News & Analysis
Comment
t.alex
Totally agree. Oracle is 'doing evil' here.
Luis Sanchez
And... what's going to happen with Android if Oracle wins? Will Android mobile ...
Three things are clear in Oracle vs. Google
Rick Merritt
4/20/2012 9:59 AM EDT
SAN JOSE – Three things are clear about Oracle’s Java patent infringement suit against Google’s Android: It will likely drag on for years, it poses a great but remote risk to Android and Java developers and it will make for lots of fascinating reading.
When the suit was filed nearly two years ago, we predicted it wouldn’t dampen enthusiasm for Android. Indeed the mobile operating systems has now become the most widely used smartphone OS and has expanded its popularity across the diverse embedded systems terrain.
Nevertheless, the case poses the risk Google might be forced to change parts of the Android code, fragmenting what has become a leading open source software platform. That’s a remote possibility to be sure, but if it came to pass it would be the equivalent of an earthquake for mobile and embedded developers.
Ironically, about a year after the case was filed James Gosling, the father of Java at Sun Microsystems, joined Google. After Oracle acquired Sun, Gosling expressed concerns about Oracle’s plans around Java.
"During our integration meetings between Sun and Oracle, where we were being grilled about the patent situation between Sun and Google, we could see the Oracle lawyer’s eyes sparkle," said Gosling in his blog where he notes he has left Google for a robotics company.
The good news is the case makes for fascinating reading, and there’s a lot to read. Slides of the opening arguments from Oracle and from Google are both available online as is the initial case filing.
The most chilling part of the suit for Android users is the following claim from Oracle: "Users of Android, including device manufacturers, must obtain and use copyrightable portions of the Java platform or works derived therefrom to manufacture and use functioning Android devices," Oracle claims in its suit.
The case hit the headlines this week as chief executives from both companies took the stand. The LA Times said Google’s Larry Page was evasive, and one analyst said Oracle’s Larry Ellison stumbled.
Among the many reporters and bloggers following the case, Florian Mueller stands out as one focused on the current mobile patent wars. He shared a helpful link of journalists tweeting from the courtroom for those who want ongoing coverage.
Mueller is providing plenty of remote analysis on the trial, including his take on 37 Oracle APIs in Android and the $700 million argument between Google and Oracle.
When the suit was filed nearly two years ago, we predicted it wouldn’t dampen enthusiasm for Android. Indeed the mobile operating systems has now become the most widely used smartphone OS and has expanded its popularity across the diverse embedded systems terrain.
Nevertheless, the case poses the risk Google might be forced to change parts of the Android code, fragmenting what has become a leading open source software platform. That’s a remote possibility to be sure, but if it came to pass it would be the equivalent of an earthquake for mobile and embedded developers.
Ironically, about a year after the case was filed James Gosling, the father of Java at Sun Microsystems, joined Google. After Oracle acquired Sun, Gosling expressed concerns about Oracle’s plans around Java.
"During our integration meetings between Sun and Oracle, where we were being grilled about the patent situation between Sun and Google, we could see the Oracle lawyer’s eyes sparkle," said Gosling in his blog where he notes he has left Google for a robotics company.
The good news is the case makes for fascinating reading, and there’s a lot to read. Slides of the opening arguments from Oracle and from Google are both available online as is the initial case filing.
The most chilling part of the suit for Android users is the following claim from Oracle: "Users of Android, including device manufacturers, must obtain and use copyrightable portions of the Java platform or works derived therefrom to manufacture and use functioning Android devices," Oracle claims in its suit.
The case hit the headlines this week as chief executives from both companies took the stand. The LA Times said Google’s Larry Page was evasive, and one analyst said Oracle’s Larry Ellison stumbled.
Among the many reporters and bloggers following the case, Florian Mueller stands out as one focused on the current mobile patent wars. He shared a helpful link of journalists tweeting from the courtroom for those who want ongoing coverage.
Mueller is providing plenty of remote analysis on the trial, including his take on 37 Oracle APIs in Android and the $700 million argument between Google and Oracle.
|
|
|
|
|
Navigate to related information
dblaza1
4/20/2012 1:27 PM EDT
This is the ultimate clash of business models; open source vs. paid, who wins will affect what we all pay for code
Sign in to Reply
Robotics Developer
4/20/2012 1:42 PM EDT
It seems pretty clear to me that the documents cited in the Oracle pdf file from Google indicate that Google knew and was originally looking to license Java APIs etc. I am wondering how Google thinks they can avoid this type of patent lawsuit (especially given the popularity of Android AND the fragmentation it causes). Anyone have insight on this?
Sign in to Reply
betajet
4/20/2012 2:01 PM EDT
IMO groklaw.net is the best place to read about the history of this case and the current goings-on at the trial including play-by-play reporting by volunteers. Addressing the patent question, my understanding is that most of the patents Oracle asserted have been found invalid by reexamination by the USPTO, one may be found invalid, and the other Google claims not to infringe. It's very dangerous to assert patents against Google since they are in such a good position to search for and find prior art, rendering the patent invalid.
