Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Oracle The Courts Your Rights Online

Oracle and Google Settlement Talks Falter; Trial Set for April 16 118

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the let-the-games-begin dept.
Fluffeh writes "Recently, a Judge ordered Oracle and Google to have yet another sit down and chat, but these talks have come to an impasse: 'Despite their diligent efforts and those of their able counsel, the parties have reached an irreconcilable impasse in their settlement discussions,' Judge Paul Grewal of US District Court for the Northern California wrote Monday. 'No further conferences shall be convened. The parties should instead direct their entire attention to the preparation of their trial presentations. Good luck.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oracle and Google Settlement Talks Falter; Trial Set for April 16

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    I'd be mad as hell if I was on that jury for weeks or months and got some stipend like $50 day, parking tickets not included.

    • by msauve (701917)
      After all, $12 million is less than they will be paying the lawyers.
    • by FatdogHaiku (978357) on Monday April 02, 2012 @10:59PM (#39556267)

      I'd be mad as hell if I was on that jury for weeks or months and got some stipend like $50 day, parking tickets not included.

      Jurors are paid an attendance fee of $40.00 per day. Regardless of means of travel, jurors also receive round-trip mileage from their home to the courthouse at the rate currently authorized by the Internal Revenue Service. The court validates juror parking at specific parking lots near the courthouse and reimburses bridge tolls when applicable.
      Source:http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/juryfaq#question_6 [uscourts.gov]

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        How many people own their own home and earn only $40 per day? The point carries even if msauve was exaggerating slightly.

      • by cbope (130292)

        I just love it, citizens of the US will stand up for trial by jury until their death, but jury service is something you always weasel out of with lame excuses.

        Listen, you live in a democracy (well... it was at one time, not so much anymore), part of your obligation as a citizen of the US is jury service, to provide for fair trials of the accused.

        • by flimflammer (956759) on Tuesday April 03, 2012 @04:09AM (#39557615)

          Many people cannot afford jury duty. The $40 a day does not cut it for many people. Of course I would "weasel" out of jury duty if it put my finances or employment in danger, especially if it was a trial between Google and Oracle, both with more money than they can throw away wrestled in lengthy trials. Employers may be forced to give you time off for jury duty, but when shit is hitting the fan at work, and even when it's not, taking that time off does not look good for you and your prospects of keeping your job. You try telling your employer that you're sorry the company is in one of the biggest crunch time periods in its history and you're one of the pivotal cogs in the machine, but you're going to be gone for a few weeks and see how long you stay employed there. It doesn't even need to be that hectic to attract the ire of your boss.

          Jury duty as it exists right now is a load of crap. Jurors should be properly reimbursed for their time if jury duty is compulsory.

          • Employers may be forced to give you time off for jury duty, but when shit is hitting the fan at work, and even when it's not, taking that time off does not look good for you and your prospects of keeping your job. You try telling your employer that you're sorry the company is in one of the biggest crunch time periods in its history and you're one of the pivotal cogs in the machine, but you're going to be gone for a few weeks and see how long you stay employed there. It doesn't even need to be that hectic to attract the ire of your boss

            What happens if you get hit by a bus? If the survival of the company relies on a single employee, that is a problem with the company, not the jury duty system.

        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          I just love it, citizens of the US will stand up for trial by jury until their death, but jury service is something you always weasel out of with lame excuses.

          Slavery is a lame excuse?

          Right now I have a flexible schedule so I would do jury duty. But when I showed up they told me to go home. Bunch of lames. When I have a full-time salaried job I'm going to get out of jury duty by any means necessary.

          Right now there's a fuckton of unemployed so there should really not be any difficulty finding someone for whom $40/day is worthwhile.

          However, are you really sure you actually get that? Because when I was looking at Jury Duty in Santa Cruz that wasn't part of the deal,

          • Right now there's a fuckton of unemployed so there should really not be any difficulty finding someone for whom $40/day is worthwhile.

            Jury is supposed to be representative of the whole society, not just the "unemployed, will sit on jury for food" part of it.

            • by drinkypoo (153816)

              Jury is supposed to be representative of the whole society, not just the "unemployed, will sit on jury for food" part of it.

              That's okay, enough of the whole society is unemployed that it makes sense now.

  • Just remember. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by philip.paradis (2580427) on Monday April 02, 2012 @10:05PM (#39555999)

    No matter who wins, the lawyers get paid, and "winning" is an ill-defined thing in fights between players like these anyhow.

