Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Oracle v. Google Trial On Indefinite Hold

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the hurry-up-and-wait dept.

Android 66

symbolset writes "The trial in which Oracle is suing Google over Android has been put on indefinite hold by the trial judge, until Oracle comes up with a credible methodology for figuring alleged damages. The trial was planned to start on or after March 19."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First Post on indefininte hold (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38690718)

Because I just got it!

But he's Larry Ellison... (2)

crovira (10242) | more than 2 years ago | (#38690740)

What other proof do you need???

Pricless! (2)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38690760)

er... The judges decision, not the IP.

Re:Pricless! (2)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#38691022)

Wha?

You're absolutely correct. The IP in this case is worth absolutely zero, because the patents in this lawsuit are questionable at best.

Re:Pricless! (4, Informative)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#38691310)

It's better than that, too.

Oracle is responsible for delays which is jeopardizing its own case. If you read through the Groklaw articles about this case, it's pretty clear that Oracle's patents are being disintegrated by the Patent and Trademark Office's reexaminations. [cnet.com] . They've already lost about half of their asserted claims [groklaw.net] in the case, and they run the risk of further invalidation of the patents they're asserting here if they delay any further.

It would be hilariously ironic if they finally come up with a credible damages assessment just about the same time all of their patents completely evaporate.

Grocklaw ultimate irony (2)

Will.Woodhull (1038600) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693988)

To quote Slashdot's favorite legal assistant:

"After seeing these filings I can't help but note the irony (and hubris) of a company choosing to name itself Oracle when it seems to be incapable of "giving wise or authoritative decisions or opinions."

Re:Grocklaw ultimate irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38695060)

To quote Slashdot's favorite legal assistant:

"After seeing these filings I can't help but note the irony (and hubris) of a company choosing to name itself Oracle when it seems to be incapable of "giving wise or authoritative decisions or opinions."

All articles by pj say so, so this one is by Mark Webbink, Esq.

Re:Pricless! (3, Insightful)

gutnor (872759) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694558)

Too bad the judges are not so discerning with the small people. Oracle needs to come with a convincing methodology. Does the RIAA have one ? Also, since regardless who win, the end-user will not be affected whatsoever - I think that would be better for Oracle to win to highlight in a bit more spectacular fashion the idiocy of the current patent system. (well, hopefully there is still some fun to be had on the mobile market - hopefully they don't settle and cross-license )

Re:Pricless! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38698212)

I feel for the RIAA abused, but comparing patents to copyright just can't work. Two distinct animals.

Re:Pricless! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38691426)

As this is Slashdot, and the party being sued is Google, I think the only possible acceptable valuation is negative. Oracle must pay Google a "happiness tax" because Google existing is the best thing to happen to nerds ever.

Out of curiosity, do you even know anything about the patents? I know most Slashdotters take a superficial view of everything they don't understand, declare it obvious, then masturbate all over themselves in comments here, so I assume that's what you're doing, but I may be wrong.

Re:Pricless! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38692054)

Actually, most of the herd seems to take your position. Many of us have looked at the patents, as have many others. All but three patents are complete bullshit and extremely obvious. Basically, they should have NEVER been approved in the first place. Of the remaining three, one is seriously suspect but simply required deeper inspection. Which basically means, of the long list of patents Oracle clubbed Google over the head with, only two MIGHT have ANY validity. And of the two, its widely believed only ONE is worthy of any actual research and even that one is reasonably bogus.

Long story short, if by "masturabte", you mean, "ignore bullshit by ignorant masses on slashdot", then you're spot on.

Stratospheric numbers (5, Insightful)

Gibgezr (2025238) | more than 2 years ago | (#38690764)

"For this “delay,” Oracle has no one to blame but itself, given that twice now it has advanced improper methodologies obviously calculated to reach stratospheric numbers." - Judge Alsup He isn't pulling any punches, is he?

Re:Stratospheric numbers (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38690820)

I understand that Oracle based their damages calculations on the scheme they use for licensing charges.

Re:Stratospheric numbers (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38690848)

Again, the judge here wants a credible methodology, not the patented numerical rectal extraction technique that Oracle uses for that.

Re:Stratospheric numbers (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38692282)

Would he go for a supracephalic estimate?

Re:Stratospheric numbers (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#38691334)

I thought they tried licensing Java to Google for Android for just under 2 billion, and now want over 6 billion in damages.

