1. Oracle has stepped into a bear-trap in this case and is trying to extricate itself. This does not mean that it has a losing case on the merits. That is a matter yet to be decided and it will get as fair a trial in this court as it would anywhere else. Given the nature of its claims, and the murky standards associated with its patent and copyright claims, it likely will get some damage award. But Oracle does not want just some damage award. It wants to hold the prospect of a potentially devastating damage award over the corporate head of Google and to use that as leverage to gain a lasting foothold in the dollar flow of the mobile space via a settlement with Google on potentially brutal terms.
2. Judge Alsup is as fair-minded and talented judge as one could want but he also is a tough judge in terms of managing what he allows to come before his court. And he is not buying the outrageously phony damage claims that Oracle is trying to foist upon this trial via its designated expert. Because the law permits him to do so, he is effectively pre-screening what can come before a jury in the case and he has declared that he will put a tight limit on what is permissible. This means that Oracle will not be able to take its crap-shoot before the jury in hopes of gaining in terrorem settlement leverage over Google through the possibility that a crazy jury might be inclined to try to slam Google with a monstrously large damage award.
3. Just last year, Judge Phyllis Hamilton, a colleague of Judge Alsup's, reversed a $1.3 billion award in favor of Oracle against SAP. That case involved blatant theft of Oracle's software by TomorrowNow, an SAP subsidiary, and was so bad that SAP admitted liability up front such that the only issue to be tried was the amount of the damages suffered by Oracle. In that case, Oracle put Larry Ellison on the stand and had him speculate that Oracle must have lost $4 billion in software sales as a result of the admitted infringements. There was no factual basis for this claim - just the opinion of the company CEO. Yet that sort of evidence was allowed to go before a jury and the jury bought it. In rethinking the issue (for she had been the judge who had initially allowed it), Judge Hamilton held that this was improper and, in doing so, reduced the verdict to less than a fourth of what the jury had entered. (see, e.g., this report on the case: http://www.crn.com/news/applications-os/231600674/judge-redu...) This was a correct ruling and Oracle's prospects of getting it reversed are about zero.
4. What Judge Alsup is doing here is acting as gate-keeper to make sure that such junk does not enter into this trial either. In theory, Oracle should not mind this. If all they want is a fair trial, there is nothing wrong with excluding unsupportable expert testimony from that trial. But that is not what Oracle wants. It wants, above all, to be able to hold a huge threat over Google to pressure it into settling on very bad terms.
5. In that light, let me translate a few of the items in this order and in the surrounding procedural context: (a) Oracle asked to be able to dismiss its patent infringement claims without prejudice (in effect, asking the court for permission to drop those claims for the moment so that it can reassert them pretty much any time it wants to at a later date, thus keeping a cloud of uncertainty hanging over the Android platform) - the judge said no - translation: "I am not about to let you play games with the judicial system for ulterior motives: you will get your trial and you will get it here, just as you asked for it in causing Google, the court, and a lot of others to devote huge resources to the handling of the issues you raised;" (b) Oracle asked that the judge bifurcate its claims such that the copyright claims would be tried first and the patent claims tried in a separate phase of the trial many months down the road - the judge said no - translation: "You will put on your entire case in one place and not be allowed to play the courts opportunistically by going for multiple bites at the apple;" (c) the judge took the unusual step of allowing Oracle yet a third try at amending its expert's damages claims even though he had ample discretion to say "enough is enough" at this point and to toss them altogether - the judge was not being "nice" in doing this - translation: "Unless you truly come in with something credible, I am going to slam your expert's claims once and for all and I am creating a solid record of giving you a full and final opportunity to fix the problems after fair warning that this was coming and in that way no appellate court will ever reverse that ruling."
6. This is a complex case that could take a variety of directions but one thing is certain: it is in the hands of a very able judge and, if Oracle will ultimately prevail with a big outcome, it will only do so because it deserves this under the law and not because it will get away with gaming the system (as it did, for example, in the TomorrowNow case). And that is why Oracle is reeling concerning its claimed damages in light of this ruling. It is getting trapped (as it should be for these sorts of shenanigans) and it knows it.
