Print 17 comment(s) - last by eachus.. on Mar 27 at 4:39 PM

  (Source: Trip Advisor/James Lynwood)
Google may pay a bit in ongoing licensing fees, but the settlement for past damages will be small

Oracle Corp. (ORCL) aggressively pursued Google Inc. (GOOG) for reportedly knowingly infringing on Oracle's Java intellectual property via an unlicensed Apache open source distribution.  The Java IP had been acquired by Oracle in its April 2009 acquisition of Sun Microsystems.

I. From a $6B USD Case to a $100M USD One

In Oracle's lawsuit, both sides fought hard in court.  Oracle scored court permission to use multiple emails from top Google executives and Android engineers, which cumulatively indicated that it may have knowingly have violated Oracle's intellectual property.  Google returned fire, airing a 2007 statement from ex-Sun Microsystems CEO Jonathan Schwartz endorsing Google's use, which indicated that it might have been unofficially authorized/condoned after all.

However, it appears Google is prepared to come out relatively well from the patent dispute.  While Oracle had sought up to $6.1B USD in infringement damages, ultimately, it will almost certainly end up with less than $100M USD in damages for pass infringement.

That's a huge win for Google and its Android partners.

The lower settlement estimations come based on Oracle's expert witness Dr. Iain M. Cockburn, who is a professor of finance and economics at Boston University.  Dr. Cockburn initially had delivered an estimate of $1.4B-$6.1B USD.

U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup, who at times has admonished both Google and Oracle, voiced critism about Dr. Cockburn's initial approach.  He pointed out that of Oracle's 22 acquired Java patents, Dr. Cockburn had drastically upgraded the value of the 6 in contention in the case.  He ruled that only an equal valuation of the entire portfolio was possible.

II. Oracle Sets Its Sights Lower

Dr. Cockburn was forced to deliver a new valuation, which was much lower.  Ultimately it looks like Oracle may get ~$5M USD for direct infringment of U.S. Patent No. 5966702 "Method And Apparatus For Preprocessing And Packaging Class Files", and U.S. Patent No. 6910205 "Interpreting Functions Utilizing A Hybrid Of Virtual And Native Machine Instructions", according to Groklaw.

It will then get an extra $27M-$37M USD for the copyright infringement.  Overall this will all stack up to about $40M USD.

Android smartphones
Android may get off in the Oracle lawsuit surprisingly easy [Image Source: Android and Me]

Here's where it get's a bit confusing -- Oracle has already withdrew its claim on the '205 patent, as it was invalidated by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.  But Google is now also being sued for another second patent -- U.S. Patent No. 6,061,520 "Method and system for performing static initialization".  This won't likely lead to any big shift in the settlement amount, but it means there may be a mistake in some of the court documents from Google/Judge Alsup, printed by Groklaw, which refer to the '205 (invalid) patent, when in fact it appears they mean the '520 (asserted) patent.

What does all this mean?  Google will likely pay less that $100M USD in damages, a small slap to the world's largest smartphone OS maker.  It will likely have to pay a bit of ongoing royalties, but with only 2 asserted patents, it's unclear whether that sum will be truly that onerous versus the 6, highly overvalued patents that Oracle originally hoped to beat money out of Google with.

Source: Groklaw

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: Poor Tony
By drycrust3 on 3/24/2012 5:39:24 PM , Rating: 2
the copyright part of the case still has the potential to give Oracle huge leverage over Google

Sun released most of the Java code under the GNU General Public Licence in 2006. If there was any breech of the licence by Google, then that is a matter between the Free Software Foundation (as the owners of GNU GPL) and Google, not between Oracle (as the purchasers of Sun) and Google. I don't see how Oracle have a case at all.

RE: Poor Tony
By sprockkets on 3/25/2012 4:53:22 PM , Rating: 2
If you release code previously not under the GPL to the GPL license, you still own the code. It just carries less restrictions. If someone were to violate that license, it would be the owner of that code, not FSF that would deal with it.

Although there is a company whose sole business is to help with GPL violations.

"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs

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