lots near the courthouse and reimburses bridge tolls when applicable.
  Source:http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/juryfaq#question_6
  
  --
  You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
3. Re:Oracle and Google should compensate the jury by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-02 15:23 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  How many people own their own home and earn only $40 per day? The point carries even if msauve was exaggerating slightly.
4. Re:Oracle and Google should compensate the jury by cbope · 2012-04-02 18:17 · Score: 2
  
  I just love it, citizens of the US will stand up for trial by jury until their death, but jury service is something you always weasel out of with lame excuses.
  Listen, you live in a democracy (well... it was at one time, not so much anymore), part of your obligation as a citizen of the US is jury service, to provide for fair trials of the accused.
5. Re:Oracle and Google should compensate the jury by flimflammer · 2012-04-02 20:09 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Many people cannot afford jury duty. The $40 a day does not cut it for many people. Of course I would "weasel" out of jury duty if it put my finances or employment in danger, especially if it was a trial between Google and Oracle, both with more money than they can throw away wrestled in lengthy trials. Employers may be forced to give you time off for jury duty, but when shit is hitting the fan at work, and even when it's not, taking that time off does not look good for you and your prospects of keeping your job. You try telling your employer that you're sorry the company is in one of the biggest crunch time periods in its history and you're one of the pivotal cogs in the machine, but you're going to be gone for a few weeks and see how long you stay employed there. It doesn't even need to be that hectic to attract the ire of your boss.
  Jury duty as it exists right now is a load of crap. Jurors should be properly reimbursed for their time if jury duty is compulsory.
6. Re:Oracle and Google should compensate the jury by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-02 20:24 · Score: 0
  
  when shit is hitting the fan at work, and even when it's not, taking that time off does not look good for you and your prospects of keeping your job
  I can't decide if employers in the US really do tend to be that dangerously thick, or if you only believe that they are. Nor can I decide which would be the most sad.
7. Re:Oracle and Google should compensate the jury by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-02 20:47 · Score: 0
  
  In the cases that groklaw has followed it seems as if the courts tries to avoid appointing jury member if jury duty would involve unnecessary hardships. Also, it is in the interests of the lawyers to avoid such jury members during voire dire as well since an unhappy juror is an unpredictable juror.
8. Re:Oracle and Google should compensate the jury by flimflammer · 2012-04-02 21:50 · Score: 2
  
  It happens, yes. I am not being delusional. Many employers practically expect you to request exemption from jury duty, unofficially, of course. They won't just up and fire you for going, but your willingness to leave when you're needed when it's so incredibly easy to get out of jury duty gives them added reason not to keep you when reviews come around.
  It's not particularly hard to find cases of this on the internet.
9. Re:Oracle and Google should compensate the jury by drinkypoo · 2012-04-03 00:10 · Score: 1
  
  I just love it, citizens of the US will stand up for trial by jury until their death, but jury service is something you always weasel out of with lame excuses.
  Slavery is a lame excuse?
  Right now I have a flexible schedule so I would do jury duty. But when I showed up they told me to go home. Bunch of lames. When I have a full-time salaried job I'm going to get out of jury duty by any means necessary.
  Right now there's a fuckton of unemployed so there should really not be any difficulty finding someone for whom $40/day is worthwhile.
  However, are you really sure you actually get that? Because when I was looking at Jury Duty in Santa Cruz that wasn't part of the deal, and I don't think it is here either.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
10. Re:Oracle and Google should compensate the jury by AdrianKemp · 2012-04-03 00:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Not that it applies in all cases, because some people do not have the skill set required to choose their place of work.
  If my employer was a douche about jury duty (they aren't, fyi) I'd be getting a new job. Any employer who *expects* their workers to skip out on duty, especially such an important one, does not deserve intelligent or skilled workers.
11. Re:Oracle and Google should compensate the jury by Dragonslicer · 2012-04-03 00:41 · Score: 1
  
  Employers may be forced to give you time off for jury duty, but when shit is hitting the fan at work, and even when it's not, taking that time off does not look good for you and your prospects of keeping your job. You try telling your employer that you're sorry the company is in one of the biggest crunch time periods in its history and you're one of the pivotal cogs in the machine, but you're going to be gone for a few weeks and see how long you stay employed there. It doesn't even need to be that hectic to attract the ire of your boss
  What happens if you get hit by a bus? If the survival of the company relies on a single employee, that is a problem with the company, not the jury duty system.
12. Re:Oracle and Google should compensate the jury by mjr167 · 2012-04-03 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't that help the jury pool? If only intelligent, skilled workers had employers that would permit them to take time off for jury duty?
13. Re:Oracle and Google should compensate the jury by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-03 02:05 · Score: 0
  
  I love jury duty. I get paid for the jury duty and by my employer (I have to give my employer the jury money). I get a nice break from my work and get to participate in court without being in the hot seat for once.
  Why do people hate jury duty so much?
14. Re:Oracle and Google should compensate the jury by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-04-03 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  Right now there's a fuckton of unemployed so there should really not be any difficulty finding someone for whom $40/day is worthwhile.
  Jury is supposed to be representative of the whole society, not just the "unemployed, will sit on jury for food" part of it.
15. Re:Oracle and Google should compensate the jury by flimflammer · 2012-04-03 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  I totally agree with you. I don't think it's acceptable for employers to act this way, and there are a lot of good ones out there. The problem is when you're stuck at a job with one who is, with limited prospects of employment elsewhere either due to the economy or what have you.
16. Re:Oracle and Google should compensate the jury by drinkypoo · 2012-04-03 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  Jury is supposed to be representative of the whole society, not just the "unemployed, will sit on jury for food" part of it.
  That's okay, enough of the whole society is unemployed that it makes sense now.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Just remember. by philip.paradis · 2012-04-02 14:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

No matter who wins, the lawyers get paid, and "winning" is an ill-defined thing in fights between players like these anyhow.