Yet that sort of evidence was allowed to go before a jury and the jury bought it.
It might be good to have a term for that, if there isn't one already. Say, damages theatre - pushing inflated "estimates" of damages to journalists and juries.
>suing Google has a severely steep climb up a very tall mountain. Google hires the best lawyers and they fight like bulldogs. Polite bulldogs. But they don't just roll over, and Google's track record is very, very impressive.
Can't we at least pretend that what happens in court is a matter of Justice and Right or Wrong? I'm personally happy that Oracle isn't winning this case, since I wish more people will have the right to implement their own Java in their products. It just pains me that you have to be a mega-corporation with the strongest legal department in the world, in order to do this.
> Can't we at least pretend that what happens in court is a matter of Justice and Right or Wrong?
It is. Oracle gets a chance to present its case, so does Google. The better the lawyers, the more compelling case they can make, but, in the end, all has to be based on facts, not empty rhetoric, and based on those, the jury will decide what the most appropriate measure to take.
I'm curious - heve you ever been a juror? I've only done it once, but for that trial any correlation between justice and what the jury decided was purely coincidental.
Yes, but in Brazil only crimes against human life (murders and attempts) are decided by juries. What you describe is a good reason for judges to be cautious about what they admit the jury to see.
The Java API is in the public domain, Oracle even admitted as such:
> they added to their sins by now assessing damages in copyrights based on APIs in the Java language, of all desperate moves, which Oracle has already admitted to the court is in the public domain.
You can say that Dalvik stepped on some patents to maintain the API's compatibility, but anyone can implement the Java language for free if they want. It's only if you use the Java VM that you have to pay license fees, which Google obviously doesn't do.
Google as far as I based android on the Apache VM which was implemented using the published OpCode spec for Java. So for ripping off the OpCode/VM, actually they did something quite legitimate. From memory the Oracle claim centers on a few specific classes that they claim Google reverse engineered from the original Java source.
As for the incompatibility it was Oracle that chose to deny Apache a license for the Harmony VM, this was because they knew it was a threat to J2ME.
They are not using Apache VM. They are using their own Dalvik VM, which is not even compatible with Java VM. It uses their own opcodes.
What they use though, is Apache Harmony - the library, that is reimplementation of java.* packages.
Any Android app is compiled using using javac (or other compiler, producing class files) and then converted using Google's dex tool to be runnable by Dalvik. Android OS in unable to run untouched .class/.jar apps.
*Android OS in unable to run untouched .class/.jar apps.
Im not sure if that is correct. I have implemented a VoIP application using JAIN SIP jar files compiled with Standard JDK 1.6 that ran fine on Dalvik. This was of-course pre Android 1.0 days. Im not sure if that is the case today.
Sure, you can take jar file compiled using JDK's javac (actually, most android apps are compiled using JDK's javac), but you can't run it on device. You have to run it through dx tool, which combines all class and jar files and converts them into dex file. With different instructions than JVM.
> Do you remember in the beginning, when this case was new, and a self-described "expert" in the media was pushing the idea that Oracle would win billions and billions in damages?
The scary part is that, if they had a jury like the one that hit SAP for $1.3 billion and a judge who didn't reduce that, it might theoretically have been possible. Especially if anyone actually believed Oracle's astronomical damage numbers the way the SAP jury did.
Thankfully, they got a decent judge who won't put up with that nonsense. It looks like they will be left with, at most, a small damage award. And that's assuming they don't keep shooting themselves in the foot while aiming for the moon.