Sign in to Reply
Robotics Developer
4/20/2012 1:47 PM EDT
It seems pretty clear to me that Google knew it needed licenses from their own emails cited in the Oracle pdf file. Why did they not just pay for it up front? I would love to know/understand how they can think otherwise. I may not have Patents but I hope that something as clear as this is settled quickly and fairly. I would hate to think that this could happen to something I had developed.
Sign in to Reply
jdesbonnet
4/20/2012 2:04 PM EDT
Please note that Florian Mueller is not exactly an impartial observer. See this post at Groklaw:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120419070127103
Sign in to Reply
rick.merritt
4/21/2012 1:24 AM EDT
Thanks for the link
Sign in to Reply
PJames
4/20/2012 5:43 PM EDT
Can't argue that a movie that pits Mothra against Godzilla isn't a lot of fun to watch.
Sign in to Reply
markhahn
4/20/2012 11:13 PM EDT
imagine a "sporting" contest like cock fighting, except monkeys in the ring. and they battle by throwing feces at each other. _that_ is why I don't like following this patent fight.
Sign in to Reply
t.alex
4/22/2012 11:09 AM EDT
Oracle made a smart move buying over Sun sometime back. Now it's time to claim a lot of things..
Sign in to Reply
KB3001
4/22/2012 12:59 PM EDT
As a consumer, I hope Oracle loses the case! The precedent this case would set if Orcale wins it is just too dreadful to contemplate!
Sign in to Reply
t.alex
4/29/2012 8:28 AM EDT
Totally agree. Oracle is 'doing evil' here.
Sign in to Reply
xorbit
4/23/2012 6:24 PM EDT
Buying and selling patents should just not be allowed. Did Oracle invent Java? No they didn't. Why should they be allowed to "buy" the legal right to claim that they invented it, which is clearly not true? When the real inventor clearly disagrees with what they're doing?
Why is it considered OK to rewrite history on who invented what, and go to court based on "bought evidence"? The whole system is completely insane.
Sign in to Reply
GPBobby
4/24/2012 2:50 AM EDT
@xobit- Evan though patents are intangible, because they have have potential value they can be bought and sold. They parallel "good will" which is valued when a business is sold. The "messiness" comes about because often multiple inventors have the same idea nearly simultaneously, early documentation may not be precisely accurate, and complex patents often are based upon prior inventions and partial developments. I don't think anyone is trying to alter history by stating they invented something they did not, but for all practical purposes if they purchased the patent, the difference is not important.
Sign in to Reply
xorbit
4/24/2012 3:11 PM EDT
@GPBobby
I know patents have value and they can be bought and sold--I just think this is what's fundamentally wrong with the system as it is.
The original intent of the patent system was to reward innovative people and promote sharing of ideas, but it is completely hijacked by lawyers and big money, providing no protection whatsoever for the intended benefactor: the inventor.
A patent should be a historic record that shows who invented something. Is should not be possible to assign, sell or buy it. This would foster a situation where the individual inventor reaps the reward for his invention. Yes, this can be in conjunction with the company he works for, but the inventor stays in control, his invention cannot be taken away from him. In such a situation, companies would have to place high value on their engineers, instead of wringing inventions out of them, throwing them away and then using their inventions to club someone (sometimes even the original inventor!) with it.
Sign in to Reply
selinz
4/25/2012 10:13 PM EDT
If you couldn't sell patents, inventors might not ever be able to profit.
Anywo.
I'm guessing that Googles purchase of the Moto IP didn't hurt their case one iota.
Sign in to Reply
xorbit
4/26/2012 9:45 AM EDT
@selinz
If you couldn't sell patents, inventors of genuinely innovative inventions would still be able to profit, I'm sure. The thousands of junk patents that are being filed nowadays would probably not fare so well, and that's a good thing.
Sign in to Reply
Luis Sanchez
4/26/2012 7:31 PM EDT
I agree with xorbit in saying a patent doesn't have to be sell-able so that the inventor can make a profit. Patents make profit even if never sold because they enable a company to be the only ones allowed to use it. The company is the one obligated to pay the inventor. But I also disagree with xorbit whe you say that they are changing history. I suppose the company that buys another company's patent portfolio acquires the right to profit from the patent until it expires (10? 20 years?). I think this is why Oracle is suing Google. They have the right to profit from the patent, not the right to claim the invention.
An inventor can come up with a great idea but it's not only the idea that makes money, a company will take care of marketing it, manufacturing it, selling the product, and all what's involved in a business. Thus, this gives the company a logical right to profit.
Sign in to Reply
Luis Sanchez
4/26/2012 7:43 PM EDT
And... what's going to happen with Android if Oracle wins? Will Android mobile phones become a little more expensive than they are at the moment?
Sign in to Reply