--
Write failed: Broken pipe
1. Re:Just remember. by poetmatt · 2012-04-02 14:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  google has shown time and time again that they a: constantly prevail in patents claims and b: absolutely refuse to settle.
  they know what they are doing, and oracle's looking at maybe a million dollars these days. Quite a far cry from the billions, right? "whoops". Then we have this new doom and gloom, some idiot investor claiming their patent is the reason why google exists.
  the microsoft fudtrain rolls on and on.
2. Re:Just remember. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-02 14:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  time is on his side. when was the last time it din't come out that MS wasn't behind a lot of malice and they were in fact helping companies from patent mess ? Microsoft is always fishing in troubled waters. SCO is a potent reminder of what Microsoft was/ will be capable of doing regardless of any temporary change of heart for PR purposes. MS went out of the way to scuttle the entire ISO organization's legitimacy by rigging the entire system worldwide to support ooxml, just shows they have never changed as an abusive entity
3. Re:Just remember. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-02 14:53 · Score: 1
  
  Microshit is suing Barnes and Noble for supposedly violating crappy low end prior art riddled MS patents so they deserve to be called out for the trolls that they are.
4. Re:Just remember. by philip.paradis · 2012-04-02 14:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Your post makes nearly no sense, and I'm convinced it got modded up simply because you tossed in a reference to Microsoft. Also, where did I mention Microsoft to begin with?
  
  --
  Write failed: Broken pipe
5. Re:Just remember. by ozmanjusri · 2012-04-02 15:01 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  poetmatt takes any opportunity to slide in an anti-microsoft comment
  How can it be anti-Microsoft when it's a simple statement of fact.
  http://falkvinge.net/2012/03/02/how-microsoft-pays-big-money-to-smear-google-audaciously/
  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/07/icomp_productivity_commission/
  http://techrights.org/2011/08/08/burson-marsteller-busted/
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
6. Re:Just remember. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-02 15:15 · Score: 0
  
  Nice to see that it still just takes a Microsoft reference to get top karma here, the rest of his post didn't make a word of sense. Press your ear to the monitor, you can practically hear the hivemind buzzing.
7. Re:Just remember. by ozmanjusri · 2012-04-02 15:15 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  naturally there was never any specifics about who, what or where
  
  "An Ars Technica article sources Groklaw stating that at Portugal's national body TC meeting, "representatives from Microsoft attempted to argue that Sun Microsystems, the creators and supporters of the competing OpenDocument format (ODF), could not be given a seat at the conference table because there was a lack of chairs."[37]
  In Sweden, Microsoft notified the Swedish Standards Institute (SIS) that an employee sent a memo to two of its partners, requesting them to join the SIS committee and vote in favor of Office Open XML in return for "marketing contributions".[38] Jason Matusow, a Director in the Corporate Standards Strategy Team at Microsoft, stated that the memo was the action of an individual employee acting outside company policy, and that the memo was retracted as soon as it was discovered.[citation needed] SIS have since changed its voting procedure so that a member has to actually participate before he is allowed to vote.[39] Sweden invalidated its vote (80% was for approval) as one company cast more than one vote, which is against SIS policy.[40]
  Finnish IT journalists described that meeting as raising strong differences in opinions.[41][42]
  In Switzerland, SNV registered a vote of "approval with comments," and there was some criticism about a "conflict of interest" regarding the chairman of the UK 14 sub-committee, who did not allow discussion of licensing, economic and political arguments.[43][44] In addition, the chairman of the relevant SNV parent committee is also the secretary general of Ecma International[citation needed], which approved OOXML as a standard. Further complaints regarded "committee stuffing", which is however allowed by present SNV rules, and non-adherence to SNV rules by the UK 14 chairman, which resulted in a re-vote with the same result.[citation needed]
  Australia's national standards body, Standards Australia, was criticized for its handling of the OOXML process by the New Zealand Open Source Society,[45] the open source advisory firm Waugh Partners, Australian National University Professor Roger Clarke[citation needed], OASIS lawyer Andrew Updegrove[citation needed], IBM[citation needed] and Google[citation needed]. Standards Australia sent ISO SC 34 expert and XML and Schematron specialist Rick Jelliffe to the BRM, despite critics[46] alleging that Jelliffe would not represent the views of those opposing the standardization. Jelliffe had previously been in the news after being offered payment by Microsoft to improve incorrect Wikipedia articles about Office Open XML.[47] Microsoft had bought a schema conversion tool from his company and he had performed the initial conversion of the Office Open XML schemas from XML Schemas to RELAX NG[citation needed], both schema languages he had been involved in standardizing. It was alleged that Standards Australia had broken a previous public pledge to send two internal employees to the BRM.[48][49] However Standards Australia issued a press release denying this and stating that the Computerworld article was "was riddled with inaccuracies and misrepresentations.”[50]
  Norway's vote was decided by Standard Norge; the mostly opposing viewpoints of the technical committee were ignored after members were unable to reach consensus. Membership in the technical committee had risen from 6–7 to 30 members; all of the pre-OOXML members argued in favour of a "no" vote.[51][52][53][54] In October 2008, 13 of the 23 members, 12 of which are associated with the open-source movement,[55] resigned[56] after OOXML was ratified by ISO and all appeals were rejected.
  The IDABC community programme (which is managed by the European Commission) runs the "Open Source Observatory" which is "dedicated to Free/Libre/Open Source Software."[57] Via its "Open Source News", it has reported on reports which criticize the standardization process.
  It states that the German IT news site Heise reports that in Germany, two opponents of Office Open XML,
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
8. Re:Just remember. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-02 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  How can it be anti-Microsoft when it's a simple statement of fact.
  because the two aren't mutually exclusive and it's completely irrelevant, you might as well put up a post about oracle and google's lawsuit and end it with an attack on apple's abuse of chinese workers or something, just to get it up-modded.
9. Re:Just remember. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-02 15:36 · Score: 0
  
