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?
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.