    • Re:Just remember. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by poetmatt (793785) on Monday April 02, 2012 @10:24PM (#39556087) Journal

      google has shown time and time again that they a: constantly prevail in patents claims and b: absolutely refuse to settle.

      they know what they are doing, and oracle's looking at maybe a million dollars these days. Quite a far cry from the billions, right? "whoops". Then we have this new doom and gloom, some idiot investor claiming their patent is the reason why google exists.

      the microsoft fudtrain rolls on and on.

      • Re:Just remember. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by philip.paradis (2580427) on Monday April 02, 2012 @10:59PM (#39556269)

        Your post makes nearly no sense, and I'm convinced it got modded up simply because you tossed in a reference to Microsoft. Also, where did I mention Microsoft to begin with?

      • google has shown time and time again that they a: constantly prevail in patents claims and b: absolutely refuse to settle.

        Your argument is that Google will win this lawsuit because they absolutely refuse to settle and always win?

        That's not a very profound analysis of the case. Oracle has expensive lawyers too, and clearly they think they can win.

        Oracle is looking for hundreds of millions of dollars in settlement, that doesn't include future licensing fees. That's directly from the article, you would know it if you had read it instead of just trying to make fun of Microsoft.

        Of course, any time is a good time to mock Micro

        • Oracle used to want billions of dollars in settlment. But after the patent office - after Googles arguments - found most of the patents Oracle had for invalid the settlement demands nowadays are alot less. Given that the copyright claims looks very scetchy to get through it looks like the outcome will be that Oracle loses some patents and get about zilch in compensation.

          The reason they could not agree is that Oracle has not realized how badly its been going so far in the pretrial motions. Oracles demands ha

          • All it takes is one patent. You don't need a thousand. This is the way the patent system works.
            • by Anonymous Coward

              Not exactly. You can get damages for a single patent, but they won't be very high, and it paints a gigantic target on that patent as something to be worked around going forward so that there are no future royalties, which are what matter the most in this case because Android can be expected to sell a lot more in the future (as the mobile market expands) than it has in the past. That's why Oracle is so stupid: They come in here and get a bunch of their patents invalidated, and are going to end up paying like

            • by poetmatt (793785)

              Umm, no.

              See, there's damages calculated off the patents. They started in the billions, went down to millions, and now we're looking at a maximum of about a million bucks.

              • They started in the billions, went down to millions, and now we're looking at a maximum of about a million bucks.

                Google wants a million bucks. I know you're the kind of guy who is in love with Google, but that doesn't mean they are always right.

        • by DrXym (126579)
          I think Oracle was hoping for a quick settlement, in exchange for a piece of the Android pie. Look how they squandered J2ME for years and then they go seeking damages from Google on the basis of some spurious patents. I'm sure they thought they could muscle their way in and demand a few dollars licencing fee for every activated device or similar.

          Now their patents have been whittled down to a couple both of which can probably be worked around this is little more than an argument about pocket change. Even i

          • . Look how they squandered J2ME for years

            Irrelevant, and that was Sun, not Oracle. It is important that you understand 'squandering' a patent is completely irrelevant to patent cases, look at the GIF submarine patent story as a reminder.

            then they go seeking damages from Google on the basis of some spurious patents.

            They are annoying, and in my opinion, pointless, but they are hardly spurious to the law. Remember Sun actually did win $1billion with these patents from Microsoft.

            Patents are annoying, and may be easy to work around, but they can hurt. Oracle can still win big in this case (though as you mention, what is $1billi

            • by DrXym (126579)

              Irrelevant, and that was Sun, not Oracle. It is important that you understand 'squandering' a patent is completely irrelevant to patent cases, look at the GIF submarine patent story as a reminder.

              I didn't say squandered a patent. I said they squandered J2ME. Google turned up with something which in many respects is J2ME done properly and Sun / Oracle watched their market evaporate. Why would a licensee of J2ME want to stick with some antiquated piece of crap when they could have almost J2SE levels of functionality in a full blown OS AND not pay a penny for it either?

              So immediately there is an axe to grind and there is a suspicion that in doing something so close to Java / J2ME that it hits a few p

              • So it boils down to patent claims mostly relating to compiler / VM technology and most of them have been cast out as irrelevant, spurious, obvious and so on and only a couple remain, one of them due to expire this year. Even if Oracle prevails, the amount of damages they receive are going to be a pittance compared to what they expected originally.

                All it takes is one patent. Do you realize that? As one example, in 2007, Broadcomm won an injunction against Qualcomm, preventing any phones with Qualcomm technology from being imported into the US (that means basically every Sprint and Verizon phone), over two patents. It doesn't matter if only one remains, remember that.

                • by jvkjvk (102057)

                  You are simply wrong.

                  All it takes is one patent that *cannot be worked around*.

                  Since Oracle has not patented any laws of nature with these software patents, one might just as well remember the code of the algorithm:

                  There is more than one way to do it.

