Oracle Seeks $9.3 Billion For Google's Use Of Java In Android (computerworld.com)

angry tapir quotes a report from Computerworld: Oracle is seeking as much as $9.3 billion in damages in a long-running copyright lawsuit against Google over its use of Java in Android, court filings show. Oracle sued Google six years ago, claiming the search giant needs a license to use parts of the Java platform in Google's market-leading mobile OS. The two companies first went to trial in 2012, but the jury was split on whether or not Google's use of Java was protected by "fair use." Now they're headed back to the courtroom for a new trial scheduled to begin May 9, where Oracle's Larry Ellison and Google's Eric Schmidt will be present. Currently, the sum Oracle is asking for is about 10 times as much as when the two companies went to trial in 2012.

Comments

pure profit

[phantomfive]

That's more than they paid for Sun in total. (Sale price was $7.4 billion).

Re:pure profit

[Anonymous Coward]

I was part of the Sun buyout. When we went to Oracle one of the support managers told me that sales (that's all sales in Oracle, hardware and software), is just an enabler for the big money, support/license fees...

Re:pure profit

[somenickname]

I actually worked for Sun in the 90s and their IP portfolio is impressive. Employees were encouraged to file patents by increasingly large monetary incentives. This lead to Sun owning the patents on pretty much everything. You want to do addition? Sun had that patent. You want to express a complex number? Sun had that patent. You needed a new air conditioner in your house? File some patents.

Re:pure profit

[rahvin112]

I thought it was absurd at the time but go back and read the interviews, it's right there in black and white. Oracle believed it needed a hardware division to counter IBM and HP who could offer complete hardware/software packages. When Oracle purchased sun, hardware was one aspect of their business they didn't have and they were losing support contracts to IBM and HP because of it. Executive management believed that purchasing SUN would give them the missing piece of the puzzle and allow them to more effectively compete.

In today's market it would be insane due to the rise of the cloud and the dramatically lower costs is offers but when Oracle purchased SUN the cloud was in it's infancy and had made very few inroads into enterprise computing.

Re:What about IBM . . . ?

[phantomfive]

The problem wasn't that Google used Java to program (like IBM does), that's fine and free to do. The Java license allows anyone to write code using Java, without any restrictions. The problem also wasn't re-implementing Java (like Apache Harmony): anyone is free to do that under the terms of the GPL.

The problem is that Google re-implemented Java, and tried to release it under different terms than the GPL. Since it is a derivative work, Google needed to follow the terms of the license. Since they tried to release it under BSD (I think that's the license the used), they are now being sued.

The only question remaining is whether their implementation was a fair use or not. My guess is it will be found not to be, but who knows with a jury trial.

Re:Google should fix this by using GPL Java

[phantomfive]

Java is available under a GPL + exceptions license. Google should take this GPL code and use it as a base for a new VM.

They have switched to that now. Amazing how quickly they followed your advice. :)

Re:What about IBM . . . ?

[phantomfive]

The problem is Google originally did that with Sun's blessing..

If by 'blessing' you mean they got a written or verbal contract giving them permission, then no, you're wrong. Some people at Sun might have been happy about it, but without a contract, 'happiness' doesn't matter.