WebProNews

Tag: Oracle

  • Oracle vs. Google: Jury Sides with Android

    In Google’s drawn-out court proceedings regarding Oracle’s accusations that the search giant infringed upon Java API patents in the development of its Android operating system, a jury has just found that no copyrights were violated.

    Google released a statement on the matter – “Today’s jury verdict that Android does not infringe Oracle’s patents was a victory not just for Google but the entire Android ecosystem.”

    The trial had been down to a jury ruling on the APIs since last week, after 18 months of litigation, which at times looked like Google might be shelling out a billion dollars in damages – in a trial that had the potential to reshape the entire concept of fair use in software development. And beyond money and legality, the case displayed an air of corporate hubris, with overtly tanned and jetliner-owning CEOs acting flippant on the stand, while some of the best attorneys money can buy actually took the time to learn how to traverse the sort of Java scripts Google manipulated while building Android.

    Though, for the last while, it looked more and more like Oracle really didn’t have much of a case, and the jury has finally spoken. Google’s Matt Cutts has already taken to Twitter with news of the ruling:

    Matt Cutts
    @mattcutts     In Oracle vs. Google: “The jury verdict is in. They found no infringement of the patents”: http://t.co/VsIatN1G
    3 minutes ago via Tweet Button · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    Check back for more extensive coverage.

  • Oracle Acquires Virtue, A Social Marketing Platform

    Oracle announced an agreement to acquire cloud-based social marketing platform Virtue.

    Virtue is designed to let marketers manages social marketing campaigns across Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Google+ from one place.

    Oracle wrote in a blog post:

    The proliferation of social media has changed the way that organizations and consumers interact. Vitrue’s social marketing platform helps organizations enhance their social marketing efforts to the next level of social engagement by giving brands the ability to scale across multiple social networks, target messages from global to local, create unique and consistent brand experiences, and publish content that engages fans and drives leads.

    Together, Oracle and Vitrue plan to enable a unified social experience across customer interactions, resulting in meaningful customer engagements with consistent brand experiences across all channels and media; improved return on investment for social sales and marketing campaigns across paid, owned and social media; and enhanced customer service through real-time responsiveness and high touch engagement.

    “The world’s greatest brands have been built by creating meaningful relationships between organizations and their customers,” said Virtue CEO Reggie Bradford. “As a part of Oracle, we can help our customers ensure that consistent high-touch social engagement is delivered across marketing, sales and service interactions.”

    Terms of the deal were not disclosed, though TechCrunch indicates the price is $300 million. The deal is expected to close this summer. In the meantime, the two companies will continue to operate independently.

  • SAP Acquires Ariba

    SAP Acquires Ariba

    SAP, a German software company Oracle recently went after for an amended $777 million over copyright infringement, has just acquired information technology services company Ariba for $4.3 billion, to bolster its cloud service offerings.

    The merger is expected to be completed some time in the 3rd quarter of 2012, and JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank AG advised SAP on the sale, while Morgan Stanley guided Ariba. In related news, Morgan Stanley is presently being looked at regarding Facebook’s building IPO drama. SAP is paying $45 a share, which is still subject to approval by Ariba shareholders and various regulators.

    Ariba offers “Spend Management Solutions” which help companies to manage corporate spending and supply chains more efficiently. Ariba saw revenues of $444 million last year, with a profit of $33.3 million. Shares closed at $37.64 yesterday. Speaking on the merger in a press release, Ariba CEO Bob Calderoni states, “In our personal lives, networks are playing an increasingly important role in how we connect, share, and shop – bringing more insight and efficiency into everything we do – Businesses are looking for the same connectedness, insight, and efficiencies in the processes and collaboration with customers, suppliers, and partners beyond the walls of their companies. By combining Ariba’s open global trading network and SAP’s solutions and analytics, we are ushering in a new era of business-to-business collaboration and driving new levels of productivity.”

  • Google Bought $10 Million Worth of TeraHop Patents

    Google Inc., noted patent hawker, which finally acquired Motorola for $12.5 billion today, also paid about $10 million for another set of patents owned by a now-bankrupt portable network device company called TeraHop.

