4 ms·

Because Oracle doesn't own any patents on the implementation of relational databases that they couldn't also sue Google over . . . The most engineer-ish thing

Because Oracle doesn't own any patents on the implementation of relational databases that they couldn't also sue Google over . . . The most engineer-ish thing to do is a back of the envelope calculation: 1. Estimate how much it'd cost to fight the suit. 2. Estimate the probability of winning. 3. Estimate the damages if you lose. 4. Estimate Oracle's ask for licensing the patents. If (1 + 2 * 3) < 4, fight, else settle. They probably have pretty good numbers on one, three, and four considering they likely discussed this with Oracle before fisticuffs began. The only perilous part is estimating two.

tezza 16y ago
I agree with your analysis... another factor I guess is that Google will want to ensure that Oracle cannot repeat this trick whenever Oracle wants in the future (breach of license, not re-infringement). My work has had bad experiences with Oracle license chenanigans. Of course Google probably has better lawyers than my work does!
- houseabsolute 16y ago
  Oracle would not want to "kill the golden goose" as it were. Assuming Google is infringing, the lawsuit is probably just a tactic to get a greater amount of licensing fees out of them than they would have been willing to pay without compulsion. It does Oracle no good to completely kill off Android, so any fees will certainly not be large enough to make the ecosystem unprofitable for Google.
  - gamble 16y ago
    Exactly, though any amount of licensing fees or control by Oracle cuts to the heart of Android's appeal to handset manufacturers.
lsc 16y ago
ah, but reputation matters here... you don't want to have a reputation for being easy money for patent trolls. Additionally, as google doesn't seem to be a patent troll, it's probably also in their interest to set legal precedents that weaken software patents. I mean, obviously, this doesn't mean 'always fight' but it's another value you need to punch in to your equation, one weighing in on the 'fight' side. In my business, a similar example would be the money I spend on running an aggressive abuse desk. Running a less-aggressive abuse desk would be cheaper, both in the work it takes and in customers I've lost, at least in the short term. But in the long term, /because/ I have succeeded in making my service a hostile place for spammers, my abuse complaint rate is much lower than it would be otherwise. for a while, another VPS company rented a few servers from me... and in spite of being something like 1/60th of my size, they produced more abuse desk work than the rest of my customers combined. I believe, because I have an aggressive abuse desk. (I mean, there are other costs... I've lost at least one legitimate customer I know of, because he was compromised and his box was spewing ssh attacks over the network. I shut him down with an email notice, the email went to the shut down box, so he never got it. ) my point is that there are real business reasons to fight that sometimes go beyond the immediate results of that fight.
- houseabsolute 16y ago
  Maybe there is some space for a 3.1 step where you factor in the benefit from fighting even if you end up losing, but I doubt there is going to be one nearly as often as your VPS example.
  - lsc 16y ago
    in this case, they'd only get the benefit if they won; assuming that if they lost they'd have to pay the other guy's court expenses /and/ a license, it would make loosing more costly, but it would also make the win more valuable, possibly out of proportion to how much more costly it makes losing.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- loewenskind 16y ago
  >ah, but reputation matters here... you don't want to have a reputation for being easy money for patent trolls. Giving into Oracle (who owns Sun's patents which were vast and probably only topped by IBM in the industry) is hardly going to give one the reputation for being patent troll bait. And doing what's best for the rest of the industry obviously isn't something Google cares about.
  - cnlwsu 16y ago
    > doing what's best for the rest of the industry obviously isn't something Google cares about. I am sad that over the last year or so this has gone from a quiet fact of it being a corporation to a in-your-face "Google: do no evil unless you can make money". I guess each generation needs a company to fantasize about being a righteous white knight.
    - loewenskind 16y ago
      I never bought into the whole "do no evil" bit, but I sure got sick of dealing with the army of people who did.
artsrc 16y ago
I heard of a company that specialized in costing projects to switch from Microsoft Office to Open Office. None of their customers actually switched. They just took the costing of the project to Microsoft sales and said: "we want to pay this". So here is the cheap way for Google to attack Oracle: Fund startups that research how much it costs to switch from Oracle servers to Postgres, then sell reports to Oracle customers so they can get lower prices. I can't see that funding some startups makes you vulnerable to suits, but I am not a lawyer.

