Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google To Pay $0 To Oracle In Copyright Case

Posted by samzenpus on from the alls-well-that-ends-well dept.

An anonymous reader writes "In a hearing in the US District Court today, it was determined that Google will pay a net total of nothing for Oracle's patent claims against them. In fact, Google is given 14 days to file an application for Oracle to pay legal fees to Google (in a similar manner to how things are done for frivolous lawsuits). However, it is not quite peaches and roses for Google, as Oracle is planning on appealing the decision in the case.'"

12 of 250 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Oracle by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What a slap in the face... but one Oracle desperately needed.

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
  2. Re:Oracle by Kagetsuki · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's hope they get a few more if they keep appealing.

  3. Weird ruling by sideslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It blows my mind that Google can use a fairly complete Java clone over Oracles objections and pay nothing, while Apple sues people's socks off for making tablets shaped like rounded rectangles, and adding bounce to their scrollable views. I'm not a fan of software patents, so not saying I'm unhappy with the result. Just weirded out at the cluelessness of the legal system.

    1. Re:Weird ruling by shentino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They are not clueless.

      They know damn well what they are doing.

      Remember, this is the same legal environment that packed the DOJ with ex-RIAA attorneys.

    2. Re:Weird ruling by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How is it a weird ruling?

      It's one of the most sane rulings to come down the pike.

      The other rulings that shock the conscience are the weird rulings.

      --
      BMO

    3. Re:Weird ruling by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Insightful

      thats what makes it weird. The fact that it actually makes sense.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    4. Re:Weird ruling by fredprado · · Score: 5, Insightful

      EULA is a contract. It draws its legals base from an agreement between the parts involved. Certainly one of the parts needs to have some rights over whatever is being used by the other (be it copyright, ownership, etc), but to break the EULA you don't need to violate these rights, which was exactly what happened in PsyStar's case. PsyStar didn't copy Apple's product, they bought every one of the licenses they used. They didn't violate any copyright from Apple, but still they didn't obey the EULA they have agreed upon when they licensed the software.

      So, yes, I am pretty sure the case wasn't about copyright, patents or anything remotely associated with suing someone for making a product in the same shape as yours.

    5. Re:Weird ruling by EdIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can you please STFU about the RIAA? It has nothing to do with this other than to get groupthink fucks to agree with you. These are the same types of fucks who don't know a speeding ticket from a subpoena.

      Actually, it has quite a bit to do with it.

      The point is that the legal system is broken, not clueless, because the people involved in the deciding part (judges, DOJ) have conflicting interests due to their associations with current/former clients.

      That's why Oracle gets a much different result than Apple in the legal system. Not actual logic, ethics, or law, but who you know and where they used to work for.

    6. Re:Weird ruling by stephanruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It blows my mind that Google can use a fairly complete Java clone over Oracles objections and pay nothing...

      Perhaps, the case would have been a little bit different if Sun had not open sourced Java in the first place.

      Also, it wasn't against Oracle's objections. You've got to remember that Oracle didn't even own Java at the time Google cloned it. Sun owned it and Sun had no problems with Google cloning it. So it's not like Oracle can even claim it was a victim in all of this, it wasn't.

  4. A positive spin, according to expert Mueller by bogaboga · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's incredible that expert Mueller still puts a positive spin on the case...from predicting "triple damages" to Oracle, to what he termed as the "smoking gun Lindholm email", to the general disdain of anything not sanctioned by his cronies.

    When one visits his blog, you cannot fail to see the little coverage he accords news unfavorable to those who bankroll him.

  5. Re:Oracle by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the article:

    Murdock [the current owner] said in a statement that selling Lanai [the sixth-largest Hawaiian island] was not an impulsive decision, but he has been looking for a buyer who would have the right enthusiasm, commitment and respect for the island's residents.

    ...so he decided to sell to freaking Ellison?!? Yeah, that'll end well.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  6. Re:Oracle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Given how close that figure is to the amount that Oracle paid for Sun, I guarantee you that before Oracle bought Sun, someone doing analysis of potential take over targets shortlisted Sun based on the Java IP. I'll bet that they thought it was a slam dunk that Sun could have won an IP lawsuit against Google and that made them an ideal takeover target since they have what Oracle would call an underutilized asset in the Java IP.

    Which of course is a massive miscalculation, but then again most corporate acquisitions turn out to be massive miscalculations.