    For a bit of backstory, TeraHop, based in Georgia, had filed for bankruptcy protection in September, and just last week, after the indictment of Seattle investment professional Mark Spangler, a court-appointed receivership revealed that Google had invested $10 million in patents in the company, regarding tracking technologies associated with shipping containers and RFID technologies. Spangler is charged with 23 counts of fraud and money laundering, allegedly floating $46 million through Terahop and Tamarac, which prompted the investigation of the companies.

    A potion of the Google money might be used to pay back swindled investors, and some of the 115 acquired patents include:

    – An antenna for cargo container monitoring
    – A security system visually capturing and monitoring contents and events of cargo container
    – A radio frequency identification based sensor

    Google knows better than to take any chances on possible patent infringement, after a drawn-out trial with Oracle over Java patents – thought the search giant will likely come out of that proceeding with a slap on the wrist, as opposed to a possible $1 billion restitution some had speculated.

  • Oracle, Google Trial Down to API Ruling

    Oracle, Google Trial Down to API Ruling

    It was recently reported that the jury in Oracle’s case against Google for copyright infringement found that the search giant did violate Java copyrights, but likewise were undecided on whether or not the manipulation of the Java APIs in question should be considered fair use. Oracle’s legal team requested that presiding Judge William Alsup rule on the question as a matter of law, only to be denied. Alsup stated that a ruling “wouldn’t be fair,” citing the wealth of evidence introduced during the proceedings.

    So far, Google has only been found to have infringed upon 9 lines of rangeCheck code found in TimSort.java and ComparableTimSort.java – 9 lines out of the 15 million that comprise Android, which equates to one count of infringement. While Oracle asked Alsup to rule on fair use, Google likewise requested a mistrial. By statute, the 9 lines of code in question can only garner a maximum fine of $150,000, which Judge Alsup confirmed last week.

    Yesterday, Oracle stated that if the APIs are ruled to be protected by copyright, it won’t go after Google seeking extensive damages related to the rangeCheck code. Alsup had called portions of Oracle’s argument a “fishing expedition,” and the legal team adjusted its tactics. Oracle lead counsel David Boies had argued that Oracle could still lay claim to infringer’s profits – Android makes about $3 million a day, and Oracle wanted a piece. But Boies agreed to forgo this sort of claim if Alsup ruled that the APIs weren’t protected.

    Interestingly, Judge Alsup told the court that he’d learned to code Java specifically for the trial, and that he’d written some of the possibly infringing scripts a hundred times before the trial even began. Alsup stated, “I can do it. You can do it. It’s so simple.” Then, addressing Boies, Alsup added, “You’re one of the best lawyers in America — how can you make that argument?” Snap.

    Alsup said he’d present a ruling on the APIs within a week, and Boies submitted Oracle’s stance – if the APIs are protected, they will seek damages, if not, they will likely get next to nothing. And so goes the once potentially $1 billion dollar case.

    For a bit of backstory, Google’s trial against Oracle, who is suing over infringement regarding the use of Java in building the Android OS, finally commenced just weeks ago – 18 months after Oracle’s initial complaint. While the main point of contention is whether or not Google violated any copyrights, the trial was to be more about whether or not Oracle can to get a jury to agree that some portions of its Java APIs (application programming interfaces) can be classified as created works of art, and thus protected. The outcome of the trial could set a precedent regarding software developers’ use of open-source content.

  • Google Fines Limited to $150K in Oracle Case

    It was recently reported that Oracle might only be able to collect $150,000 in fines from Google, for infringing upon its Java APIs in the the development of the Android operating system, and now presiding Judge William Alsup confirmed these damages. A billion dollars has been a sort of buzz-phrase surrounding the tech industry as of late, with Facebook’s recent acquisition of Instagram for a billion dollars. Some have said Oracle might also get a billion dollars from Google per inflated fines, but as the case continues to play out, it would appear that the makers of Java will not only fail in achieving a billion, but might also fail to save face, in a case exhibiting an undertone of corporate hubris.

    So far, Google has only been found to have infringed upon 9 lines of rangeCheck code found in TimSort.java and ComparableTimSort.java – 9 lines out of the 15 million that comprise Android, which equates to one count of infringement. While Oracle asked Alsup to rule on fair use, Google likewise requested a mistrial. By statute, the 9 lines of code in question can only garner a maximum fine of $150,000, which Judge Alsup confirmed today.