Re:Stratospheric numbers (2, Informative)

CarlDenny (415322) | more than 2 years ago | (#38691522)

Willful patent infringement is 3x damages. So if they asked for $2billion up front, $6billion is a reasonable extrapolation.

Not that any part of the patent process in tech is reasonable.

Re:Stratospheric numbers (4, Insightful)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 2 years ago | (#38691336)

> Oracle has no one to blame but itself

Where does this judge live? The MPAA, RIAA, and BSA have been doing this for years, now, no? And as far as I know, no US judge has called them out when they cite their "research" as background information in a court case.

Re:Stratospheric numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38691500)

Where does this judge live? The MPAA, RIAA, and BSA have been doing this for years, now, no? And as far as I know, no US judge has called them out when they cite their "research" as background information in a court case.

They have been using statutory damages as defined by law. Once again, the congress-heavy portfolio pays off!

Re:Stratospheric numbers (3, Insightful)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#38691502)

> Oracle has no one to blame but itself

Where does this judge live? The MPAA, RIAA, and BSA have been doing this for years, now, no? And as far as I know, no US judge has called them out when they cite their "research" as background information in a court case.

I don't think MPAA or RIAA has been suing anyone on patents grounds yet.

Re:Stratospheric numbers (4, Informative)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 2 years ago | (#38691916)

Using RIAA methodologies results with damages exceeding the entire economic output of the entire world for several decades. MPAA methodologies result in neither Oracle or Google ever having turned a profit despite both being among the most successful companies of all time.

Re:Stratospheric numbers (2)

gv250 (897841) | more than 2 years ago | (#38691364)

Oracle was actually hoping for astronomical numbers. By asking for only stratospheric numbers, they were hoping to appear reasonable by comparison.

On-hold but not cancelled (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 2 years ago | (#38691622)

Rather than an "indefinite on-hold period" where the lawyers are on standby, why not give them a hold period with a firm deadline (after which the case is dropped if Oracle can't produce)?

Re:Stratospheric numbers (3, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#38692652)

"For this âoedelay,â Oracle has no one to blame but itself, given that twice now it has advanced improper methodologies obviously calculated to reach stratospheric numbers." - Judge Alsup He isn't pulling any punches, is he?

Well, it's an indefinite hold. Which means that the longer it goes on, the more painful it can get. Oracle may simple just wait until the numbers are right.

Given $2B in damagers, and Google has admitted to at least 200M Android devices have been activated, that's $10/device. One reasonable method is to see how much Oracle charges for a J2ME license to begin with (it's one of the biggest sources of money in Java - given all the featurephones out there with a JVM).

Oracle may argue that since Samsung/LG/HTC pay Microsoft around $5 per Android to license Microsoft's patents, perhaps since Oracle's is more fundamental to Android (being possibly related to the whole runtime system), they ought to get $10 per device.

And they can argue that since the true number of Android devices out there isn't known because of its open-source nature, blah blah blah...

The MPAA/RIAA can ask for huge numbers becaues there isn't concrete numbers to base their numbers off of. Here there are, at least official Google Android numbers, and they don't work out to something completely crazy like $150,000 per 99 cent track.

Re:Stratospheric numbers (3, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693716)

Well, it's an indefinite hold. Which means that the longer it goes on, the more painful it can get. Oracle may simple just wait until the numbers are right.

If Oracle doesn't produce a viable calculation (and even before they next produce one -- the court is still considering whether they get a third try or not) then they simply don't get to put their theory on damages forward at all. And they don't have unlimited basis to put forward new theories, they have to cure specific problems in their previously-advanced calculations.

Re:Stratospheric numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38696038)

"For this “delay,” Oracle has no one to blame but itself, given that twice now it has advanced improper methodologies obviously calculated to reach stratospheric numbers." - Judge Alsup

He isn't pulling any punches, is he?

Ah a judge with common sense.
A pity technology can't clone him. We seriously need judges of his temper in the US courts.

Credible? (4, Insightful)

Kid Zero (4866) | more than 2 years ago | (#38690772)

Credible Methodology? That doesn't stop the MPAA/RIAA....

Re:Credible? (1)

epdp14 (1318641) | more than 2 years ago | (#38690812)

Thats why the MAFIAA quickly drops suit when they try their crap against someone with deep pockets. (as Oracle is finding out about Google now)

Re:Credible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38690878)

That's because the AAs don't decide damages. The existing law does.