  Also, where did I mention Microsoft to begin with?
  Unless you are a glutton for abuse I think you missed the part about "an idiot investor."
10. Re:Just remember. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-02 15:45 · Score: 0
  
  because the two aren't mutually exclusive
  So you're saying the truth is anti-microsoft?
11. Re:Just remember. by poetmatt · 2012-04-02 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  one anon has gone out of their way to post negative replies. oh, do you hear the sound? It's the sound of cognitive dissonance as MS trolls realize that trolling won't keep a company successful.
12. Re:Just remember. by phantomfive · 2012-04-02 15:47 · Score: 1
  
  google has shown time and time again that they a: constantly prevail in patents claims and b: absolutely refuse to settle.
  Your argument is that Google will win this lawsuit because they absolutely refuse to settle and always win?
  
  That's not a very profound analysis of the case. Oracle has expensive lawyers too, and clearly they think they can win.
  
  Oracle is looking for hundreds of millions of dollars in settlement, that doesn't include future licensing fees. That's directly from the article, you would know it if you had read it instead of just trying to make fun of Microsoft.
  
  Of course, any time is a good time to mock Microsoft, you just have to do it the right way. Something that's actually relevant to the article. Something like, "HA! Microsoft paid a billion dollars for those patents and Google might get away paying nothing!!" or "HA! Microsoft WISHES they could attract the attention of Oracle with their Windows Phone! Instead their revenue is probably negative!"
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
13. Re:Just remember. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-02 15:48 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Hey, let's be fair now. Facebook also spends a lot of money to slander Google through the press.
14. Re:Just remember. by bonch · 2012-04-02 15:57 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Google doesn't constantly prevail in patent claims. For example, they lost a Linux server kernel patent case last year and had to pay $5 million to Bedrock Computer Technologies.
15. Re:Just remember. by philip.paradis · 2012-04-02 16:05 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you insist on attempting to turn this story into something that feeds an anti-Microsoft agenda? The title of this story is "Oracle and Google Settlement Talks Falter; Trial Set for April 16." The word "Microsoft" doesn't appear in that, nor does it appear in the summary.
  It seems you have an axe to grind, and are taking any road you think leads to the outcome you want. Listen, I was born in 1981. I was raised on a mix of CP/M, MS-DOS, HP-UX, SysV, and Win 3.1x systems. In my early teens, I got into BSD and Linux systems, and aside from some time in the trenches dealing with Windows Server editions, I largely haven't looked back. I'm firmly a Unix-centric guy these days, and I've certainly got no love for the world of Microsoft "solutions."
  That said, I'm not going to sit around and idly bash Microsoft's stuff at every turn, and certainly not when the situation discusses two entirely different companies. Again, what's your agenda? Why do you persist in attempting to defend your ridiculous practice of MS-bashing at every possible turn? It's juvenile, and highly annoying. I wouldn't have bothered posting this if I thought you were simply a troll, because I don't think you are. I think you've got an honest problem that needs to be addressed. Frankly, I'm too busy building nice things that run on Linux and BSD to really care about Microsoft these days, so I truly wonder that the heck your problem is.
  
  --
  Write failed: Broken pipe
16. Re:Just remember. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-02 16:25 · Score: 0
  
  because the two aren't mutually exclusive
  So you're saying the truth is anti-microsoft?
  when you're posting a point about google v oracle and end it with an out-of-context, irrelevant jab as a karma-whoring exercise then it is, yes. whether it's abhorrent microsoft's abuse of its monopoly or facebook and google's blatant invasions of privacy or apple's inhumane abuse of its workers these are truths that contribute nothing to the discussion but are often brought up by anti-[whoever] zealots who have such a deep-seeded hatred of [whoever] that they live in fear of people potentially forgetting - or simply moving on from - the wrong-doings of that entity and don't have the capacity to stop themselves focusing on it lest people simply stop caring and these people are left alone with no one to feed their anguish. it happens with all those major corporations.
17. Re:Just remember. by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-04-02 16:29 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Your post makes nearly no sense, and I'm convinced it got modded up simply because you tossed in a reference to Microsoft. Also, where did I mention Microsoft to begin with?
  Hey, you mentioned Microsoft just now, and YOU got modded up too! Does that always work?
  Um, Microsoft... sucks or something.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
18. Re:Just remember. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-02 16:37 · Score: 0
  
  ...because Microsoft is somehow in control of Oracle, a major rival of theirs?
  I wonder if, at some point, Slashdot will realize how pathetic they sound when they blame Microsoft for every evil in the world.
19. Re:Just remember. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-02 16:39 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, do you hear the sound? Of course you don't, it's me not giving a shit.
  As other, less anonymous users have pointed out, you're just an obvious Microsoft shill with an agenda.
20. Re:Just remember. by a_n_d_e_r_s · 2012-04-02 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  Oracle used to want billions of dollars in settlment. But after the patent office - after Googles arguments - found most of the patents Oracle had for invalid the settlement demands nowadays are alot less. Given that the copyright claims looks very scetchy to get through it looks like the outcome will be that Oracle loses some patents and get about zilch in compensation.
  The reason they could not agree is that Oracle has not realized how badly its been going so far in the pretrial motions. Oracles demands has nothing to do with what they should hope to get in court.
  
