Google To Pay $0 To Oracle In Copyright Case

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google To Pay $0 To Oracle In Copyright Case

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday June 20, 2012 @01:58PM 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.'"

49 of 250 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Oracle by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-20 14:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

So Oracle is all, "well, we got screwed because we got the smart judge. Maybe in an appeal we can get the dilhole judge. The one who can't write rangeCheck in 2 minutes."
1. Re:Oracle by O('_')O_Bush · 2012-06-20 14:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What a slap in the face... but one Oracle desperately needed.
  
  --
  while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
2. Re:Oracle by Kagetsuki · 2012-06-20 14:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Let's hope they get a few more if they keep appealing.
3. Re:Oracle by Abreu · 2012-06-20 14:40 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Considering that Larry Ellison is buying himself a frikking island, perhaps the slap in the face finally pushed him into super-villainy...
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/larry-ellisons-island-ora_n_1614130.html
  
  --
  No sig for the moment.
4. Re:Oracle by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-20 14:44 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Previous rulings are viewed as the starting point for appeals, and it's up to Oracle to try and prove why that ruling was flawed. Especially in a case like this, where a higher judge is much less likely to understand the matter, they'll treat Alsup's judgment very highly and are unlikely to overrule it.
5. Re:Oracle by poetmatt · 2012-06-20 15:31 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  and yet only a small step from "6 billion dollars", huh.
  Oracle has screwed up so badly even their lawyers are looking horrible.
6. Re:Oracle by Just+Some+Guy · 2012-06-20 15:45 · 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?
7. Re:Oracle by blackest_k · 2012-06-20 16:14 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18529739
  only 98% of the island of Lanai thou , the plan was for Google to pay for the other 2% but things didn't quite work out...
  
  --
  Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
8. Re:Oracle by EdIII · 2012-06-20 16:55 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  perhaps the slap in the face finally pushed him into super-villainy...
  I think he has been there for years.
  It's just one more purchase in a long line of super villiany like purchases. Think about it. Yachts, Islands, massive Data Centers. It's like he decided to purchase everything he ever saw a James Bond villain have.
  I wonder if he has a white cat....
9. Re:Oracle by sconeu · 2012-06-20 17:13 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Yes, it was BSF, but they also had hired the MoFos (and, no, that's not a joke domain, it's legit).
  The MoFos trashed BSF in the SCO/Novell suit.
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
10. Re:Oracle by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-20 17:58 · 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.
11. Re:Oracle by Chrisq · 2012-06-20 18:28 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Yeah, that'll end well.
  According to the pattern, he will buy the thing, and then go behind those who support and use it, and sue them.
  Then sue everyone else who lives on an island because the docks look the same - one end in deep water and the other on the island.
12. Re:Oracle by flimflammer · 2012-06-20 19:26 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Can someone explain to me how the price for 98 percent of a Hawaiian island was only between 500 million and 700 million? I know next to nothing about real estate out there except that I know it's expensive as hell to own even a shack on a tiny plot of land. Is the particular island just not part of the "Hawaiian experience" us mainlanders are led to think about when we hear about that series of tropical islands?
13. Re:Oracle by Tough+Love · 2012-06-20 19:48 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  and yet only a small step from "6 billion dollars", huh.
  Oracle has screwed up so badly even their lawyers are looking horrible.
  Oracle's lawyers already looked horrible before the suit even started. Remember, these guys represented SCO. I guess shame is not a word in David Boies' vocabulary.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
14. Re:Oracle by hairyfeet · 2012-06-20 21:05 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Which is a perfect example of why one shouldn't buy a FOSS company unless one wants to be in the FOSS business, because once the code has been FOSS you can't stuff that cat back in the bag.
  Not saying that is a bad thing, after all people like RMS have been preaching for FOSS for just that reason, that you can't put it back behind a paywall once its out there, but if oracle didn't want Sun to be a hardware company (which was what I thought the point was, Oracle OS on Oracle hardware designed for Oracle DBs giving them a full stack approach) then buying it was frankly retarded because Sun had already made any "juicy IP" open source and thus worthless for trolling. agree 100% with the ruling and am frankly shocked oracle would have been that damned dumb.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
15. Re:Oracle by w_dragon · 2012-06-21 00:47 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You can pull it up on Google Maps and take a look at the island. The 2% not owned is probably most of Lanai City and the airport. The rest of the island looks to be pretty much undeveloped, just a few roads. Even in Hawaii, land is cheap if you need to build your own roads, wells, sewage treatment plants, and are in a hurricane zone.
Cute by multicoregeneral · 2012-06-20 14:14 · Score: 5, Funny

The best part of the article is in how they came up with the zero dollar figure. You can't make this stuff up. Well, I suppose you could...

