4 ms·

1. Google likely had a much weaker portfolio when Oracle sued. It is much, much stronger now. 2. There's probably both much overlap in Google's patents and Ora

1. Google likely had a much weaker portfolio when Oracle sued. It is much, much stronger now. 2. There's probably both much overlap in Google's patents and Oracle's technology. 3. The Oracle v. Google case is now primarily about copyright rather than patents.

Zikes 11y ago
Regarding point 1, what's stopping Google from leveraging those patents now, if point 2 allows for even a sliver of potential? I mean, a single function seems to be causing Google quite a bit of grief in this lawsuit, so that seems to be enough. Regarding point 3, I had forgotten that part, but I don't quite get the distinction where it affects the "mutually assured destruction" feature of patent libraries. Even though the sword Oracle swings at Google says "copyright" on the hilt rather than "patent", can Google still not file patent-based countersuits regardless? In other words, if Person A and Person B are in a standoff with guns leveled at each other, why would Person A simply allow Person B to stab them instead?
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  You're better off looking at Apple vs Samsung or another case where it's apples to apples in the portfolio. Having leverage doesn't guarantee anything. However, a smaller vendor would likely not have lasted that long or cut a similar deal that preserved the bottom line. So, size of income plus patent portfolio helps. There's been a number of suits and countersuits between companies in similar industries with overlap in portfolio that got resolved way differently than big companies coming after startups or SME's with nothing. It would probably be worth a law student in this area doing a full survey and analysis to see how the variables involved contribute to the situation.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
Exactly. The likes of Microsoft and Oracle have diverse software while patenting every improvement that they can. For instance, Microsoft has patents on cut and paste, Oracle probably has patents on key database/ERP tech, and Apple had patents on common smartphone idioms. Patents on popular, must-have features give considerable leverage against a company that has little to bring to the table. Google wasn't about to give up PageRank, their cash cow. They'd rather risk a long lawsuit and financial loss. Anyone that thinks patents aren't leverage can try to force IBM out of their market or take most of their money with lawsuits. Just like IBM themselves have successfully done directly or with indirect threats of it supporting acquisitions. Just try. Spoiler: it's not going to work and their countersuits might be interesting.
throwawaykf05 11y ago
Ugh, swype fail: I meant to say: 2: There's probably not much overlap in Google's patents and Oracle's technology.

Zikes 11y ago

Regarding point 1, what's stopping Google from leveraging those patents now, if point 2 allows for even a sliver of potential? I mean, a single function seems to be causing Google quite a bit of grief in this lawsuit, so that seems to be enough. Regarding point 3, I had forgotten that part, but I don't quite get the distinction where it affects the "mutually assured destruction" feature of patent libraries. Even though the sword Oracle swings at Google says "copyright" on the hilt rather than "patent", can Google still not file patent-based countersuits regardless? In other words, if Person A and Person B are in a standoff with guns leveled at each other, why would Person A simply allow Person B to stab them instead?

nickpsecurity 11y ago
You're better off looking at Apple vs Samsung or another case where it's apples to apples in the portfolio. Having leverage doesn't guarantee anything. However, a smaller vendor would likely not have lasted that long or cut a similar deal that preserved the bottom line. So, size of income plus patent portfolio helps. There's been a number of suits and countersuits between companies in similar industries with overlap in portfolio that got resolved way differently than big companies coming after startups or SME's with nothing. It would probably be worth a law student in this area doing a full survey and analysis to see how the variables involved contribute to the situation.

nickpsecurity 11y ago

Exactly. The likes of Microsoft and Oracle have diverse software while patenting every improvement that they can. For instance, Microsoft has patents on cut and paste, Oracle probably has patents on key database/ERP tech, and Apple had patents on common smartphone idioms. Patents on popular, must-have features give considerable leverage against a company that has little to bring to the table. Google wasn't about to give up PageRank, their cash cow. They'd rather risk a long lawsuit and financial loss. Anyone that thinks patents aren't leverage can try to force IBM out of their market or take most of their money with lawsuits. Just like IBM themselves have successfully done directly or with indirect threats of it supporting acquisitions. Just try. Spoiler: it's not going to work and their countersuits might be interesting.

throwawaykf05 11y ago

Ugh, swype fail: I meant to say: 2: There's probably not much overlap in Google's patents and Oracle's technology.