  --
  Just saying it like it are.
21. Re:Just remember. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-02 17:35 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft has been ordered by the EU to pay hundreds of millions for anti-competetive behaviour and was convicted several times.
  You are a hopeless Microsoft fanboy, if not worse (shill/employee) if you still think that MS is benign.
  Throughout its entire existence, MS based its business model on shady practices like lying, deceiving, manipulating and plain blackmail. Hell, even DOS (which MS did not develop) is based on betraying and lying to that small canadian one man company. Windows 1.0 was based on lying and betraying Steve Jobs.
  And before someone mentions Billyboy Gates and his foundation : they are causing more problems than solving them. Like investing in real dirty chemical companies in the same country they try to clean up. http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Gates_Foundation_Critique
  How one can support or defend these scumbags is beyond me.
  I will open a bottle of champagne the day MS applies for Chapter 11. Good riddance.
22. Re:Just remember. by phantomfive · 2012-04-02 17:48 · Score: 1
  
  All it takes is one patent. You don't need a thousand. This is the way the patent system works.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
23. Re:Just remember. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-02 17:56 · Score: 0
  
  What's up with that stupid wall of text? Are MS haters incapable of formatting? Or does GNU Hurd still lack that ability?
24. Re:Just remember. by symbolset · 2012-04-02 19:05 · Score: 1
  
  And Microsoft is a big investor in Facebook. It's turtles all the way down.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
25. Re:Just remember. by symbolset · 2012-04-02 19:13 · Score: 1
  
  Well to be fair I don't think they're responsible for the use of child slaves to mine African conflict minerals. Not directly anyway. Yet.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
26. Re:Just remember. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-02 19:16 · Score: 0
  
  Microsoft has been ordered by the EU to pay hundreds of millions for anti-competetive behaviour and was convicted several times.
  we all know this, did you know they also were convicted for anti-competitive behavior in the US as well? The thing is, in spite of these convictions there are some conspiracy theorists that will still maintain that microsoft controls the worlds governments, and that these convictions were instigated by microsoft to try and deflect attention away and show that they don't control all the governments, but actually they do! ...or maybe that's just what they want you to think?!
  
  You are a hopeless Microsoft fanboy, if not worse (shill/employee) if you still think that MS is benign.
  it isn't fanboyism or shilling to quite openly say MS has done much wrong (as have pretty much all companies), that's looking at it objectively, which is what your blind rage seems to miss. but the blind hatred will continue to allow your mind to justify baseless assumptions on passed performance...didn't learn anything from the Mike Daisey Foxconn saga did we?
27. Re:Just remember. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-02 19:20 · Score: 1
  
  it happens with all those major corporations.
  Actually, no it doesn't. Some corporations are more ethical than others.
28. Re:Just remember. by Y2KDragon · 2012-04-02 23:30 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft, the Godwin of IT tech arguments? Discuss.
29. Re:Just remember. by DrXym · 2012-04-03 00:12 · Score: 2
  
  I think Oracle was hoping for a quick settlement, in exchange for a piece of the Android pie. Look how they squandered J2ME for years and then they go seeking damages from Google on the basis of some spurious patents. I'm sure they thought they could muscle their way in and demand a few dollars licencing fee for every activated device or similar.
  Now their patents have been whittled down to a couple both of which can probably be worked around this is little more than an argument about pocket change. Even if Google were compelled to give them a hundred million bucks it would be little more than pocket change for either company.
30. Re:Just remember. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-03 00:25 · Score: 0
  
  Microsoft = Nazis. Sounds about right.
31. Re:Just remember. by Raenex · 2012-04-03 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  How can it be anti-Microsoft when it's a simple statement of fact.
  Because it was mentioned in a lawsuit about Oracle and Google, which has nothing to do with Microsoft. I dislike Microsoft plenty, but the comment was off-topic flamebait.
32. Re:Just remember. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-03 00:36 · Score: 1
  
  Not exactly. You can get damages for a single patent, but they won't be very high, and it paints a gigantic target on that patent as something to be worked around going forward so that there are no future royalties, which are what matter the most in this case because Android can be expected to sell a lot more in the future (as the mobile market expands) than it has in the past. That's why Oracle is so stupid: They come in here and get a bunch of their patents invalidated, and are going to end up paying like a hundred million dollars in legal fees, and at the end of the day if they win they might almost break even on the legal fees. Otherwise all they've managed to do is set a huge pile of money on fire and invalidate their own patents. If I was an Oracle shareholder I would be asking them WTF is wrong with them.
33. Re:Just remember. by hey! · 2012-04-03 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  Are MS shills incapable of reading? Actually, that would explain a lot.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
34. Re:Just remember. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-03 01:17 · Score: 0
  