--
This signature intentionally left blank.
Weird ruling by sideslash · 2012-06-20 14:17 · 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 · 2012-06-20 14:23 · 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 Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-20 14:30 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I think PsyStar would disagree that Apple hasn't won any copyright cases.
3. Re:Weird ruling by bmo · 2012-06-20 14:47 · 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
4. Re:Weird ruling by steveha · 2012-06-20 14:52 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I think Apple's patents fall into two major categories: "design patents" that cover appearance, and UI innovations that come about because Apple has done a good job of pushing the frontiers of the user experience.
  "Rounded corners" and such are an example of the design patents, and that is a whole different category from technology patents like the ones on Java. Does not apply; moving on.
  Apple's UI innovation patents, as far as it seems to me (a non-lawyer), are mostly about doing something that hasn't been done before and trying to patent as much of it as possible. Some of these patents are bogus (IMHO the pinch-zoom gesture is an obvious thing to do if you have a multitouch display, so shouldn't be patentable) but some of these might not be bogus.
  On the other hand, the Java patents were really weak. The Java Virtual Machine (JVM) was hardly the first VM ever; the UCSD "p-System" VM is over three decades old, so Sun couldn't patent the basic idea of a VM to let programs run anywhere. So they patented a few aspects of Java, and then Oracle claimed in court that the Dalvik VM infringed those patents. But I've read several analyses of these patents, and they pretty much agreed that the patents were weak. It seems the court agreed.
  Finally, why should Google pay Oracle? Google is using a different VM, all new and all original code. Google isn't using the Java trademark, and doesn't have any agreement with Oracle. As people have observed here on Slashdot: If you want to argue that Oracle "owns" Java so completely that nobody may copy it, then maybe the creators of the C programming language and the C standard library could collect staggering royalties from pretty much the whole world.
  Google making Dalvik over the objections of Oracle is just like Dodge making a car over the objections of Ford. You can see why there might be objections, but society shouldn't interfere.
  steveha
  
  --
  lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
5. Re:Weird ruling by ganjadude · 2012-06-20 14:57 · 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
6. Re:Weird ruling by sideslash · 2012-06-20 15:00 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  fanboyism
  We certainly wouldn't want any of that.
7. Re:Weird ruling by fredprado · 2012-06-20 15:10 · 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.
8. Re:Weird ruling by UnknowingFool · 2012-06-20 16:25 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Not according to the judge. Psystar lost both on copyright and DMCA counts.
  
  After full briefing and oral argument, Psystar was found liable for infringement of Apple's copyrights in Mac OS X by violating Apple's exclusive reproduction right, distribution right, and right to create derivative works (Dkt. No. 214 at 10). Psystar was also found liable for contributory copyright infringement by intentionally inducing and encouraging its customers to directly infringe Apple's copyrights through its sale of unauthorized copies of Mac OS X to the public (Id. at 10). 1 Finally, Psystar was found liable for violating Sections 1201(a)(1), 1201(a)(2), and 1201(b)(1) of the DMCA for circumvention and trafficking in circumvention devices (Id. at 13-14). Each of Psystar's asserted defenses were rejected as either waived or without merit.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
9. Re:Weird ruling by oxdas · 2012-06-20 16:51 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  And yet many judges have decided that Samsung did not violate Apple's designs, starting with Apple's opening salvo in the Netherlands. Apple's design is of a rounded cornered rectangle with a display in the center (that's it). Any media device could be seen to violate it.
  Apple is suing Samsung because they are their biggest competitor. Samsung outsold Apple in smartphones for 2011 by 5.5 million units and widened their lead in the first quarter of 2012 to 10 million more units (45 million to 35 million). Samsung has also made tablet inroads and are now the number two tablet company. Smartphones are the cash cow of both Apple and Samsung. Apple's marketshare in smartphones has fallen to 23% while Android has increased to 56%. This has to concern Apple.
10. Re:Weird ruling by EdIII · 2012-06-20 17:09 · 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.
11. Re:Weird ruling by stephanruby · 2012-06-20 17:50 · 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.
12. Re:Weird ruling by silentcoder · 2012-06-20 20:02 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Code is math, in every and any way you can imagine. Everything that makes it LOOK like it isn't math is deliberate window dressing to allow non-mathematicians to do the math - but that's all it is, smoke and mirrors.
  It's still really all just math. The act of programming is really just a more efficient way of counting to a number that suits your purposes.
  If you know anything about computational theory you would realize that there isn't a single aspect of programming that is NOT in fact 100% pure maths.
  The patent system is perfectly equipped to deal with things that are maths: it must exclude them from patent-ability.
  Problem solved.
  
