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.'"

33 of 250 comments (clear)

  1. Oracle by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · 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. Re:Oracle by Abreu · · 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 · · 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 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 EdIII · · 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....

    7. 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.

    8. Re:Oracle by Chrisq · · 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.

    9. Re:Oracle by flimflammer · · 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?

    10. Re:Oracle by w_dragon · · 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.

  2. Cute by multicoregeneral · · 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.
  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 steveha · · 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
    4. 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
    5. 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.

    6. Re:Weird ruling by UnknowingFool · · 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.
    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. Re:Weird ruling by silentcoder · · 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 *
  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.

    1. Re:A positive spin, according to expert Mueller by grouchomarxist · · Score: 5, Funny

      If it is triple of $0, I think Google can afford it.

  5. Out of curiosity... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · 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?

  6. Obligatory: I don't think anyone will find Oracle by Crashmarik · · Score: 5, Funny

    Appealing

  7. I think I know how this went down by ddd0004 · · 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.

  8. Re:Bad Article by mug+funky · · 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.

  9. You dropped some zeroes there by Sarusa · · Score: 4, Funny

    Corporate lawsuits never involve such small numbers.

    I believe you meant $00,000,000

  10. Like? by Alter_3d · · 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??

  11. Re:Bad Article by oxdas · · 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.

  12. Ztimulated? by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · 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".