5 ms·

Lots and lots and lots of devices with google services and chrome. That bring ads. That bring money. A lot of money.

scarface74 8y ago
Do you think that Oracle's lawyers missed that when they said in court documents that Google made $31B on Android? A number that Google didn't dispute... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oracle-google-lawsuit/oracle-lawyer-says-googles-android-generated-31-billion-revenue-idUSKCN0UZ2W9 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oracle-google-lawsuit/ora...
- jessaustin 8y ago
  Why would Google have disputed an obvious lowball? They were getting sued... The first line at your link: "...revenue of about $31 billion and profit of $22 billion..." Again, fake numbers, but wow that's profitable.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    Do you really think in discovery in official court documents that Google could get away with having false numbers? 22 billion in profit in almost a decade for having 80% of the market is peanuts. Google has paid more than that to Apple for being the default search engine on iOS for the same time period.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      It's not as if the chart of accounts has a particular account for "this is our profit from screwing over whoever bought the rights to Java". This would always be a judgment call, first from the inherent uncertainty in measuring that if one wanted to measure it correctly, but more importantly from the uncertainty over what can be proved in court. Remember, Oracle had the burden of proof in this situation, and they thought they could prove that the number was at least $22B. Google had no duty to argue the number should have been higher, because even if that duty existed how would it be enforced? Much of your analysis in this thread suffers from a form of wishful thinking. I suspect you are a fan of "iPhone" devices.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        It's not my analysis. It was Oracle's well paid lawyers' analysis. Do you have insight that they didn't have to come up with a more accurate number? I'm sure if you do, Larry Ellison will be glad to hear from you.
        jessaustin 8y ago
        Oh yeah Larry will be waiting by the phone; I'll understand if he has to land his S.211 first. This is all fake anyway. None of these big corporate lawsuits are about justice or truth. We copyrighted an API that someone else wrote before they went out of business and we bought the remains, even though there was never an actual copyright notice and after all it's a blooming API? Give me a break. Those brilliant analytical lawyers were too busy pulling everyone's legs (not the jury's!) to dig up any more alleged profits... Oracle don't actually care if the lawsuit ever ends.

Do you think that Oracle's lawyers missed that when they said in court documents that Google made $31B on Android? A number that Google didn't dispute... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oracle-google-lawsuit/oracle-lawyer-says-googles-android-generated-31-billion-revenue-idUSKCN0UZ2W9 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oracle-google-lawsuit/ora...

jessaustin 8y ago
Why would Google have disputed an obvious lowball? They were getting sued... The first line at your link: "...revenue of about $31 billion and profit of $22 billion..." Again, fake numbers, but wow that's profitable.
- scarface74 8y ago
  Do you really think in discovery in official court documents that Google could get away with having false numbers? 22 billion in profit in almost a decade for having 80% of the market is peanuts. Google has paid more than that to Apple for being the default search engine on iOS for the same time period.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    It's not as if the chart of accounts has a particular account for "this is our profit from screwing over whoever bought the rights to Java". This would always be a judgment call, first from the inherent uncertainty in measuring that if one wanted to measure it correctly, but more importantly from the uncertainty over what can be proved in court. Remember, Oracle had the burden of proof in this situation, and they thought they could prove that the number was at least $22B. Google had no duty to argue the number should have been higher, because even if that duty existed how would it be enforced? Much of your analysis in this thread suffers from a form of wishful thinking. I suspect you are a fan of "iPhone" devices.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      It's not my analysis. It was Oracle's well paid lawyers' analysis. Do you have insight that they didn't have to come up with a more accurate number? I'm sure if you do, Larry Ellison will be glad to hear from you.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        Oh yeah Larry will be waiting by the phone; I'll understand if he has to land his S.211 first. This is all fake anyway. None of these big corporate lawsuits are about justice or truth. We copyrighted an API that someone else wrote before they went out of business and we bought the remains, even though there was never an actual copyright notice and after all it's a blooming API? Give me a break. Those brilliant analytical lawyers were too busy pulling everyone's legs (not the jury's!) to dig up any more alleged profits... Oracle don't actually care if the lawsuit ever ends.