Print 36 comment(s) - last by shompa.. on Jul 28 at 10:50 AM

Google's Andy Rubin (pictured) is accused of conducting "brazen" infringement of Oracle Java intellectual property on behalf of his employer, as evidenced by a 2005 email in which Rubin, seems to acknowledge that Google may be sued.  (Source: Stephen Shankland/CNET)

Oracle wants to milk a lucrative licensing settlement out of Google, as well as damages. While a big damages payday was hurt by the recent ruling, the chances of Google being forced to licensed appear to have increased.  (Source: Reuters)
Google scores a win, though, in reducing damage amount from $2.6B USD

Oracle Corp.'s (ORCL) efforts to milk billions of dollars in damages out of Google Inc. (GOOG) were likely stymied last Friday, when U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup partially granted a request by Google to throw out Oracle's $2.6B USD in proposed damages.

The suit [Scribd] dates back almost a year to August 12, 2010.  Oracle accused Google of infringing upon its intellectual property, based on certain files contained within Google's popular Android operating system.  Namely, Android was accused of using source code from the Apache distribution of Java, which did not properly license the Java-related intellectual property of Sun Microsystems. Oracle acquired Sun on January 12, 2010 after a process initiated in April 2009.

Surprisingly, Google did not counter-sue.  And Google seemingly admitted to knowing that the Apache code was in violation.  However, Google complained that Sun's intellectual property was overly generic and that Sun (and later Oracle) were being anticompetitive in trying to charge prohibitively large licensing fees.

So far, the courts have likely supported Google on the former claim.  Approximately 90 percent of the Oracle patents examined were ruled invalid, on par with the standard for patent litigation.

However, on the latter claim -- that Oracle is being unfair -- Judge Alsup was unsympathetic.  He quotes a 2005 email from Android chief Andy Rubin, who writes [Scribd]:

If Sun doesn't want to work with us, we have two options: 1) Abandon our work and adopt MSFT CLR VM and C# language - or - 2) Do Java anyway and defend our decision, perhaps making enemies along the way

That language, Judge Alsup reasons is "Soviet-style negotiation" and "brazen" disregard of intellectual property rights.  He opines:

This would be a Soviet-style negotiation: "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable."... The test is not what the infringer actually bargained for but what reasonable parties would have negotiated. Google may have simply been brazen, preferring to roll the dice on possible litigation rather than to pay a fair price.

While the ruling was generally supportive of Oracle, it makes one very significant stance against the technology giant.  Namely, it dismisses Oracle's theory that since parts of Android are accused of infringing, that all of Android is effectively infringing.  Rather, Judge Alsup writes, the relative value of the potentially infringing parts must be the basis of the damages -- not the value of Android as a whole.

The good news for Google is this means it likely won't have to give a windfall payout to Oracle.  Oracle can try to come up with a revised damages claim that's higher, but the company's prospects of being award over a billion in damages appear to be dwindling.

The bad news for Google is that the language of the ruling is generally very unfavorable for it.  Thus if Oracle prevails, while it may only obtain a small settlement, it may be able to obtain an injunction preventing the sale of all Android handsets.  This would force Google to pay likely large licensing fees to Oracle, on top of the fees its partners already pay or are being pressured to pay to Microsoft Corp. (MSFT).

If that wasn't bad news enough for the producer of world's leading smartphone operating system, Google still has to worry about Apple, Inc. (AAPL) who is currently suing all three [1][2][3][4][5] of the world's top Android manufacturers -- Motorola Solutions Inc. (MSI), Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (SEO:005930), and HTC Corp. (TPE:2498).

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Bad Decision?
By DigitalFreak on 7/25/2011 3:33:19 PM , Rating: 1
... and yet it's still beating iOS devices in sales.

RE: Bad Decision?
By DigitalFreak on 7/25/2011 3:33:57 PM , Rating: 2
iOS based phones, rather

RE: Bad Decision?
By melgross on 7/25/2011 3:42:53 PM , Rating: 2
Of course, you can get Android phones for $10, two for the price of one, for free, etc. Apple isn't competing at the bottom of the barrel. The only cheap iPhone you can buy is the over two year old 3GS, which is still more popular than most Android phones. But there are over 300 models of Android phones, compared to two iPhones, and the iPhone is still not available in anywhere near as many countries or carriers.

There are a handful of countries that do sell the iPhone cheaply, or give it away with a contract, but it's rare.

RE: Bad Decision?
By sigmatau on 7/25/2011 5:14:09 PM , Rating: 2
And you could get an iPhone 3GS for under $50 for about a year now. Those Android phones you mentioned are on the lower end. Unlike Apple, Android phones do have sales on newer hardware.

RE: Bad Decision?
By Ilfirin on 7/25/2011 4:00:44 PM , Rating: 2
The only way Google could have made the Android any worse, from a developer perspective, is if they chose to go with Objective-C AND allow the infinite carrier and IHV customizations that has enabled the platform fragmentation/inability to update any phones (note: Windows Mobile, before WP7, did this as well - it was what ultimately killed the OS). Objective-C, alone, without the fragmentation makes iOS development *slightly* less painful than Android. But only slightly. Actually I wouldn't even say it's better at all, except for the fact that you generally make a lot more money with iOS apps than you do with Android apps. So you get paid for your pain.

I'm sorry I just don't like having to write a version of my application for every single combination of Carrier & Handset out there. You can't just write an 'Android' app and have it run on Android. You have to have thousands of 'platform version checks' splattered all around your code to detect when you're running an HTC Desire, or a Motorolla Droid, or if you're on Verizon's version of the code for that handset or one of the other providers, etc. It's a miserable nightmare.

Seriously, go make an android or iOS app using the languages and tools they provide and then go back to C# in Visual Studio and tell me you wouldn't be a LOT happier with the latter.

RE: Bad Decision?
By FITCamaro on 7/25/2011 4:55:28 PM , Rating: 1
How does a particular version of the OS on one manufacturer's handsets differ from that on another carrier's?

I ask this for development knowledge.

RE: Bad Decision?
By sprockkets on 7/25/11, Rating: 0
RE: Bad Decision?
By os2baba on 7/26/2011 9:51:37 AM , Rating: 2
What a load of crock! I write Android apps and I don't have different versions for different phones and carriers. You do have to tweak for different OS versions. This is no different than doing it for various iOS versions or writing a desktop app. If you don;t use absolute positioning and use device independent pixels, your app will run on multiple screen sizes without any problem - the reason why so many Android apps run just fine on tablets without having to be recoded (they should be to take advantage of the real estate, but they don't *need* to).

I do agree that emulators can help only so much and you will end up having to test on multiple devices. But you will only discover trivial issues.

Certain apps that stress the hardware (Angry Birds comes to mind), has to be coded for less powerful devices. No different than Rage HD working only on later iPhones.

RE: Bad Decision?
By rs2 on 7/27/2011 7:16:13 PM , Rating: 1
More nonsense. Visual Studio is one of the worst IDE's ever conceived. If that it your preferred development environment, then it is speaking volumes about your breadth and experience as a developer. And none of it is positive.

“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki