Oracle to demand 150% of all Android related revenue?

[Casper Bang]

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/06/oracle-wants-huge-cut-of-googles-mobile.html

Those who can't roll, can always become a patent troll. Oracle perhaps
you should start to innovate instead, you haven't replaced all
engineers with lawyers right?

[Fabrizio Giudici]

150%... wow. Google can't agree of course; I think Oracle it's just
anteing up. In any case, that's world. And as the article says:

"Interestingly, Google itself admits that it could have done a license
deal with Sun (apparently before it was acquired by Oracle) but
/rejected/ its terms. That refusal could now prove one of the worst
mistakes in Google's 13-year history as a company."

During the last years of Sun's life, Google played bully with the
going-to-die mate. When Sun was going to be sold, Google could buy Sun
on its own and it would have saved tons of money and troubles. I think
that Google has just been too much presumptuous and now it's paying for
that.

Given that, I hope for a reasonable agreement and I'm disappointed that
Oracle is only playing on the monetary field - I hoped for a settlement
that included a form of technological partnership.

--
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people
Fabrizio...@tidalwave.it

[Casper Bang]

> During the last years of Sun's life, Google played bully with the
> going-to-die mate. When Sun was going to be sold, Google could buy Sun
> on its own and it would have saved tons of money and troubles. I think
> that Google has just been too much presumptuous and now it's paying for
> that.

Interesting perspective. I'd also like to think, that the state of
Java would be better under Google, as they execute on genuine visions
rather than just putting lipstick on the old bloated pig.

Also, I assume that even if Google somehow went through a major root-
canal and changed Android's de-facto language to something else (Go?),
that would still not satisfy Oracle or solve the problem. At the very
least, Oracle would demand to get payed up until that change... and
there are still the issues regarding the generic VM patents.

[Chris Koerner]

Google really missed a golden opportunity by not buying Sun when they had the chance.

[Cédric Beust ♔]

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Chris Koerner <ches...@gmail.com> wrote:

Google really missed a golden opportunity by not buying Sun when they had the chance.

Buying an entire company that's been in a dead spiral for a decade just for an IP that you might not even need?

Sounds like a smart move to me :-)

-- 

Cédric

[JodaStephen]

I should point out that the Florian Mueller, author of that piece, is
getting a reputation as saying headline grabbing things rather than
considered thoughtful things.

Groklaw is much more reliable on the real legal issues, and a
recommended read if you come across a Mueller piece:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110607223038471
"It's hilarious to read Florian "Android is Doomed" Mueller, as I now
call him, providing journalists with breathless hyperbole that this
Google filing means Google will have to pay astronomical sums. That
has the issue before the court precisely backwards. Here's a sample of
what Mueller wrote, as quoted by several journalists:"

Stephen


On Jun 9, 8:32 am, Casper Bang <casper.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/06/oracle-wants-huge-cut-of-goog...

[Steven Herod]

Let the billionaires fight, its no skin off my nose.

On Jun 9, 5:32 pm, Casper Bang <casper.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/06/oracle-wants-huge-cut-of-goog...
>

[Chris Koerner]

True, so now they have years and millions to spend on fighting Oracle. I'm sure that is much more fun than buying Sun for its patents and Java.

[Ricky Clarkson]

Can you imagine the reaction Google's shareholders would have had if
Google had proposed buying a dying company that looked like it would
be bought by IBM, just to prevent possible patent troll attacks? I
think they're doing the right thing, and hope that they win the case.
You can't just buy every company that has patents you infringe,
because practically everything you do in software infringes patents -
also there are some rules against monopolising.

If Google lose, presumably Oracle will then sue Microsoft, as the same
patents hit .NET in the nose.

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Chris Koerner <ches...@gmail.com> wrote:
> True, so now they have years and millions to spend on fighting Oracle. I'm
> sure that is much more fun than buying Sun for its patents and Java.
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "The Java Posse" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/XgH0WNS1lwwJ.
> To post to this group, send email to java...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> javaposse+...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
>

[Robert Casto]

Google was right not buying Sun. My hope though was that IBM would have bought them. I think they are a much better suitor seeing how fully they jumped onto the language almost from the beginning.