Re:Credible? (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38691000)

Precisely and as long as they can ask for statutory damages there's very little that the judge can do. I think pretty much the only thing the judicial system can do is find the practice unconstitutional.

This is why courts generally require the plaintiff to prove damages, it's easy to ask for a figure and harder to ask for an appropriate sum.

Re:Credible? (2)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | more than 2 years ago | (#38692248)

RIAA: Statutory damages = $150,000, actual damages = $0.50 (lost wholesale price). Amount of punitive damages = $149,999.50, which is 299,999x the actual damages. The constitutional limit on punitive damages 10x actual damages.

Re:Credible? (1)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 2 years ago | (#38691106)

Doesn't stop MPAA/RIAA to sue people. To win actually...well, it is totally different story.

This is classic bully mentality. When you answer to their challenge not in their level, they start to drag their feet.

Re:Credible? (2)

hey! (33014) | more than 2 years ago | (#38692610)

That's irrelevant. Oracle is suing a company with the cash to fight back. That makes it a "big" case, and I suspect big cases get better judges.

In any case crazy damage claims are part of the "shock and awe" campaign by the *AA's. It's the "no bad publicity" principle. If they don't win those damages, the *claim* makes news. If they're awarded what they claim and it's overturned on appeal, they get *two* bites of the publicity apple.

Re:Credible? (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693358)

That's because the MPAA/RIAA only sue individuals, not real people

humour (4, Funny)

rwv (1636355) | more than 2 years ago | (#38690884)

From TFA:

After seeing these filings I can't help but note the irony (and hubris) of a company choosing to name itself Oracle when it seems to be incapable of "giving wise or authoritative decisions or opinions."

Is Groklaw usually this funny?

Re:humour (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38690968)

To you, it is hitting 100%. So, yes.

Re:humour (1)

HBI (604924) | more than 2 years ago | (#38690980)

No.

Re:humour (3, Funny)

nomorecwrd (1193329) | more than 2 years ago | (#38691180)

The Oracle has always being misleading in its answers.

Re:humour (1)

CarsonChittom (2025388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38691244)

Would that be the Internet Oracle [indiana.edu] ?

Re:The Oracle (2)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693552)

Can we get some Matrix Analogies?

Will Oracle Now Drop Java? (2, Interesting)

turkeyfish (950384) | more than 2 years ago | (#38691038)

Now that their primary purpose for buying Sun's Java technology is no longer useful to them, ie leveraging Java as a way of extorting profits, will Ellison abandon Java? Both are costing him a lot of money without material benefit. At some point will he give up the ghost and just abandon the whole thing or will he keep pumping money into it, hoping against hope to hit pay dirt?

Re:Will Oracle Now Drop Java? (2)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 2 years ago | (#38691304)

Lot of Oracle products rely on Java (data mining/business analyst stuff), so it's not very likely. They just like too much governing over JSR/JCP.

Re:Will Oracle Now Drop Java? (2)

PerfectionLost (1004287) | more than 2 years ago | (#38691326)

Doubtful. PeopleSoft runs on a backend of Java Application Servers like tomcat or BEA (which they also own), and PeopleSoft is extrodinarily profitable.

Re:Will Oracle Now Drop Java? (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 2 years ago | (#38691636)

My mother's Blu-Ray player runs Java.... it's surprising (and a bit scary) how many places it turns up.

Re:Will Oracle Now Drop Java? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38691862)

All blu-ray players support Java, it's part of the requirements and how they implement the menus.

Re:Will Oracle Now Drop Java? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38691894)

So do the DVR's that time warner cable uses. If you reboot the box you can watch around 5 different company logo's end up being displayed. Oracle, and Java being two of the logos that are displayed.

Re:Will Oracle Now Drop Java? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38691356)

Now that their primary purpose for buying Sun's Java technology is no longer useful to them, ie leveraging Java as a way of extorting profits, will Ellison abandon Java? Both are costing him a lot of money without material benefit. At some point will he give up the ghost and just abandon the whole thing or will he keep pumping money into it, hoping against hope to hit pay dirt?

Ummm, no. The main reason Oracle bought java is that almost all of Oracle's software stack depends on java.

Without java, Oracle would be nearly helpless. A hostile java owner could cause Oracle an enormous amount of grief.

Anything else that Oracle can get out of java is just icing on the cake.

Re:Will Oracle Now Drop Java? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38691510)

1. It's not over. Indefinite hold != infinite hold.

2. What do you mean by "drop"? Just close up shop and not do anything with it anymore? I doubt you'll ever see a promise not assert their patents... so from that standpoint are they ever going to drop it? Fire all the developers, maybe. Fire all the lawyers? Never.

