4 ms·

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

chc 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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.

chc 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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.