3 ms·
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 fe
by 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 agoYour 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 agoI 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.