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.'"

20 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 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?
6. 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.
7. 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?
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 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
3. 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.
4. 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.
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.
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??
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.
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!