  >it isn't fanboyism or shilling to quite openly say MS has done much wrong
  Have they ever done something NOT wrong?
  Seriously. Just give me ONE example. Just one.
  >(as have pretty much all companies),
  Ahhh......the age old teenager excuse.
  "But Dad, all my friends are evil, why am I not allowed to be evil, too?"
  Lame. NEXT!
  > that's looking at it objectively,
  It is objectivly to say Microsoft is the most evil software company ever. By a large margin.
  >which is what your blind rage
  It is not rage. I am just disgusted by Microcrap.
  >but the blind hatred will continue to allow your mind to justify baseless assumptions
  LOL! These "assumptions" are simply facts.
  > didn't learn anything from the Mike Daisey Foxconn saga did we?
  Court records and other official documents are a completely different animal than a theatre play. Thank you very much.
  Have you already received your Redmond check for this month?
35. Re:Just remember. by gtall · 2012-04-03 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft had nothing to do with this one. Here's the scene, a bright sunny meeting room at the top of Oracle Central Command. Sun lawyers and Oracle lawyers beadily eye each other across a polished table. Secretaries flutter about delivering yellow legal pads, pencils, and coffee. Uncle Larry has made his appearance and is now off to polish his yacht. The lead Oracle attorney speaks: so about this Java thing, youse guys think this is worth a lot? Sun lawyers: yep, beeelllions and beeellions of dollars. An Oracle attorney, eyes now wide: and do you have any proof? Sun lawyers, smiling to each other: beeelllions, oh yes, Google (of the Chocolate Money Mountain) had been sniffing around for a license but decided to build their own, now we have them right where we want them. Oracle lawyers whisper together and then the lead O. lawyer speaks again: So, youse guys think you take Google for beeellions (attempting to cover the glee in his voice). The Sun lawyers, now observing they have the O. lawyers just where they want them: oh fer sure, fer sure (think Valley Girl speak), like gag me with a spoon.
  The rest is history as the Sun lawyers went off to enjoy the world of their dreams. The O. lawyers are about to get their asses handed to them. Uncle Larry is said to sharpening his main mast in preparation for the bloodbath he'll inflict for losing.
36. Re:Just remember. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-03 01:31 · Score: 0
  
  Name some...I can't think of any. From my experience when ethics and money are involved; ethics always goes out the window. (unless you're making no money)
37. Re:Just remember. by datavirtue · 2012-04-03 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed, Oracle is probably going to have their asses handed to them. They are often irrational whereas Google certainly is not.
  
  --
  I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
38. Re:Just remember. by Courageous · 2012-04-03 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  It is objectivly to say Microsoft is the most evil software company ever. By a large margin.
  You've lost it.
39. Re:Just remember. by SgtChaireBourne · 2012-04-03 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  Lost it. It's not been a software company since the 1980's. It's a nasty, evil political movement or cult now.
  
  --
  Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
40. Re:Just remember. by poetmatt · 2012-04-03 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  Umm, no.
  See, there's damages calculated off the patents. They started in the billions, went down to millions, and now we're looking at a maximum of about a million bucks.
41. Re:Just remember. by poetmatt · 2012-04-03 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  You mean the case where bedrock had to willingly dismiss it's claims, and google can still appeal? Where the patent is in the process of being invalidated?
  http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011051407561062&query=bedrock
  whoops.
42. Re:Just remember. by poetmatt · 2012-04-03 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  hahahaha the pot calls the kettle black.
  oh how I love the entertainment.
43. Re:Just remember. by phantomfive · 2012-04-03 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  They started in the billions, went down to millions, and now we're looking at a maximum of about a million bucks.
  Google wants a million bucks. I know you're the kind of guy who is in love with Google, but that doesn't mean they are always right.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
44. Re:Just remember. by poetmatt · 2012-04-03 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  err whoops, let me link to how they did prevail against bedrock:
  http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110717140031881&query=bedrock
  undisclosed settlement, obviously less than $5m, settled out of court. It could be money, or it could be zero. we don't know. I'd sure lean on zero.
45. Re:Just remember. by ozmanjusri · 2012-04-03 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  Red Hat.
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
46. Re:Just remember. by phantomfive · 2012-04-03 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  . Look how they squandered J2ME for years
  
  Irrelevant, and that was Sun, not Oracle. It is important that you understand 'squandering' a patent is completely irrelevant to patent cases, look at the GIF submarine patent story as a reminder.
  
  then they go seeking damages from Google on the basis of some spurious patents.
  
  They are annoying, and in my opinion, pointless, but they are hardly spurious to the law. Remember Sun actually did win $1billion with these patents from Microsoft.
  