    There has yet to be a ruling on Google’s bid for a mistrial, and Oracle today filed to divorce from the portions of the case already heard, a motion likewise still up in the air. The next phase of the trial will likely surround further classification of the 37 Java APIs in question, a ruling on whether or not any of them are actually copyrighted, which would lead to a better look at the issue of fair use.

  • Google Trial May Only Net Oracle $150,000

    Earlier this week we brought you news that the jury that was deciding the first part – the copyright phase – of the ongoing trial between Oracle and Google had returned a peculiar verdict: they ruled that Google’s use of Java in the creation of Android did constitute infringement of Oracle’s intellectual property, but deadlocked on the question of whether that constituted fair use. Google promptly moved for a mistrial, but a ruling on that point has not yet been issued.

    Today, Oracle received more bad news. According to a report published earlier this afternoon by ZDNet, the judge in the case told Oracle that the level of infringement the jury found Google to have perpetrated only allowed Oracle to be awarded a maximum – maximum – of $150,000. The jury found that only nine lines of Android’s code infringed on Oracle’s intellectual property. The judge also suggested that Oracle pursue a settlement with Google in order to avoid dragging the trial out longer than necessary.

    The next phase of the three-part trial is the patent phase. This will determine whether Google is guilty of infringing on two of Oracle’s patents. Google reportedly offered to pay Oracle $2.8 million in damages and a small percentage of the royalties from Android through the end of the year, but Oracle was not interested. With the copyright phase of the trial ending badly for Oracle, don’t be surprised to find them headed back to the negotiating table soon.

  • Google Asks Judge for a Mistrial in Oracle Case

    The latest development in the Google vs Oracle lawsuit, Google has asked the judge in the case to declare a mistrial. Essentially the jury did find that Google infringed on some of Oracle’s copyrighted Java API’s, but could not decide if Java use on the Android operating system was fair use or not.

    Here’s a segment from the petition filed by Google earlier this week:

    “Although the jury concluded that Oracle had proven that Google infringed the overall structure, sequence and organization of the copyrighted works, the jury did not reach a unanimous verdict as to whether Google had proven the affirmative defense of fair use,”

    “Under settled Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit law, the jury’s failure to reach a verdict concerning both halves of this indivisible question requires a new trial concerning both questions.”

    Oracle is hoping to avoid the cost and time a new trial would require and they demand to be compensating for the infringement with a certain amount of Android profits. This is a sentiment that did not sit well with Judge William Alsup, who is hearing the case. He called Oracle claim’s to the profits “ridiculous”.

    Google is also challenging whether or not Oracle even holds the rights to the Java patents, as it is not made clear in what has been presented so far. This is an issue that could cause a lot of problems in the tech community if Oracle wins, as it would either render it hugely expensive to purchase a license for the technology or make unavailable completely.

    No word yet on if the judge will proceed with the petition to declare a mistrial. One thing is for sure, there’s a lot of people hanging on the outcome of this case, and if a new and separate trail is required, it will only delay us finding out if Oracle actually has legitimate right to limit the use of the technology the way they are claiming.

  • Oracle’s Bid for Fair Use Ruling Shot Down

    Oracle’s Bid for Fair Use Ruling Shot Down

    It was recently reported that the jury in Oracle’s case against Google for copyright infringement found that search giant did violate Java copyrights, but likewise were undecided on whether or not the manipulation of the Java APIs in question should be considered fair use. Oracle’s legal team requested that presiding Judge William Alsup rule on the question as a matter of law, only to be denied. Alsup stated that a ruling “wouldn’t be fair,” citing the wealth of evidence introduced during the proceedings.

    For a bit of backstory, Google’s trial against Oracle, who is suing over infringement regarding the use of Java in building the Android OS, finally commenced just weeks ago – 18 months after Oracle’s initial complaint. While the main point of contention is whether or not Google violated any copyrights, the trial was to be more about whether or not Oracle can to get a jury to agree that some portions of its Java APIs (application programming interfaces) can be classified as created works of art, and thus protected. The outcome of the trial could set a precedent regarding software developers’ use of open-source content.

    While the jury did rule that Google infringed upon Oracle patents, the issue of fair use is still up in the air. According to the U.S. Copyright Office, “The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.” Fair use is also described as being made up of four components:

    The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.
    The nature of the copyrighted work.
    The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.
    The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.