tezza 16y ago

I agree with your analysis... another factor I guess is that Google will want to ensure that Oracle cannot repeat this trick whenever Oracle wants in the future (breach of license, not re-infringement). My work has had bad experiences with Oracle license chenanigans. Of course Google probably has better lawyers than my work does!

houseabsolute 16y ago
Oracle would not want to "kill the golden goose" as it were. Assuming Google is infringing, the lawsuit is probably just a tactic to get a greater amount of licensing fees out of them than they would have been willing to pay without compulsion. It does Oracle no good to completely kill off Android, so any fees will certainly not be large enough to make the ecosystem unprofitable for Google.
- gamble 16y ago
  Exactly, though any amount of licensing fees or control by Oracle cuts to the heart of Android's appeal to handset manufacturers.

lsc 16y ago

ah, but reputation matters here... you don't want to have a reputation for being easy money for patent trolls. Additionally, as google doesn't seem to be a patent troll, it's probably also in their interest to set legal precedents that weaken software patents. I mean, obviously, this doesn't mean 'always fight' but it's another value you need to punch in to your equation, one weighing in on the 'fight' side. In my business, a similar example would be the money I spend on running an aggressive abuse desk. Running a less-aggressive abuse desk would be cheaper, both in the work it takes and in customers I've lost, at least in the short term. But in the long term, /because/ I have succeeded in making my service a hostile place for spammers, my abuse complaint rate is much lower than it would be otherwise. for a while, another VPS company rented a few servers from me... and in spite of being something like 1/60th of my size, they produced more abuse desk work than the rest of my customers combined. I believe, because I have an aggressive abuse desk. (I mean, there are other costs... I've lost at least one legitimate customer I know of, because he was compromised and his box was spewing ssh attacks over the network. I shut him down with an email notice, the email went to the shut down box, so he never got it. ) my point is that there are real business reasons to fight that sometimes go beyond the immediate results of that fight.

houseabsolute 16y ago
Maybe there is some space for a 3.1 step where you factor in the benefit from fighting even if you end up losing, but I doubt there is going to be one nearly as often as your VPS example.
- lsc 16y ago
  in this case, they'd only get the benefit if they won; assuming that if they lost they'd have to pay the other guy's court expenses /and/ a license, it would make loosing more costly, but it would also make the win more valuable, possibly out of proportion to how much more costly it makes losing.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
loewenskind 16y ago
>ah, but reputation matters here... you don't want to have a reputation for being easy money for patent trolls. Giving into Oracle (who owns Sun's patents which were vast and probably only topped by IBM in the industry) is hardly going to give one the reputation for being patent troll bait. And doing what's best for the rest of the industry obviously isn't something Google cares about.
- cnlwsu 16y ago
  > doing what's best for the rest of the industry obviously isn't something Google cares about. I am sad that over the last year or so this has gone from a quiet fact of it being a corporation to a in-your-face "Google: do no evil unless you can make money". I guess each generation needs a company to fantasize about being a righteous white knight.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    I never bought into the whole "do no evil" bit, but I sure got sick of dealing with the army of people who did.

artsrc 16y ago

I heard of a company that specialized in costing projects to switch from Microsoft Office to Open Office. None of their customers actually switched. They just took the costing of the project to Microsoft sales and said: "we want to pay this". So here is the cheap way for Google to attack Oracle: Fund startups that research how much it costs to switch from Oracle servers to Postgres, then sell reports to Oracle customers so they can get lower prices. I can't see that funding some startups makes you vulnerable to suits, but I am not a lawyer.