                  Regards

          • by tlhIngan (30335)

            I think Oracle was hoping for a quick settlement, in exchange for a piece of the Android pie. Look how they squandered J2ME for years and then they go seeking damages from Google on the basis of some spurious patents.

            You mean plundered, right? J2ME was the cash cow of Java - all those cellphones running Java on them, all paying the license fees. J2SE, J2EE, Sun could care less about them - that was all given away. It's why the patent licenses were given to J2SE implementations, but never to J2ME because peo

        • "Oracle has expensive lawyers too, and clearly they think they can win."

          Very expensive lawyers that happen to be the same very expensive lawyers that failed so catastrophically in SCO vs 'the world'. Expensive lawyers recycling the same delusional copyright theory they invented (and I chose that word deliberately) for SCO.... and when I say 'recycling' I really mean 'exactly the same'.

          Invented while thinking they had a direct share of the bazillions it would generate. Hope they're giving Larry a good discou

          • Sun won $1billion from Microsoft off those same patents.
            • No, Sun got money off Microsoft for violating the terms of their licence to Java.

              Android doesn't have Java a licence to violate. That's a large part of why it's not going well for Oracle.

              • Sun got money off Microsoft for violating the terms of their licence to Java.

                Good, you know some things. What else did Sun get money for?

      • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

        by bonch (38532) *

        Google doesn't constantly prevail in patent claims. For example, they lost a Linux server kernel patent case last year and had to pay $5 million to Bedrock Computer Technologies.

      • by gtall (79522)

        Microsoft had nothing to do with this one. Here's the scene, a bright sunny meeting room at the top of Oracle Central Command. Sun lawyers and Oracle lawyers beadily eye each other across a polished table. Secretaries flutter about delivering yellow legal pads, pencils, and coffee. Uncle Larry has made his appearance and is now off to polish his yacht. The lead Oracle attorney speaks: so about this Java thing, youse guys think this is worth a lot? Sun lawyers: yep, beeelllions and beeellions of dollars. An

      • Agreed, Oracle is probably going to have their asses handed to them. They are often irrational whereas Google certainly is not.

  • Silly question, I know. Isn't this the part where they realise they're on the same side and team up to beat up Apple?
    • by sosume (680416)

      Ellison and Jobs were BFFs, don't count on Oracle going after anoyone else but Apple's competitors.

  • by mark-t (151149) <markt@@@lynx...bc...ca> on Monday April 02, 2012 @11:30PM (#39556397) Journal

    ... for Oracle if Oracle completely lost this?

    Also, what would it mean for Google if Oracle was entitled to everything they asked for?

    I'm just curious. What are some possible scenarios that could arise from this? What could it mean for Java? What could it mean for Android? What about other parties?

    • by ohnocitizen (1951674) on Monday April 02, 2012 @11:58PM (#39556547)
      If Oracle loses, Larry Ellison will owe Bill Gates $1. If Oracle wins, Larry Ellison will win $1 from Bill Gates, and has permission to open a bottle of no no juice for a totally grown up celebration.
    • Well regardless of who wins (the lawyers!), the outcome I'm hoping for is whereby Google and Oracle collaborate on the future of Java. Meaning:
      • Google licenses the openjdk class libraries under the GPL + Classpath Exception
      • Oracle modularises Java (Project Jigsaw, Kernel JVM) so that reduced footprints can be deployed by default on restrained devices
      • Oracle assists in JCK testing of dalvik as a certifiable JVM - 'legacy' swing apps on your Android tablet
      • Oracle adandons the outdated Java ME
      • Oracle abandons the
      • by symbolset (646467) *
        This is going to not happen.
      • the outcome I'm hoping for is whereby Google and Oracle collaborate on the future of Java

        Neither should own the future of Java, which is just a language and as such should not be firmly in the commons.

      • by rec9140 (732463)

        April Fools was Sunday... Nice try...

        None of that is even remotely going to happen.

        The only thing LtT (Larry the Tyrannt) wants is $$$$ to purchase more yachts.

        The only that is going to happen is appeal regardless of who wins, and the only way the google can put this ogre out of business is to slay it with some sort of the same crap... patents...and lawsuits.... not my thing... but that unfortunately is now the norm, sadly.

  • If they failed how can they still be considered "able counsel".
    self-aggrandizing definitely, able, not so much.
  • I have a solution. License and update Android with .NET, and host the legacy apps with something like this: http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Lang-NEXT/Lang-NEXT-2012/IKVM-NET-Building-a-Java-VM-on-the-NET-Framework
    -Scott

The universe is like a safe to which there is a combination -- but the combination is locked up in the safe. -- Peter DeVries

Working...