

Oracle says 'Google wants to throw its licensees and users under the bus' - grellas
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/02/oracle-says-google-now-wants-to-throw.html

======
mustpax
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."_

~~~
FlorianMueller
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
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
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.

------
j_baker
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Oracle's argument essentially "Google is
throwing its partners under a bus because we're going to sue them if we don't
get what we want"? How is Google throwing people that _Oracle_ is suing under
a bus? Is anyone else reminded of the RIAA's decision to sue people who pirate
music? Either:

1) Oracle is bluffing or

2) Oracle really is stupid enough to sue Google's users.

If Oracle really does decide to sue the users of Android, it isn't _Google_
that's going to end up looking bad. People are going to blame the company
that's suing them. It would be about the dumbest PR move they could possibly
make and would destroy any goodwill they have left in the developer and open
source communities. Either way, I think Google should call Oracle's bluff.

------
lukeschlather
Seven patents. Seven. The most intellectually dishonest thing Oracle (and
Mueller) are doing is pretending that the seven patents involved are somehow
evidence that Android ecosystem is reasonably the property of Oracle. Even if
the patents are ruled valid, they still represent a tiny fraction of the IP
involved.

~~~
kenjackson
Only takes one patent. I don't know the details, so maybe its some corner that
can easily just be cut off. But the quantity of patents brought is generally
not evidence of anything, except how long the trial might take.

------
orangecat
This guy is the epitome of concern trolling.

------
earl
Isn't this the liar that had to walk java source code showing up in android
claims _way_ back just last month?

edit: to be clear: not grellas, for whom I have the highest respect, but the
fosspatents dude

~~~
FlorianMueller
Hi earl, I was informed of you calling me a "liar" here and I understand words
like that are used in online discussions without being meant personally.
Anyway, I had provided links to where the code could be found -- in the public
repositories of Android 2.2 and 2.3 (i.e., the currently most relevant
versions for smartphones).

And in addition to the general repository, the code could also be found in
various source availability packages published by Motorola, LG and Samsung:
[http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/01/android-device-
maker...](http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/01/android-device-makers-
distribute-oracle.html) Dell and HTC left those files out.

Most of the confusion resulted from a very aggressive blog post by Ed
Burnette, who runs a ZDNet blog that officially covers all sorts of software
development topics but is overwhelmingly about Android evangelism. I'm an
Android user, too; my blog is hosted by Google, and I use other Google
services (even Buzz, really). But I'm skeptical of the IP situation concerning
Android (and WebM, to be honest).

~~~
earl
I just reread your original post [1]. I'd like to apologize -- I just skimmed
your article and those by Burnette [2] and ars [3]. I came away with a very
wrong impression.

The relevant quote is "I have discovered additional material that Oracle might
present to the court as examples of copyright-infringing material in the
Android codebase" [1]. Which is indeed true. The other articles draw a
distinction between code in the repo under unit tests and code that is built
and deployed onto devices. Which is helpful to Google, but still much worse
than there simply being no Oracle owned code in the repo.

So, my apologies.

It would probably have been better if your original article more clearly
distinguished between code in the repo and code that becomes a binary and is
deployed onto the android devices, but it was also my responsibility as a
reader to pick up on that.

[1] [http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-evidence-
support...](http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-evidence-supports-
oracles-case.html)

[2] [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/oops-no-copied-java-
code-...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/oops-no-copied-java-code-or-
weapons-of-mass-destruction-found-in-android/2162)

[3] [http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2011/01/new-
alleged-...](http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2011/01/new-alleged-
evidence-of-android-infringement-isnt-a-smoking-gun.ars)

------
yanw
Groklaw's take:

<http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110209012513344>

<http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110206222954641>