  Patents are annoying, and may be easy to work around, but they can hurt. Oracle can still win big in this case (though as you mention, what is $1billion to either of these companies? To the average Android user, it matters little).
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
47. Re:Just remember. by Jerry+Atrick · 2012-04-03 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  "Oracle has expensive lawyers too, and clearly they think they can win."
  Very expensive lawyers that happen to be the same very expensive lawyers that failed so catastrophically in SCO vs 'the world'. Expensive lawyers recycling the same delusional copyright theory they invented (and I chose that word deliberately) for SCO.... and when I say 'recycling' I really mean 'exactly the same'.
  Invented while thinking they had a direct share of the bazillions it would generate. Hope they're giving Larry a good discount. Not because they're cheating him with recycled work but because that work was systematically shredded long ago, only waiting on a judge to rubber stamp it.
  The only viable claims Oracle might have had were patents. That's not worked out so well.
48. Re:Just remember. by tlhIngan · 2012-04-03 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  I think Oracle was hoping for a quick settlement, in exchange for a piece of the Android pie. Look how they squandered J2ME for years and then they go seeking damages from Google on the basis of some spurious patents.
  You mean plundered, right? J2ME was the cash cow of Java - all those cellphones running Java on them, all paying the license fees. J2SE, J2EE, Sun could care less about them - that was all given away. It's why the patent licenses were given to J2SE implementations, but never to J2ME because people were paying big bucks for it. Including companies like IBM who had their own J2ME implementation (j9, considered at the time superior in every way).
  Now Oracle sees an unlicensed J2ME implementation floating about... which threatens their cash cow.
49. Re:Just remember. by phantomfive · 2012-04-03 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  Sun won $1billion from Microsoft off those same patents.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
50. Re:Just remember. by Jerry+Atrick · 2012-04-03 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  No, Sun got money off Microsoft for violating the terms of their licence to Java.
  Android doesn't have Java a licence to violate. That's a large part of why it's not going well for Oracle.
51. Re:Just remember. by phantomfive · 2012-04-03 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Sun got money off Microsoft for violating the terms of their licence to Java.
  Good, you know some things. What else did Sun get money for?
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
52. Re:Just remember. by DrXym · 2012-04-03 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  Irrelevant, and that was Sun, not Oracle. It is important that you understand 'squandering' a patent is completely irrelevant to patent cases, look at the GIF submarine patent story as a reminder.
  I didn't say squandered a patent. I said they squandered J2ME. Google turned up with something which in many respects is J2ME done properly and Sun / Oracle watched their market evaporate. Why would a licensee of J2ME want to stick with some antiquated piece of crap when they could have almost J2SE levels of functionality in a full blown OS AND not pay a penny for it either?
  So immediately there is an axe to grind and there is a suspicion that in doing something so close to Java / J2ME that it hits a few patents along the way. Many commentators believe that Oracle bought Sun in large part for a chance of a lawsuit against Google. People like James Gosling are on record about this. But as its transpired it's not looking too great for Oracle.
  They are annoying, and in my opinion, pointless, but they are hardly spurious to the law. Remember Sun actually did win $1billion with these patents from Microsoft.
  Microsoft licensed the Java system and logo under contract from Sun and then set about systematically subverting it which is the basis that they were sued. Google did not sign a contract and has never claimed Android to be compatible with Java even if they share a large degree of source code compatibility. It may be that the implementation language for most Android applications is Java source but it is converted into an incompatible format. .
  So it boils down to patent claims mostly relating to compiler / VM technology and most of them have been cast out as irrelevant, spurious, obvious and so on and only a couple remain, one of them due to expire this year. Even if Oracle prevails, the amount of damages they receive are going to be a pittance compared to what they expected originally.
53. Re:Just remember. by phantomfive · 2012-04-03 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  So it boils down to patent claims mostly relating to compiler / VM technology and most of them have been cast out as irrelevant, spurious, obvious and so on and only a couple remain, one of them due to expire this year. Even if Oracle prevails, the amount of damages they receive are going to be a pittance compared to what they expected originally.
  All it takes is one patent. Do you realize that? As one example, in 2007, Broadcomm won an injunction against Qualcomm, preventing any phones with Qualcomm technology from being imported into the US (that means basically every Sprint and Verizon phone), over two patents. It doesn't matter if only one remains, remember that.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
54. Re:Just remember. by jvkjvk · 2012-04-03 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  You are simply wrong.
  All it takes is one patent that *cannot be worked around*.
  Since Oracle has not patented any laws of nature with these software patents, one might just as well remember the code of the algorithm:
  There is more than one way to do it.
  Regards
55. Re:Just remember. by phantomfive · 2012-04-03 15:20 · Score: 1
  
  You are simply wrong.
  Uh, and you're an idiot?
  
  Regards as well.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
56. Re:Just remember. by poetmatt · 2012-04-05 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  and the conversation stops.
  I love it.
57. Re:Just remember. by virg_mattes · 2012-04-10 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  Have they ever done something NOT wrong? Seriously. Just give me ONE example. Just one.
  Seriously, I really dislike Microsoft, but even I can do this with about ten seconds to think. My example is MS-DOS. I was using a lot of different OSes at that time because there was nothing approaching uniformity, and frankly there wasn't anything else that ran on that level of hardware that I liked better. Closer to current, Windows XP is still viable today and it's not that bad. I use Ubuntu personally, but I didn't delete my XP partition and it still gets used for some business apps that I need to run for work and for some games.
  
  It is objectivly to say Microsoft is the most evil software company ever. By a large margin.
  In a world that contains (or at least contained) SCO, this is a bad stance to take. Microsoft stinks badly, I'll certainly agree, but yours is a big statment to make and it's not objective in any way.
  
  Virg
Anyone read comics? by Lord_of_the_nerf · 2012-04-02 14:58 · Score: 1

Silly question, I know. Isn't this the part where they realise they're on the same side and team up to beat up Apple?
1. Re:Anyone read comics? by sosume · 2012-04-03 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  Ellison and Jobs were BFFs, don't count on Oracle going after anoyone else but Apple's competitors.
Can somebody lay out what it would mean..... by mark-t · 2012-04-02 15:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

... for Oracle if Oracle completely lost this?
Also, what would it mean for Google if Oracle was entitled to everything they asked for?
I'm just curious. What are some possible scenarios that could arise from this? What could it mean for Java? What could it mean for Android? What about other parties?