Been following this just about every day (0)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#38691044)

I keep a tab open to Groklaw to see what's going on over there. It's always very interesting. The coverage of this and other cases are interesting and entertaining.

Most of us are rooting 'against Oracle' in this case I believe. It would not be fair to say rooting for Google in this case because I don't. I have an interest in Android on phones, tablets and more recently, cameras. But I don't root for Google because I don't like what they are. Maybe it doesn't make sense to most people here, but I dislike modern marketing and advertising techniques and methods. Google is 'nice' and quite generous to its users, but in the end, they are what they are you know?

On the other hand, Oracle is a large, ugly, greedy, behemoth and I would love to see them disappear. In practice, I avoid products that use and especially those that require I buy Oracle licenses for anything. I do not hold their terms to be reasonable or logical.

Smooth judge (1)

TankSpanker04 (1266400) | more than 2 years ago | (#38691072)

FTFA:

"But Google's petition to the appeals court over the email is also in the way, according to Alsup's ruling Thursday. "If Oracle will waive reliance on that email, then this roadblock would vanish," he wrote."

It's interesting to me that the judge is the one assisting in negotiations between Oracle and Google instead of general counsel. It seems obvious to Alsup even before trial that neither the clumsy infringer nor the litigious patent troll will otherwise meet in the middle.

who is this guy? (2)

Un pobre guey (593801) | more than 2 years ago | (#38691194)

What? What kind of judge doesn't impose ex recto damages? What planet is he from?

Re:who is this guy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38693348)

ha! you said recto..

Re:who is this guy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38696198)

whoosh

Re:who is this guy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38699662)

your mom's a whoosh

A Matter of Perspective... (1)

billybob_jcv (967047) | more than 2 years ago | (#38691354)

"For this 'delay,' Oracle has no one to blame but itself, given that twice now it has advanced improper methodologies obviously calculated to reach stratospheric numbers,"

"stratospheric numbers" for the rest of the world is pocket change to Larry.

My dream outcome... (1)

exabrial (818005) | more than 2 years ago | (#38691530)

Android made Java relevant in the mobile smartphone revolution. J2ME is so 1999.

As such, Android is good business for Oracle. They should strike a deal where Oracle becomes a stakeholder in the Android Open Source project. The, a cross-licensing patent deal. The finally, hold hands while they piss on Jobs' memorial, and sue Apple back into the insignificance where they belong.

Re:My dream outcome... (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 2 years ago | (#38695038)

Larry Ellison was Steve Job's best friend, literally.

Ellison's Turn (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38691604)

OK, so now Jobs is gone, now it's Ellison's turn. Car wreck, cancer, I don't care.

English Translation (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 2 years ago | (#38691620)

Oracle, why don't you come back and talk to me when you decide to stop being retarded OK?

Clearly the fragmentation has gotten to Oracle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38691852)

It is obvious that the fragmentation issues that continue to plague Android have contaminated the Oracle Java product and they are in the midst of getting as far away from it as possible. Why would they want to win a fight over something so fragmented? I think Eric Schmidt said it best when he admitted "We aren't doing enough to reduce the [fragmentation problem] in Android". Well, his quote was pretty close to that so who cares?

Yours in shillville...

DCtech, SharkLaser and

OF COURSE, BONCH!

"uh, I don't have everybody's money. (1)

swschrad (312009) | more than 2 years ago | (#38692360)

"that's my methodology, judge. got any cash? hand it over. I've got a devil beard and I'm impatient."

perhaps the judge should declare Java free to all birds, beasts, and men of good character in the realm.

Oracle v. Google Trial On Indefinite Hold (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38693392)

Who is holding their iPhone wrong?

Oracle damage calculation method (2)

mbkennel (97636) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694042)

Larry: I hold up my pinky, and it tells me the number. Like a fucking oracle, it is.

That's easy (1)

strangeattraction (1058568) | more than 2 years ago | (#38695106)

What is the total amount of damages from something you in no way make money from? $0 duh>

Re:That's easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38704888)

Are you really suggesting Oracle doesn't make money from Java? All sorts of people license Java tech, not to mention it's a corner stone of their primary product...

You cannot make this $&%! up. (1)

clyde_cadiddlehopper (1052112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38698470)

The inflated damage amount was calculated by Professor Cockburn.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?