4 ms·

To summarize: Google is asking Oracle to provide evidence of specific devices that are infringing on Oracle's patents/copyrights. Oracle suggests, and author ag

by mustpax 16y ago

To summarize: Google is asking Oracle to provide evidence of specific devices that are infringing on Oracle's patents/copyrights. Oracle suggests, and author agrees, that this constitutes Google throwing its partners under a bus. Author goes on to make somewhat questionable claims that this might eventually cause Oracle to sue popular app makers. "Instead of holding Google responsible for the downstream, Oracle might then have to enforce its rights against device makers, telcos, app developers, or users. I doubt Oracle would sue every app developer or user out there, but developers of wildly successful apps could be at risk, and it wouldn't be a comfortable situation for corporate users that have thousands of Android devices in operation."

analyst74 16y ago
Big guy says to another big guy :"You better pay me, or I'll beat up all your little friends!"
FlorianMueller 16y ago
I made it clear that it's both a burden-of-proof question and a liability question. If Google refuses to accept liability for the downstream, then Oracle may feel forced to go after the downstream directly. Any better idea for how to interpret Oracle's claim that Google 'wants to throw its licensees and users under the bus'?
- mustpax 16y ago
  Your interpretation of Oracle's claim is spot on. I am just questioning the validity of the said claim. As you note, both parties are trying to make the current case more costly for the other. The burden-of-proof question does very little to alter the basic cost/benefit calculus of suing Android partners for Oracle. The liability question (Google offering patent indemnification to Android trademark licensees) is a different issue. While in an ideal world, Google would be able to provide such protection to its licensees, it is simply more expedient for Google to vigorously fight Oracle's claims in court and provide protection to its partners indirectly.
  - FlorianMueller 16y ago
    I see we agree on large parts of this. Concerning cost/benefit ratio, Oracle wouldn't have to sue them all. It could contact many of them and some would pay. Some would refuse to pay, and then Oracle would single out one or two or more of them and sue. Just the fact that they make good on their threat to sue would get some others to pay. And if they prevail over only one, they will get everyone to pay.

by mustpax 16y ago

analyst74 16y ago

Big guy says to another big guy :"You better pay me, or I'll beat up all your little friends!"

FlorianMueller 16y ago

I made it clear that it's both a burden-of-proof question and a liability question. If Google refuses to accept liability for the downstream, then Oracle may feel forced to go after the downstream directly. Any better idea for how to interpret Oracle's claim that Google 'wants to throw its licensees and users under the bus'?

mustpax 16y ago
Your interpretation of Oracle's claim is spot on. I am just questioning the validity of the said claim. As you note, both parties are trying to make the current case more costly for the other. The burden-of-proof question does very little to alter the basic cost/benefit calculus of suing Android partners for Oracle. The liability question (Google offering patent indemnification to Android trademark licensees) is a different issue. While in an ideal world, Google would be able to provide such protection to its licensees, it is simply more expedient for Google to vigorously fight Oracle's claims in court and provide protection to its partners indirectly.
- FlorianMueller 16y ago
  I see we agree on large parts of this. Concerning cost/benefit ratio, Oracle wouldn't have to sue them all. It could contact many of them and some would pay. Some would refuse to pay, and then Oracle would single out one or two or more of them and sue. Just the fact that they make good on their threat to sue would get some others to pay. And if they prevail over only one, they will get everyone to pay.