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
1. Re:Can somebody lay out what it would mean..... by ohnocitizen · 2012-04-02 15:58 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  If Oracle loses, Larry Ellison will owe Bill Gates $1. If Oracle wins, Larry Ellison will win $1 from Bill Gates, and has permission to open a bottle of no no juice for a totally grown up celebration.
2. Re:Can somebody lay out what it would mean..... by Microlith · 2012-04-02 16:29 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Do note that since this started, Florian has been portending doom and gloom for Google at each step, and now we're down to a single issue, a judge who isn't giving a kind ear to Oracle's demands, and a refused settlement offer from Google to Oracle.
  When this was supposed to end Android and all of Google's mobile ambitions, at least according to Florian.
3. Re:Can somebody lay out what it would mean..... by oxdas · 2012-04-02 16:32 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I respectfully disagree. It has been my experience that Florian Mueller has an agenda and it is not for the betterment of FOSS. In the cases I have read on his blog, his analysis is wrong at least as much as it is right. That said, he is not a journalist, nor a lawyer, but a blogger and entitled to his opinion. Like any blog, I would recommend you read it with some skepticism.
4. Re:Can somebody lay out what it would mean..... by ChunderDownunder · 2012-04-02 16:49 · Score: 2
  Well regardless of who wins (the lawyers!), the outcome I'm hoping for is whereby Google and Oracle collaborate on the future of Java. Meaning:
  
  Google licenses the openjdk class libraries under the GPL + Classpath Exception
  Oracle modularises Java (Project Jigsaw, Kernel JVM) so that reduced footprints can be deployed by default on restrained devices
  Oracle assists in JCK testing of dalvik as a certifiable JVM - 'legacy' swing apps on your Android tablet
  Oracle adandons the outdated Java ME
  Oracle abandons the contentious 'field of use' on openjdk
  Oracle contributes its closed source Java SE embedded implementation to openjdk - spanked dalvik in benchmarks
  Oracle ports JavaFX as a first class citizen on Android
  Google assists in enabling Android applications to run on standard desktops
  J2ME lost relevance in the mobile space years ago and this is just a grab for cash from Oracle to extract money from Sun's carcass. Focus on the real adversaries of Java - proprietary OSes of Apple and MS. An Oracle/Google partnership helps grow the Java brand.
5. Re:Can somebody lay out what it would mean..... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-02 16:51 · Score: 1
  
  More specifically, he's a Microsoft shill that's taken money from them repeatedly.
6. Re:Can somebody lay out what it would mean..... by a_n_d_e_r_s · 2012-04-02 16:53 · Score: 2
  
  Fosspatents reporting has been very onsided and has been wrong every time in his predictions Dont listen to Florian.
  If you want an indepth analysis and diskussion of this and other computor science related IP cases in our courts then its only one site on the net that provides that with bravur and thats
  http://www.groklaw.net/
  Groklaw deliver the goods. Its prediction of the outcome has been correct in this and many other legal cases.
  
  --
  Just saying it like it are.
7. Re:Can somebody lay out what it would mean..... by symbolset · 2012-04-02 17:30 · Score: 2
  
  This is going to not happen.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
8. Re:Can somebody lay out what it would mean..... by Daniel+Phillips · 2012-04-02 18:45 · Score: 1
  
  the outcome I'm hoping for is whereby Google and Oracle collaborate on the future of Java
  Neither should own the future of Java, which is just a language and as such should not be firmly in the commons.
  
  --
  Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
9. Re:Can somebody lay out what it would mean..... by Daniel+Phillips · 2012-04-02 18:46 · Score: 1
  
  eh, should be.
  
  --
  Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
10. Re:Can somebody lay out what it would mean..... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-02 20:07 · Score: 0
  
  Better scenario:
  Google and Oracle get together and kill all their lawyers.
  Money saved funds independent java development group.
  Dalvik accepted as part of IJDG with android exempt on license.
  Java continues development and both Oracle and Google are off the hook.
  My personal view on JAVA is don't let the door hit you hard on the ass on the way out. And good riddence.
11. Re:Can somebody lay out what it would mean..... by rec9140 · 2012-04-02 23:01 · Score: 2
  
  April Fools was Sunday... Nice try...
  None of that is even remotely going to happen.
  The only thing LtT (Larry the Tyrannt) wants is $$$$ to purchase more yachts.
  The only that is going to happen is appeal regardless of who wins, and the only way the google can put this ogre out of business is to slay it with some sort of the same crap... patents...and lawsuits.... not my thing... but that unfortunately is now the norm, sadly.
  
  --
  1311393600 - Back to Black
12. Re:Can somebody lay out what it would mean..... by ErroneousBee · 2012-04-02 23:02 · Score: 1
  
  My personal view on JAVA is don't let the door hit you hard on the ass on the way out. And good riddence.
  Yup, Java helped kill Sun. If Android knows whats good for it, it will drop Java in favour of better languages and native compilation, possibly Qt as the toolset and D or C++ as the compiler with javascript and python support too.
  