    It’s clear that Google has used what Oracle has been trying to define as being a protected work of art for Android, in an extremely commercial nature. The ‘potential market or value’ of Android is substantial, though the key component regarding what defines fair use relevant to this stage in the case appears to be what potion of Java code was used in the development of the Android OS. So far, Google has only been found to have infringed upon 9 lines of rangeCheck code found in TimSort.java and ComparableTimSort.java – 9 lines out of the 15 million that comprise Android, which equates to one count of infringement. While Oracle asked Alsup to rule on fair use, Google likewise requested a mistrial, which has yet to be ruled on.

    The next phase of the trial will likely surround further classification of the 37 Java APIs in question, a ruling on whether or not any of them are actually copyrighted, which would lead to a better look at the issue of fair use. One count of infringement concerning 9 lines of code out of 15 million doesn’t seem too worthy of much of a fine, though its evident that the Google/Oracle proceedings may have only just begun.

  • Google Might Move Motorola Mobility to Chicago

    Motorola Mobility, who recently reported a Q1 operating loss, might soon find a new headquarters in Chicago, as it bides its time while waiting to be acquired by Google, a deal expected to be completed by sometime toward the end of May. Motorola’s current home is located in Libertyville, IL, just north of downtown.

    According to Chicago Business, Google has been in the market for about 500,000 square feet of office space in the Windy City, in plans to move Motorola Mobility, once (if) China approves it’s $12.5 billion acquisition of the company – money spent mostly on patents. Google has allegedly looked at top floors of the landmark Merchandise Mart in River North and a section of Fulton Market Cold Storage in the West Loop, to house roughly 3,000 employees that might possibly move from the Libertyville branch.

    To better explain why Motorola Mobility, whose last big hit seemed to be the antiquated RAZR phone, might be worth $12.5 billion – Google is currently embroiled in a patent dispute with Oracle, over the use of Java APIs in the development of the Android operating system. The jury in that case just found Google partially guilty of violating Oracle’s copyrights, and the search giant doesn’t want to repeat this sort of legal scenario with Motorola. Google also might be looking to develop its own handsets some time in the future.

  • Google Found Partially Guilty in Oracle Case

    On Friday it appeared as if the jury in Oracle’s case against Google regarding copyright infringement was possibly deadlocked, due to a potential disagreement surrounding the concept of de minimis copying of protected content. Basically, this would mean the jury has yet to come to a decision regarding Google’s minimal copying of the 37 Java APIs used when developing Android. Now, according to a series of tweets from Wired’s Caleb Garling, the jury found that Google did violate Oracle’s copyrights, but likewise were undecided on whether or not the search giant’s use of Java APIs should be considered fair use. At this, Google asked for a mistrial, but presiding Judge William Alsup decided to move forth to the patent infringement phase of the proceedings, without even a recess.

    For a bit of backstory, Google’s trial against Oracle, who is suing over infringement regarding the use of Java in building the Android OS, finally commenced just weeks ago – 18 months after Oracle’s initial complaint. While the main point of contention is whether or not Google violated any copyrights, the trial was to be more about whether or not Oracle can to get a jury to agree that some portions of its Java APIs (application programming interfaces) can be classified as created works of art, and thus protected. The outcome of the trial could set a precedent regarding software developers’ use of open-source content.

    When it came down to it, the jury had answered the following questions, courtesy of the aforementioned tweets:

    @CalebGarling
    Caleb Garling    A. Has Oracle proven that Google has infringed the overall structure, sequence and organization of copyrighted works? YES 43 minutes ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    @CalebGarling
    Caleb Garling    As to the documentation for the 37 Java API packages in question taken as a group: A. Has Oracle proven that Google has infringed? NO 44 minutes ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    @CalebGarling
    Caleb Garling    Google immediately moves for mistrial on question 1 38 minutes ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    @CalebGarling
    Caleb Garling    Alsup doesn’t mess around. Read verdicts on copyrights. Whamo. On to patent phase. Not even a recess. 25 minutes ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    Oracle Google jury form 05-07-2012

    A spokesperson from Google states, “We appreciate the jury’s efforts, and know that fair use and infringement are two sides of the same coin. The core issue is whether the APIs here are copyrightable, and that’s for the court to decide. We expect to prevail on this issue and Oracle’s other claims.” Judge Alsup had previously stated that the court might “take what we can get and move on to the patent phase” – thing is, the question of fair use has yet to be addressed, and Google can’t exactly be fined until this is sorted out. Check back for more updates.

