Legal Analysis of Oracle v. Google 206
snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Martin Heller provides an in-depth analysis of Oracle's legal argument against Google, a suit that includes seven alleged counts of software process patent infringement and one count of copyright infringement. 'Oracle's desired relief is drastic: not just permanent injunctions, but destruction of all copies that violate copyright (thus, wiping all Android devices), plus triple damages and legal costs. Also, it demands a jury trial,' Heller writes, and while this amounts mainly to saber-rattling, the Supreme Court's recent Bilski ruling did not completely invalidate software process patents despite their shaky ground due to prior art."
Infoworld? (Score:3, Insightful)
Where's Groklaw in all of this?
This is in depth analysis? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll sum up the article:
1) Oracle is suing Java over Android.
2) Oracle hired a really good lawyer, so they must be serious.
3) I sure hate software patents.
4) Oracle would like all copies of Android destroyed, but this isn't likely.
5) Sun might settle out of court.
6) Did I mention I hate software patents?
7) You should try to make life harder for Oracle, since I hate software patents.
With all due respect to the author, half the posts on this Slashdot thread will probably have as much to say and contain as much useful information -- but really, maybe whoever wrote/published the article summary is more to blame for claims the article just doesn't live up to.
Re:Google should publish the Android layer under G (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not saying that Oracle has a legitimate case, but I don't see how Android being GPL'd would invalidate any of their claims if you assume they are valid to begin with.
If the idea is that making Android free eliminates Oracle's ability to litigate against it, consider that a stubborn enough man will insist on trying to get blood from a stone, and Larry Ellison is several orders of magnitude more stubborn than that.
Two short pages are "in-depth analysis" ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did they buy Sun for this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mods ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, mod up the submitter. Submitting is his good right, and we should reward his efforts.
Please, mod timothy down for accepting a boring, not-even-a-story.
Please, mod the original author 'overrated', since his story should never have made it into infoworld in the first place.
Re:Google should publish the Android layer under G (Score:5, Insightful)
patents != copyright
GPL is a license which grants certain rights using copyright law. This has no bearing on patent infringement.
Help me Slashdot (Score:2, Insightful)
Sun sues Microsoft over Java = GOOD? Oracle sues Google over Java = BAD?
Re:GPLv2's implicit patent grant wouldn't really h (Score:3, Insightful)
"Covering forks" really isn't very meaningful. What that means is that you can't redistribute the software under the GPL at all since you can't meet the terms of the GPL. As a result, the GPL on OpenJDK (or any other patent-covered software) is really a sham.
Re:GPLv2's implicit patent grant wouldn't really h (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Groklaw was WAY more informative (Score:3, Insightful)
``"New-Sun" is, perhaps, trying to do what "Sun" did before -- successfully take down a giant a step or two. After all, what were the end results of Sun v. Microsoft?''
Instead of Microsoft making an incompatible Java-like platform and calling it Java, we got Microsoft making an incompatible Java-done-better platform and calling it .NET. I regard this as a Good Thing: first of all, because it prevented Microsoft from taking over Java and kept the competition from Sun alive, and, secondly, because I feel that .NET has brought a lot of good things to many people, including forcing Java to improve.
Now we get Oracle suing Google for ... I don't really know what. Maybe this will cause Google to stop pushing Java as the sole language for development for Android, and focus more on native code and whatever other language people want to bring to it. If so, I would very much like that.
Re:Technical Analysis much simpler (Score:3, Insightful)
``Time to learn another fucking language and 10 more over-engineered libraries!''
Not if Google does the Right Thing and just goes with an already existing language and existing libraries. It's not like that wouldn't work on today's mobile devices. They already have Linux running on them; now give us a libc and a widget library and we're off to a great start.
Making your mobile platform incompatible with anything already out there is a choice, and not a choice I agree with.
Re:Groklaw was WAY more informative (Score:5, Insightful)
Not the same at all. Google has never claimed they have implemented Java, hasn't licenced the tech from Sun, hasn't used the Java trademark or logo. Microsoft did and proceeded to make their version incompatible. Android uses Java as the programming API but the actual bytecode and VM it runs under is completely different.