  --
  **TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
13. Re:Can somebody lay out what it would mean..... by Raenex · 2012-04-03 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yup, Java helped kill Sun.
  Ridiculous. It kept them relevant, and was one of the reasons Oracle bought them. Linux killed Sun.
14. Re:Can somebody lay out what it would mean..... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-03 04:09 · Score: 0
  
  Ridiculous. It kept them relevant, and was one of the reasons Oracle bought them. Linux killed Sun.
  Sun killed Sun. They failed to stay relevant. For me, I stuck with them a long time because they were reliable. Then they sold me some servers with bad cache memory and totally botched the tech support. So they lost another customer.
15. Re:Can somebody lay out what it would mean..... by ErroneousBee · 2012-04-03 22:21 · Score: 1
  
  Linux damaged the Solaris market, and Intel x86 made Sparc a less compelling hardware platform.
  Java kept Sun distracted as their core revenue streams were eroded.
  As Sun tried to turn Java into a revenue stream, they diverted money, technical expertise and management attention from Solaris and Sparc. Java (particularly JavaEE) also made their acquisitions (Forte etc) difficult as Sun tried to shoehorn Java into products that didn't need it.
  So I reassert that java helped kill Sun.
  Its worth noting that Oracle are not overly distracted by Java. They are getting the jvm and core language sorted out without blowing billions doing it.
  
  --
  **TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
16. Re:Can somebody lay out what it would mean..... by Raenex · 2012-04-04 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  Considering that Java was one of the reasons that Oracle bought Sun for a good price, and that the Solaris and Sparc platforms were dying off anyways, in the end Java paid for itself and did Sun well by it.
  As for Oracle, they have no need to fixate on Java because they already make immense profits on their database and related software.
What are they fighting about? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-02 22:10 · Score: 0

Most of you know, probably, but for the rest of us, couldn't you spend one sentence on telling us what it is about (or give a link, at least)?
1. Re:What are they fighting about? by rkhalloran · 2012-04-02 23:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  For in-depth, of course, groklaw.net, but in short: Oracle (aka One Raving A*hole Named Larry Ellison) filed suit on the Googleplex for beeelyuns of dollars claiming Android and its Dalvik VM infringed various patents and copyrights in Java they own from the Sun acquisition.
  Google countered that a) Sun never raised the issue back when Android first came out and Oracle shouldn't now be able to claim damages (legal term: laches) b) Dalvik was based on the Apache Harmony project, a "clean-room" implementation c) many/all of the patents now claimed by Oracle are dubious.
  On review, many of the patents *have* been overturned on review, and at this point Oracle's claims are chiefly based on infringing about three dozen of the Java *APIs* as regards arrangement of arguments, etc. The potential damages have been substantially cut back as well, after the judge threw out two claim reports by Oracle, to around $44 million.
  Oracle is being represented by Boies Schiller, the same wonderful firm that's [ still stuck ] representing SCO (excuse me, SCOXQ.PK, heh heh) in their futile anti-Linux efforts.
2. Re:What are they fighting about? by tlhIngan · 2012-04-03 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Google countered that a) Sun never raised the issue back when Android first came out and Oracle shouldn't now be able to claim damages (legal term: laches) b) Dalvik was based on the Apache Harmony project, a "clean-room" implementation c) many/all of the patents now claimed by Oracle are dubious.
  I really hope those weren't Google's arguments. Because we know submarine patents exist, and they don't have to be sued the instant an infringing product is released - see every patent lawsuit in recent history, including bogus ones and legit ones. Even ones like Nokia v. Apple involving FRAND patents.
  Clean-room implementations ditto - all throughout history it's happened where two inventors invented the same thing and one got the patent. Telephone, Radio, suchforth.
  No love for Oracle, but I really hope those weren't the arguments to dismiss. Maybe arguments to reduce licensing...
  If the first argument worked, though, it would put a stop to a lot of patent lawsuits (sadly, not ones by Apple since they're pretty quick on the draw, though a lot of them against Apple might have to be withdrawn). Though it raises a pile of fairness issues since smaller companies may not be able to sue in a timely fashion due to resource constraints.
  The second would be quite interesting if it ever succeeded because it would basically kill the entire patent system.
3. Re:What are they fighting about? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-03 04:04 · Score: 0
  
  Oracle (aka One Raving A*hole Named Larry Ellison) filed suit on the Googleplex for beeelyuns of dollars [...]
  ORANLE? Are you sure you don't mean URINAL (Unfortunately, Rkhalloran Isn't Nuanced About Letters)?
4. Re:What are they fighting about? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-03 04:52 · Score: 0
  
  The first one deals with damages, seeing as how Sun was aware and didn't heavily object to Google use, it means the damage can be argued to be minimal to none. Oracle originally wanted money in the billions (which was shown to be rediculous) and have been reduced to millions.
  The second one doesn't deal with patents at all. But it does destroy any copyright claims Oracle may have charge Google.
  The 3rd one deals with the patents directly, basically stating that these patents are not valid at all. This is the most important as it may invalidate or reduce the scope of said patents to the point where it no longer applies to Google. Most of these patents have been ruled invalid on review, only thing left is to discuss the few remaining patents in detail in court.
5. Re:What are they fighting about? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-03 09:37 · Score: 0
  
  ...Oracle (aka One Raving A*hole Named Larry Ellison)...
  ORANLE?
  (O)ne
  (R)ighteous
  (A)migo
  (C)ALLED
  (L)arry
  (E)llison
  But yeah, he's a sociopath with a big hairy sack of cash
6. Re:What are they fighting about? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-03 14:39 · Score: 0
  
  The clean-room argument applies to the copyright infringement claims where it is a valid defense.
If they failed .... by Anomalyst · 2012-04-03 02:52 · Score: 1

If they failed how can they still be considered "able counsel".
self-aggrandizing definitely, able, not so much.

--
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
Solution by codecore · 2012-04-03 13:35 · Score: 1

I have a solution. License and update Android with .NET, and host the legacy apps with something like this: http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Lang-NEXT/Lang-NEXT-2012/IKVM-NET-Building-a-Java-VM-on-the-NET-Framework
-Scott