    Hat tip to Google+Reader” target=”_blank”>Business Insider.

  • Jury in Google vs. Oracle Case Possibly Deadlocked

    It would appear that the jury in Oracle’s case against Google regarding copyright infringement is possibly deadlocked, according to The Verge, due to a potential disagreement surrounding the concept of de minimis copying of protected content. Basically, this would mean the jury has yet to come to a decision regarding Google’s minimal copying of the 37 Java APIs used when developing Android.

    For a bit of backstory, Google’s trial against Oracle, who is suing over patent infringement regarding the use of Java in building the Android OS, finally commenced just weeks ago – 18 months after Oracle’s initial complaint. While the main point of contention is whether or not Google violated any copyrights, the trial was to be more about whether or not Oracle can to get a jury to agree that some portions of its Java APIs (application programming interfaces) can be classified as created works of art, and thus protected. The outcome of the trial could set a precedent regarding software developers’ use of open-source content.

    Still, there has been no official statement that the jury is tied up. Yesterday a juror, not the foreperson, had plainly asked presiding Judge William Alsup how the 12 should proceed if a unanimous decision can’t be reached if one member won’t change their stance. Alsup took both Google and Oracles counsels aside, and commented on a possible deadlock, stating that the court might “take what we can get and move on to the patent phase.” Alsup then brought the jury back in, and essentially gave them a little pep talk, commending them for poring over the technical complexity of the evidence of the trial, regardless of individual technical aptitudes. Then the jury was dismissed for the day, and will be back in today.

    Neither side would likely want to move forth toward the patent phase without a unaminous decision regarding the infringement claims, de minimus or not. Though, surely Oracle would rather a retrial that to proceed with a deadlock. Perhaps the jury will come up with a decision today.

  • Oracle Seeks $777 Million from SAP in Retrial

    Oracle Seeks $777 Million from SAP in Retrial

    Back in 2010, a jury awarded Oracle $1.3 billion in damages in a copyright infringement case involving business management software company SAP’s illegal downloading and resale of Oracle software. Basically, SAP was using a company called TomorrowNow to access Oracle databases with former Oracle customer info, downloading copyrighted content, and then reselling it to Oracle customers for half the price. The $1.3 billion verdict was the largest ever for a copyright infringement case, and also the largest jury award in the U.S. of 2010.

    Still, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton ended up reducing the damages to $272 million, and Oracle has decided to commence with a retrial, and is now seeking $776.7 million from SAP. The retrial is set for June 18th in Oakland, CA. Oracle claims its new figure regarding its damages claim will be backed up by an “updated analysis and additional evidence to support the infringers’ profits and lost profit amounts.” The almost $777 million comprises $120.7 million in Oracle’s lost profits, and $656 million in SAP’s profits.

    Jim Dever, speaking on behalf of SAP, states that the damages are more like $28 million, adding, “We think Oracle’s damage estimate is overstated.” Naturally.

    Interestingly, the original jury award in the Oracle/SAP case was partly based on a the price of a “hypothetical license.” This is essentially the main point of contention in Oracle’s ongoing trial against Google over Java API patent infringement. While Google didn’t so blatantly manipulate Oracle wares in an illegal fashion, there is a chance that a jury might find that Google did require a sort of “hypothetical license” for portions of Java used in the development of the its Android operating system. The cost of this sort of license could be astronomical. The jury in the Google vs. Oracle case should present a verdict within the next day or two.

    While SAP admitted to wrongdoing and that they owe damages, Google has remained vague and evasive on the stand when questioned by Oracle’s legal team. Still, some fear that a jury siding with Google might set a precedent for the manipulation of open-source software. A facet of Oracle’s business model seems to have evolved into collecting on its free software if someone else makes any money off of it.

  • Google Secures New Network Patent

    Google Secures New Network Patent

    Google, now appearing to be more aware of the concept of licensing and patents, has just secured a copyright concerning wireless access auctions. The search giant was previous denied a similar bid in 2007, though tried again and succeeded, perhaps realizing the dire necessity of owning the rights to all of the tech it incorporates. Google is presently embroiled in a copyright infringement case against Oracle over its excessive manipulation of Java APIs while developing the Android OS – the verdict of the first phase of the trial is expected very soon.