If Oracle wins doesn't that essentially mean you should buy the oldest patents you can find and then sue everyone? IBM came before Oracle so they should be suing Oracle for infringement of many of their discoveries. Hit them for 150% of their entire existence and see how they handle that.

Google is probably better off fighting this battle while behind the scenes eliminating or limiting the damage that would be caused if they lost. This battle could go on for years and by then everything will be different and they might not care one way or the other.

--
Robert Casto
www.robertcasto.com
www.sellerstoolbox.com

[Reinier Zwitserloot]

Yes. the years are kind of annoying, but the many many millions they are now funneling into the legal team is pocket change compared to how much it would cost to buy Sun. Matter of money.

Now, should they have made a license deal when Sun was still Sun? Yes, absolutely. Some (ex?) googler somewhere is having some regrets on that score, no doubt. That was (with 20/20 hindsight) just plain an error in judgement. But not buying sun? I'm not sure we can look back now and say that was bad. Not at all.

[Fabrizio Giudici]

On 06/10/2011 03:36 PM, Ricky Clarkson wrote:
> Can you imagine the reaction Google's shareholders would have had if
> Google had proposed buying a dying company that looked like it would
> be bought by IBM, just to prevent possible patent troll attacks? I
> think they're doing the right thing, and hope that they win the case.
> You can't just buy every company that has patents you infringe,

Well, buying your main business on a technology that has been invented
by the other company sounds a bit more complicated than "any patents you
infringe".

[Fabrizio Giudici]

On 06/09/2011 11:31 PM, JodaStephen wrote:
> I should point out that the Florian Mueller, author of that piece, is
> getting a reputation as saying headline grabbing things rather than
> considered thoughtful things.
>
> Groklaw is much more reliable on the real legal issues, and a
> recommended read if you come across a Mueller piece:

I agree on the doubts on Mueller. But I also have doubts on Groklaw. If
I'm not wrong one year ago they dismissed the initial filing of the
trial as hilarious, saying that there weren't chances for it to be
accepted? I'm not 100% sure - I mean, I'm sure many said that thing, and
I seem to recall Groklaw was one of them. But I could be wrong.

[BoD]

There seems to be a small 'war' between these two authors/sites/communities.
I find Mueller's articles well written, informative and (it seems) well
balanced.
In particular, even though he is anti-software patents (and because of
that one could think he would be 'anti oracle' in this case), he manages
to have an objective point of view when talking about Google's mistakes
and challenges. In other words he's no 'Google fan boy' and focuses on
the legal side of the case :)

Looking at his bio I think he has credibility in these matters
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florian_M%C3%BCller).

I've seen him harshly criticizing Groklaw and 'PJ' a few times which may
explain why these two sites don't like each other very much :)

BoD

On 06/09/2011 11:31 PM, JodaStephen wrote:

[JodaStephen]

It is far from certain that FM is "anti-patent".

He was involved with the no software patents movement, but no longer
appears to be. In fact, he is more in the line of believing patents
are useful and inevitable now:

"Software patents are a fact of life. Their abolition isn't
achievable. Since there are countless software patents covering a huge
number of technologies and functionalities, FOSS must find ways to
deal with patents, and in fact, it already has. In particular, it must
continue to find constructive and realistic ways rather than just
insist that patent holders waive all rights, which isn't going to work
with all right holders." (read the link to get the full context)
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/10/foss-can-implement-patented-standards.html

That blog was interpretted by pro IP people as a U-turn:
http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=ccec5ae7-a6e6-4efc-8018-92572e492d06

There have also been claims about his links to Microsoft (some see a
tendancy to criticise others rather than MS)
http://techrights.org/2010/04/11/florian-mueller-and-erika-mann/

Also Groklaw is populated by lawyers, which FM appears not to be.
In general, I regard FM with caution, and I'm not alone.

Stephen

[BoD]

Interesting info.
I stand corrected :)

BoD