5 ms·

Really? Google's slides include numerous direct quotes from people at Sun and Oracle saying that everything Google did was fine and basically reiterating Google

by chc 15y ago

Really? Google's slides include numerous direct quotes from people at Sun and Oracle saying that everything Google did was fine and basically reiterating Google's core arguments, which seems pretty damning to Oracle's case. On the other hand, I don't see how the fact that Google would have liked a partnership with Sun but couldn't work out a deal demonstrates any wrongdoing.

ajross 15y ago
Not so much wrongdoing as bad faith. If Google offered Sun a good financial deal (they might have: certainly they had a lot of cash) but Sun walked away anyway (because they wanted to preserve control of the platform, say), then that puts a pretty firm cap on the damages Oracle can be awarded. If Sun represented to Google internally that a deal was likely, and then yanked the rug out at the last minute, then that's straight up bad faith.
jimmyvanhalen 15y ago
here's the problem: "numerous direct quotes from people at Sun and Oracle" are not legally binding contracts.
- chc 15y ago
  Well, yeah, but is that really necessary? They demonstrate intent, they support the accuracy of Google's view of the situation, and I'm pretty sure they'll make it harder for Oracle to paint Google's actions as tortious. It's similar to how you'd have a hard time suing somebody for injuring you if you admitted you jumped in front of their car to get money out of them — that's not a contract either, but it won't help your case. If even Oracle believes that what Google is doing is OK and doesn't constitute infringement, then that paints them as rent-seekers rather than an injured party.
  - jimmyvanhalen 15y ago
    -Google has to prove and convince the jury that they obtained a license or a legally binding agreement to use Java. So they need to present evidence that they have those. Any statement from an employee, even from the CEO, is useless if there are no legally binding contract or license. -Oracle only has to prove and convince the jury that Google willfully and knowingly ignored required licensing agreements. So they can present emails and quotes from employees and executives and the emails alone can do a lot of damage.
    - krakensden 15y ago
      > Google has to prove and convince the jury that they obtained a license or a legally binding agreement to use Java Their contention is that they don't need one. Besides, they don't use Java- They use Dalvik and a JVM bytecode-to-Dalvik translator.
      - jimmyvanhalen 15y ago
        >Their contention is that they don't need one. Besides, they don't use Java- They use Dalvik and a JVM bytecode-to-Dalvik translator. Google's lawyers are going to have a hard time convincing the jury. Check out Oracle's slides. http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/features/opening-slides-1592541.pdf http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/features/opening-slides-1... slide 90: What Google Said Before Lawsuit Jul 26, 2005: “Must take license from Sun” Oct 11, 2005: “We’ll pay Sun for the license and the TCK” “We are making Java central to our solution” Feb 10, 2006: “helping negotiate with my old team at Sun for a critical license” Mar 24, 2006: “Java.lang api’s are copyrighted” Sept 28, 2006: “Leverage Java for its existing base of developers” Nov 6, 2007: “Is Android Java compatible?...No.” Nov 17, 2007: “Scrub out a few more J’s” Mar 24, 2008: “Please don’t demonstrate to any sun employees or lawyers” Aug 5, 2009: “How aggressive do we scrub the J word?” Aug 6, 2010: “technical alternatives…to Java for Android…suck” “we need to negotiate a license for Java under the terms we need” Oct 13, 2011: “Android is hugely profitable”
        ajross 15y ago
        Juries decide on facts, though, not laws. They can determine whether or not Google thought a license was required, but it's the judge (or more likely an appellate court) who will decide whether it actually was.
- skore 15y ago
  Well - obviously, if there was anything even close to resembling legally binding contracts, we wouldn't be having this court case. Both sides deal only with "we were under the impression of X" and back up their claims with industry numbers and quotes.

by chc 15y ago

ajross 15y ago

Not so much wrongdoing as bad faith. If Google offered Sun a good financial deal (they might have: certainly they had a lot of cash) but Sun walked away anyway (because they wanted to preserve control of the platform, say), then that puts a pretty firm cap on the damages Oracle can be awarded. If Sun represented to Google internally that a deal was likely, and then yanked the rug out at the last minute, then that's straight up bad faith.

jimmyvanhalen 15y ago

here's the problem: "numerous direct quotes from people at Sun and Oracle" are not legally binding contracts.

chc 15y ago
Well, yeah, but is that really necessary? They demonstrate intent, they support the accuracy of Google's view of the situation, and I'm pretty sure they'll make it harder for Oracle to paint Google's actions as tortious. It's similar to how you'd have a hard time suing somebody for injuring you if you admitted you jumped in front of their car to get money out of them — that's not a contract either, but it won't help your case. If even Oracle believes that what Google is doing is OK and doesn't constitute infringement, then that paints them as rent-seekers rather than an injured party.
- jimmyvanhalen 15y ago
  -Google has to prove and convince the jury that they obtained a license or a legally binding agreement to use Java. So they need to present evidence that they have those. Any statement from an employee, even from the CEO, is useless if there are no legally binding contract or license. -Oracle only has to prove and convince the jury that Google willfully and knowingly ignored required licensing agreements. So they can present emails and quotes from employees and executives and the emails alone can do a lot of damage.
  - krakensden 15y ago
    > Google has to prove and convince the jury that they obtained a license or a legally binding agreement to use Java Their contention is that they don't need one. Besides, they don't use Java- They use Dalvik and a JVM bytecode-to-Dalvik translator.
    - jimmyvanhalen 15y ago
      >Their contention is that they don't need one. Besides, they don't use Java- They use Dalvik and a JVM bytecode-to-Dalvik translator. Google's lawyers are going to have a hard time convincing the jury. Check out Oracle's slides. http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/features/opening-slides-1592541.pdf http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/features/opening-slides-1... slide 90: What Google Said Before Lawsuit Jul 26, 2005: “Must take license from Sun” Oct 11, 2005: “We’ll pay Sun for the license and the TCK” “We are making Java central to our solution” Feb 10, 2006: “helping negotiate with my old team at Sun for a critical license” Mar 24, 2006: “Java.lang api’s are copyrighted” Sept 28, 2006: “Leverage Java for its existing base of developers” Nov 6, 2007: “Is Android Java compatible?...No.” Nov 17, 2007: “Scrub out a few more J’s” Mar 24, 2008: “Please don’t demonstrate to any sun employees or lawyers” Aug 5, 2009: “How aggressive do we scrub the J word?” Aug 6, 2010: “technical alternatives…to Java for Android…suck” “we need to negotiate a license for Java under the terms we need” Oct 13, 2011: “Android is hugely profitable”
      - ajross 15y ago
        Juries decide on facts, though, not laws. They can determine whether or not Google thought a license was required, but it's the judge (or more likely an appellate court) who will decide whether it actually was.
skore 15y ago
Well - obviously, if there was anything even close to resembling legally binding contracts, we wouldn't be having this court case. Both sides deal only with "we were under the impression of X" and back up their claims with industry numbers and quotes.