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office has just awarded Google a patent applied to real-time auctions surrounding wireless networks. Basically, higher bandwidth users on a network would bid for access on the fly, and be forced to pay more for services. Google itself, or however the company plans to allocate the rights, would run the auctions to determine how to divy up bandwidth bids. Low traffic on a network would denote low rates, and high traffic instances would foster bids for rank in access and transmission rights, meaning, users could pay for prime time, or wait for cheaper phases of access to bandwidth.

    It can be assumed the new patent might have something to do with Android, which has been gaining traction, now making up roughly half of the mobile market worldwide. Perhaps Google is looking for ways to undercut Apple even more with some sort of data plan workarounds, as the iPhone is losing a bit of steam in the world’s emerging markets.

  • Retirement Fund Sues Google Over Stock

    Retirement Fund Sues Google Over Stock

    Google CEO Larry Page has been mentioned in various lawsuits of late, recently taking the stand in the search giant’s copyright infringement trial with Oracle, where his demeanor was described as being evasive – and now Bloomberg reports that Page has been listed again in a court proceeding, as a Massachusetts pension fund called The Brockton Retirement Board sued Google over the company’s plan to split up stocks in a way that would create more non-voting shares.

    Google is in the process of creating a new class of stock which would allow large shareholders to maintain voting power indefinitely, and the Brockton fund contends that Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin are “dominant shareholders of Google by creating a non-voting class of Google stock in order to preserve their voting power into perpetuity.” Brockton also calls Google’s reclassification of the shares a “thinly veiled attempt to entrench.” At present, regular shareholders all have Class A common shares, which allow for one vote each. Founders like Page have Class B shares, and seek to reclassify common shares to a new Class C, non-voting shares.

    The Brockton fund seeks unspecified damages, and made their complaint public yesterday in a Delaware Chancery Court in Wilmington – Brockton Retirement Board v. Page, CA7469, Delaware Chancery Court (Wilmington). Google has yet to comment on the matter.

    In related news, the aforementioned Java / Android patent infringement trial is winding down, with a verdict concerning the the first phase of the proceedings expected within the next couple of days. There is a chance that Page and Co. might soon be tacking on more shareholder retributions to possible Java licensing fines.

  • Google, Oracle Trial Winding Down

    Google, Oracle Trial Winding Down

    The trial of Oracle’s lawsuit against Google, who is suing over patent infringement regarding the use of Java in the building the Android OS, finally commenced roughly two weeks ago – 18 months after Oracle’s initial complaint – and now the closing arguments of the first phase of the court proceedings were winding down this morning, with Oracle asserting that Google has been plainly making excuses about illegally manipulating Java APIs during the development of the Android OS.

    Oracle attorney Michael Jacobs stated in the U.S. District Court, “this is a trial between large companies over really important business issues, and sometimes the numbers involved have been staggering – You will see email after email in which Google executives knew this day would come.” It’s not clear if Jacobs was referring to a staggering number of emails, actual copyright violations committed, or if he was speaking of the real issue – the potential of a billion dollars in fines Google might have to fork over.

    Oracle has always contended that the Java APIs used by Google are so intricate that they could be considered to be a protected creative work. Jacobs somewhat dramatically described said Java APIs as being akin to a musical composition, – “It’s magical. It’s like painting.” Google has always said that none of this mattered, as Java falls under fair use, and has claimed that the lawsuit was an attack on open-source Java content from the start. Jacobs asserted that Google has been using this sort of thing as a cop out, and was well-aware that their manipulation of Java might’ve gone beyond what open-source was intended for – which seems to go along with reports of Google CEO Larry Page’s demeanor as he’d taken the stand. Page remained elusive when asked about any company emails concerning the APIs, plainly stated that he “didn’t remember.”

    Earlier speculation that Oracle might demand that Google change the Android code altogether were far-fetched – the company wants Android to get a license for Java, and to admit they essentially stole the APIs, since they were aware a license would be required in the first place. It would appear Google might’ve taken a gamble, lost, and now might have to plainly pay for what it would’ve had to pay for in the first place, sans any court proceedings. Android exec Andy Rubin even testified that Google wanted Sun (the developer of Java before Oracle took over) to “throw away their standard license,” and “develop a new license that was specifically what we’re looking for.” Then Rubin turned around and stated that Google didn’t think they needed a license.