I've often seen it insinuated that Florian Mueller is paid shill for MS and/or Oracle. I read this in the same forums and circles that once suggested Maureen O'Gara was a paid shill for SCO. Well it turned out they were right about O'Gara:
1. Oracle has stepped into a bear-trap in this case and is trying to extricate itself. This does not mean that it has a losing case on the merits. That is a matter yet to be decided and it will get as fair a trial in this court as it would anywhere else. Given the nature of its claims, and the murky standards associated with its patent and copyright claims, it likely will get some damage award. But Oracle does not want just some damage award. It wants to hold the prospect of a potentially devastating damage award over the corporate head of Google and to use that as leverage to gain a lasting foothold in the dollar flow of the mobile space via a settlement with Google on potentially brutal terms.
2. Judge Alsup is as fair-minded and talented judge as one could want but he also is a tough judge in terms of managing what he allows to come before his court. And he is not buying the outrageously phony damage claims that Oracle is trying to foist upon this trial via its designated expert. Because the law permits him to do so, he is effectively pre-screening what can come before a jury in the case and he has declared that he will put a tight limit on what is permissible. This means that Oracle will not be able to take its crap-shoot before the jury in hopes of gaining in terrorem settlement leverage over Google through the possibility that a crazy jury might be inclined to try to slam Google with a monstrously large damage award.
3. Just last year, Judge Phyllis Hamilton, a colleague of Judge Alsup's, reversed a $1.3 billion award in favor of Oracle against SAP. That case involved blatant theft of Oracle's software by TomorrowNow, an SAP subsidiary, and was so bad that SAP admitted liability up front such that the only issue to be tried was the amount of the damages suffered by Oracle. In that case, Oracle put Larry Ellison on the stand and had him speculate that Oracle must have lost $4 billion in software sales as a result of the admitted infringements. There was no factual basis for this claim - just the opinion of the company CEO. Yet that sort of evidence was allowed to go before a jury and the jury bought it. In rethinking the issue (for she had been the judge who had initially allowed it), Judge Hamilton held that this was improper and, in doing so, reduced the verdict to less than a fourth of what the jury had entered. (see, e.g., this report on the case: http://www.crn.com/news/applications-os/231600674/judge-redu...) This was a correct ruling and Oracle's prospects of getting it reversed are about zero.
4. What Judge Alsup is doing here is acting as gate-keeper to make sure that such junk does not enter into this trial either. In theory, Oracle should not mind this. If all they want is a fair trial, there is nothing wrong with excluding unsupportable expert testimony from that trial. But that is not what Oracle wants. It wants, above all, to be able to hold a huge threat over Google to pressure it into settling on very bad terms.
5. In that light, let me translate a few of the items in this order and in the surrounding procedural context: (a) Oracle asked to be able to dismiss its patent infringement claims without prejudice (in effect, asking the court for permission to drop those claims for the moment so that it can reassert them pretty much any time it wants to at a later date, thus keeping a cloud of uncertainty hanging over the Android platform) - the judge said no - translation: "I am not about to let you play games with the judicial system for ulterior motives: you will get your trial and you will get it here, just as you asked for it in causing Google, the court, and a lot of others to devote huge resources to the handling of the issues you raised;" (b) Oracle asked that the judge bifurcate its claims such that the copyright claims would be tried first and the patent claims tried in a separate phase of the trial many months down the road - the judge said no - translation: "You will put on your entire case in one place and not be allowed to play the courts opportunistically by going for multiple bites at the apple;" (c) the judge took the unusual step of allowing Oracle yet a third try at amending its expert's damages claims even though he had ample discretion to say "enough is enough" at this point and to toss them altogether - the judge was not being "nice" in doing this - translation: "Unless you truly come in with something credible, I am going to slam your expert's claims once and for all and I am creating a solid record of giving you a full and final opportunity to fix the problems after fair warning that this was coming and in that way no appellate court will ever reverse that ruling."
6. This is a complex case that could take a variety of directions but one thing is certain: it is in the hands of a very able judge and, if Oracle will ultimately prevail with a big outcome, it will only do so because it deserves this under the law and not because it will get away with gaming the system (as it did, for example, in the TomorrowNow case). And that is why Oracle is reeling concerning its claimed damages in light of this ruling. It is getting trapped (as it should be for these sorts of shenanigans) and it knows it.