  --
  Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
13. Re:Weird ruling by jimicus · 2012-06-20 20:06 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I don't see why not. In very basic terms, a contract has three components:
  Offer (I offer to let you use this software I wrote)
  Consideration (in exchange for which you will do something eg. Give me money, agree not to copy it and give copies away, agree that if you change the source you must also give the source away)
  Acceptance (you agree to these terms)
  I'm pretty sure acceptance can be inferred from action; it does not require signing a piece of paper. The only difficulty I see is that the contract isn't revealed until after you buy the item, which generally you can't return. I don't know how this would pan out in the real world.
  Usual IANAL caveats apply.
14. Re:Weird ruling by silentcoder · 2012-06-20 22:43 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  There is a huge difference between "can be described mathematically" and "actually IS a mathematical formula".
  Every computer program ever written IS a mathematical formula. It's not something that can be DESCRIBED by a mathematical formula (which is what you're talking about) - it is the formula ITSELF.
  That's what programs are. You have fallen for the smoke and mirrors.
  
  --
  Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
15. Re:Weird ruling by drinkypoo · 2012-06-21 00:53 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Pinch-to-Zoom was invented at a public university on public funding and therefore it ought to belong to The People.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
A positive spin, according to expert Mueller by bogaboga · 2012-06-20 14:30 · 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.
1. Re:A positive spin, according to expert Mueller by grouchomarxist · 2012-06-20 16:51 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  If it is triple of $0, I think Google can afford it.
Out of curiosity... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-06-20 14:37 · Score: 5, Funny

Would there be a risk of being considered in contempt of court if one were to write a gigantic novelty check for the value of $Zero, sign it with a flourish, and hand it to the opposing counsel?
Obligatory: I don't think anyone will find Oracle by Crashmarik · 2012-06-20 14:51 · Score: 5, Funny

Appealing
I think I know how this went down by ddd0004 · 2012-06-20 14:59 · Score: 5, Funny

Google: I'm going to write a figure on this piece of paper. It's not quite as large as the last one, but I think you'll find it fair.
Oracle's Lawyers: I think we should take it.
Re:Bad Article by mug+funky · 2012-06-20 15:06 · Score: 4, Informative

it started on patents. when bullshit was called, it moved to copyright infringement of the headers.
that's the big problem - to not use a car analogy, think of a program as like a giant recipe. the code is the method, the headers are the ingredients list. Oracle wanted to assert imaginary copyright on the lists of ingredients for Java.
i use the food analogy because food recipes are not copyrightable. you can steal all the recipes from all the cookbooks and publish them yourself and be perfectly fine, so long as you don't copy the photos or pontificating between recipes.
also note that cookbooks sell very very well in spite of this.
You dropped some zeroes there by Sarusa · 2012-06-20 15:06 · Score: 4, Funny

Corporate lawsuits never involve such small numbers.
I believe you meant $00,000,000
Like? by Alter_3d · 2012-06-20 15:31 · Score: 5, Funny

Google is given 14 days to file an application for Oracle to pay legal fees to Google

Dammit... where is Slashdot's "like" button??
laymen... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-20 16:20 · Score: 3, Funny

This clearly show that the court is manned by laymen... they should have made the decision that the ammount should be null, not zero.
Re:Bad Article by oxdas · 2012-06-20 16:24 · Score: 4, Informative

It was a two part trial. One part was on copyright infringement and the other part was on patent infringement. The outcome was that Google violated Oracle copyrights on 9 lines of code (out of 15 million) and some test cases. Google was not found to have infringed on any Oracle patents. The judge decided that the damages amounted to $0 for the copyright violations. Oracle can appeal.
New Headquarters by dutchwhizzman · 2012-06-20 17:15 · Score: 3, Funny

So will the new Oracle headquarters be inside the vulcano on Lanai? Next thing you know, he'll be putting lasers on the moon.

--
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
1. Re:New Headquarters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-20 18:06 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  So will the new Oracle headquarters be inside the vulcano on Lanai? Next thing you know, he'll be putting lasers on the moon.
  Or on his sharks. Maybe even make: LAWYER SHARKS WITH FREAKING LAZERS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEAD! Let's see a judge deny him his monies then.
Oracle wanted $6Billion -- Judge chopped one digit by darkonc · 2012-06-20 17:57 · Score: 3, Funny

... The leading one. A common enough programming trick .. sometimes a bug.
Hopefully it will never be patented.

--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Ztimulated? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-20 22:07 · Score: 5, Informative

"Laser" is a fucking acronym for "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation"
Until "Ztimulated" is a word, stop throwing a "z" in there, you fucking kumquat!
1. Re:Ztimulated? by clemdoc · 2012-06-20 23:30 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  At the same time we should do away with the common misconception that they go "PEW PEW PEW".
  while in reality, they go "FOO FOO FOO" and the people they hit go "BAR BAR BAR".
Patents versus copyright by thue · 2012-06-20 22:33 · Score: 3, Informative

The article says the suit was about whether the APIs could be patented. That is not so - the suit was about whether the APIs could be copyrighted. The article author probably has no idea what he is talking about.