"eventually extracting a per-handset royalty on every Android handset shipped."
I would assume if copyright infringements would indeed be found, Google would remove them. So no royalties for future Android handsets, or what am I missing?
Royalties on the 40-60 million already shipped may not be pocket change. Although honestly I don't think you can get that money from Google. I think they'd have to get Samsung, HTC, etc... as Google doesn't actually ship the devices. You'd probably get some other type of damages awarded to Oracle for this.
My guess is that the copyright issues aren't actually in the suit as an attempt to get copyright royalties. I think Oracle's goal is patent royalties from the several patents in the suit.
If I'm right, the copyright part of the suit is there for two reasons.
1. It might make Google look bad. Even if Google prevails on the copyright aspect of the case, some jurors may think that they were doing something shady--there just wasn't enough evidence presented to nail them for it. If Oracle wins on the patent side of things, those jurors may be more inclined to vote for higher patent damages because of the impression they got from the copyright side of things.
2. It might be a tactic to waste some of Google's time at trial. You don't get unlimited time to present your case, examine witnesses, cross examine witness, or present final arguments. In the patent trial I attended as inventor and witness, each side had something like 15 hours. Some courts go so far as to use a chess clock and time it down to the second.
Oracle could tell the jury what files they are going to show, enter into evidence proof that they own the copyright and have registered it, put up diffs between their version and Google's version, pointedly call attention to how similar they are, and be done with that in a few minutes. Let Google them spend an hour explaining it all away, teaching the jury about Java boilerplate code and such. That's an hour Google won't have on its clock for tearing into Oracle's patent expert on whether or not Google's VM reads on the claims of the patents, and other things like that.
Something like that happened at the trial I attended. As is common in many IP cases, the IP had been transferred to a holding company created specifically to hold it for the trial, and if we had won would deal with collecting and distributing the damages. Perfectly routine thing. However, someone screwed up. They did not file with the state's corporate authorities a document they are supposed to file that comes from the state's tax authorities that declares that the company has paid its taxes. They had paid the taxes--they had just not filed it with the appropriate corporate records people.
The other side found out that, and at trial asked our CFO (who was not involved in setting up the holding company--that was handled by the CFO of a company that was jointly involved in the suit, although our CFO has specifically asked before trial if they had taken care of this and they said yes), "Mr. Soandso--why is HoldingCorp cheating on its taxes?" or something like this. This of course flummoxed our CFO, and made him look confused in front of the jury. Then, the next day, after our lawyers made sure the filing was taken care of, they had to spend a lot of time teaching the jury exactly how these filings work and showing them we had paid taxes on time, and had just misplaced a minor documents.
Throughout the rest of the trial, they had to let some damaging things go un-rebutted, and drop some good arguments, because of the lost time on that tax thing.
> Because somewhere along the line, Google took Oracle's code, replaced the GPL language with the incompatible Apache Open Source License
Where exactly is there any evidence Google did this? It seems Google copied the files as is - it didn't remove and replace copyright (and license) texts. In fact, the original texts are there, and that is how Florian found these files in the first place.
Merely bundling a file inside Android doesn't mean Google claims it is Apache-licensed either, btw - much (most?) of Android is not Apache licensed, the Linux kernel for example.
8 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 28.2 ms ] threadI would assume if copyright infringements would indeed be found, Google would remove them. So no royalties for future Android handsets, or what am I missing?
If I'm right, the copyright part of the suit is there for two reasons.
1. It might make Google look bad. Even if Google prevails on the copyright aspect of the case, some jurors may think that they were doing something shady--there just wasn't enough evidence presented to nail them for it. If Oracle wins on the patent side of things, those jurors may be more inclined to vote for higher patent damages because of the impression they got from the copyright side of things.
2. It might be a tactic to waste some of Google's time at trial. You don't get unlimited time to present your case, examine witnesses, cross examine witness, or present final arguments. In the patent trial I attended as inventor and witness, each side had something like 15 hours. Some courts go so far as to use a chess clock and time it down to the second.
Oracle could tell the jury what files they are going to show, enter into evidence proof that they own the copyright and have registered it, put up diffs between their version and Google's version, pointedly call attention to how similar they are, and be done with that in a few minutes. Let Google them spend an hour explaining it all away, teaching the jury about Java boilerplate code and such. That's an hour Google won't have on its clock for tearing into Oracle's patent expert on whether or not Google's VM reads on the claims of the patents, and other things like that.
Something like that happened at the trial I attended. As is common in many IP cases, the IP had been transferred to a holding company created specifically to hold it for the trial, and if we had won would deal with collecting and distributing the damages. Perfectly routine thing. However, someone screwed up. They did not file with the state's corporate authorities a document they are supposed to file that comes from the state's tax authorities that declares that the company has paid its taxes. They had paid the taxes--they had just not filed it with the appropriate corporate records people.
The other side found out that, and at trial asked our CFO (who was not involved in setting up the holding company--that was handled by the CFO of a company that was jointly involved in the suit, although our CFO has specifically asked before trial if they had taken care of this and they said yes), "Mr. Soandso--why is HoldingCorp cheating on its taxes?" or something like this. This of course flummoxed our CFO, and made him look confused in front of the jury. Then, the next day, after our lawyers made sure the filing was taken care of, they had to spend a lot of time teaching the jury exactly how these filings work and showing them we had paid taxes on time, and had just misplaced a minor documents.
Throughout the rest of the trial, they had to let some damaging things go un-rebutted, and drop some good arguments, because of the lost time on that tax thing.
No? Then why are we reading this?
From his LinkedIn profile:
* Managing Editor at Engadget
* Managing Editor at AOL
Past:
* Contributing Editor for Transmission at Gapers Block Media, LLC
* Attorney at Agency 68
* Associate at Saper Law
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=7766341
Where exactly is there any evidence Google did this? It seems Google copied the files as is - it didn't remove and replace copyright (and license) texts. In fact, the original texts are there, and that is how Florian found these files in the first place.
Merely bundling a file inside Android doesn't mean Google claims it is Apache-licensed either, btw - much (most?) of Android is not Apache licensed, the Linux kernel for example.