Partly this is to skirt around this issue, but also I suspect because it is genuinely more efficient. Dalvik is an incredibly lightweight VM, perfectly suited for its use.
IMO Oracle is just angling for a piece of the pie. Their own efforts with Java ME failed because the tech was allowed to stagnate so it was a no brainer that people moved over to Android. ME is okay, but it's just not up to the task of powering a smart phone. It's too bad for Oracle, but really they only have themselves to blame. The odd thing is they could probably still carve out a niche on Android if they ported JavaFX across - it would probably be quite a nice fit.
Re:A jury Trial (Score:3, Insightful)
"Also demands a jury trial"
So you're going to grab a bunch of people 'off the street' and try to get them to understand what patents are, what software is and how this software infringes this patent. This will defentally give an honest and fair trial.
Well, based on "destruction of all copies that violate copyright (thus, wiping all Android devices)" I'd say that Oracle isn't aiming for a trial. Bringing a lawsuit like this looks very much like corporate extortion to me.
But then, I'm neither a lawyer nor an American.
Re:Two short pages are "in-depth analysis" ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Google should publish the Android layer under G (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually the GPL3 has patent wavier in it so it isn't just a license to do with copyright.
Unless Sun/Oracle released the code under GPLv3, Google can't waive Oracle's patents.
Re:This is in depth analysis? (Score:3, Insightful)
New slashdot logo for Oracle (Score:2, Insightful)
I propose a new logo for Oracle stories on Slashdot. As Oracle is obviously The Evil Empire, it should get a Death Star as its logo.
Handheld armageddon? (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, let's follow this train of thought:
- Oracle wins, forcing destruction of all copies that violate copyright.
- This means _all_ Android handsets must be not only factory reset, but zapped entirely. This also includes _all 3rd party_ apps and services from the professional and recreational community. That's _a lot_ of software.
- All Android users will be up in arms.
- Hundreds of thousands of Americans will file a class action law suit (but against whom, Google or Oracle?).
- Hundreds of thousands of non-Americans will (AFAIK?) not be able to participate in that American lawsuit, but there will most likely be a similar suit on EU-level (by users or by a trade commission).
In the end, the big loser will be the many individuals who were not able to partake in, or did not benefit from, any of the lawsuits, and/or(!) relied upon (as in: have stored data in) apps for which no other alternative exists, or whose data cannot be migrated.
Re:Google should publish the Android layer under G (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe because it was too long... ;)
I did read it, but the assertions you made in the rest of your comment showed a lack of understanding of how this legal process works.
Patents are not copyrights and it doesn't matter if Google used Oracle's code directly. Except that ironically if Google did they would have a better case to defend themselves.
The absurdity of patents is the fact that you only have to make something that does something similar to be in violation of a patent. To use a slashdot car metaphor/story - Robert Kearns invented the intermittent wipers and was granted a patent. He went to the big three automakers and they refused his offer to sale them the right to use them. Ford motor company decided that they could make their own intermittent wipers, and eventually Robert Kearns sued Ford for patent infringement. Ford settled the case for $10 million. Kearn subsequently sued Chrysler and ultimately won in court a judgement of $30 million. This was even with the auto makers arguing that the patent needed to meet some standard of originality and novelty.
Sun was granted these patents as they relate to virtual machines. Google appears to have created a clean room implementation that mimics the behavior described in those patents. Oracle the purchaser of Sun feels like they have case for patent infringement against Google and sued. Google can not refer to Microsoft's ".net" as a counter example, since Microsoft and Sun entered into a cross licensing agreement in 2003 as part of the settlement of the long dispute over Microsoft's handling of Java. Both sides have sufficient money to make this a long and drawn out court battle. Google has more to lose than Oracle. Oracle understands this and upped the ante with the severe damage relief being demanded.
I will not be surprised in the end that this is settled without a court judgement with an establishment of cross licensing agreement and some money heading Oracle's way. It's not about "right" or "wrong"... it is all about the Benjamins...