    Presiding Judge William Alsup predicts the jury might be back within the next couple of days. This will be interesting – If Google loses, the trial will eventually progress to the stage where fines are handed out. The number could be outrageous.

  • Google’s Android Expectations: Hope vs. Reality

    The court case between Google and Oracle has become a goldmine for those wanting a peek inside the world of Android as a business. The Verge has published a slide presentation for a quarterly review of Android that was entered into the trial as evidence. The review was presented on July 12, 2010. The slides reveal much about Google’s expectations for Android, showing that the platform has been a success in some areas, but fallen short in others.

    The slides highlight where Android was in 2010, and it doesn’t seem that far off from where they are now. Back then, 20 million Android devices had already been sold, and 160,000 Android devices were being activated every day. All major service providers around the world were committed to Android and manufacturers were jumping on board as well. However, this explosive growth in Android sales hadn’t slowed Apple much, if at all. Looking back, these sales were indicative of the growth of the smartphone market as a whole, and companies such as Nokia and RIM were the ones that lost out in the sea change.

    Though there were already 70,000 apps in Google’s Android app market, purchases of apps were very low. This is a situation that has persisted, and many apps that sell on Apple’s App Store are free on Google Play and use in-app ads. Even with all of those in-app ads, though, Android in 2010 still came in a distant second as a contributor to Google’s total mobile revenues. Apple provided more than double the revenue from Android phones, with $281 million. The free-app culture is one that Google helped to encourage with free, high-quality apps of their own and an open-source platform.

    Google's mobile revenue in 2010, by platfrom

    Google was already worried about competing app stores showing up on Android devices. This is another consequence of Google’s open-platform philosophy. Also, without the strict controls that Apple uses for its devices, manufacturers and carriers were free to create “walled gardens,” as Google calls them, forcing customers to use their own modified Android versions. This is a trend that continues today, and has actually gotten worse. One thing Google didn’t anticipate in 2010 is that those “walled gardens” would create a problem when updates to Android are released. Carriers and manufacturers must update their “walled gardens” along with Android, and many of them are slow to do so. This has created a system where even some high-end Android phones don’t yet have the newest version of Android, Ice Cream Sandwich, running on them.

    Google’s anticipated future revenue opportunities included better display, search, and local ad formats. The mobile ads seen on Android devices have improved since 2010, though it’s unknown whether or not ad revenue has improved as a result. Another revenue opportunity Google anticipated was the tablet market. The presentation makes it clear that Honeycomb, the version of Android designed specifically for tablet devices, was a major goal for the Android team at the time. They expected the high content consumption inherent on tablets to increase mobile ad revenue. However, as we know now, the tablet market still seems to be all but locked-up by Apple.

    Google does seem to be right on track according to the Android Strategy shown in the presentation. In 2010 Android was already transitioning into phase two. The platform had clearly already achieved the goals set out in phase one, which were becoming a leading mobile software platform, gaining a significant amount of apps, being on multiple manufacturer’s devices, and obtaining millions of users. Phase two, which ran from 2010 until sometime in 2011, focused on improving mobile search, ads, and apps. Phase three, which Android is in currently, involves expanding monetizable services on the platform, including digital content such as movies, books and music. This strategy can clearly be seen in the launch of Google’s new marketplace, Google Play, where a vast array of content is now available. Manufacturers seem to have already beaten Google to a key part of phase 4, which is to scale the volume of Android devices by going down-market to feature phones. The lower-priced Android devices coming out recently aren’t exactly feature phones, but they are certainly leaving a dent in feature phone sales.

    Google's Android strategy

    Google’s estimations for a potential music download service are particularly interesting. The plan was for a music download service similar to iTunes, which would allow users to download DRM-free music and share %70 of its revenue to music labels. In addition, users would be able to rent cloud storage for their music library for $3 per month, with 50% of that money going to music labels. A feature that Apple recently rolled out with its iTunes Match service was also put forward: uploading songs to the cloud storage service and having them “refreshed” to a higher bit rate. Google predicted that it might bring in as much as $738 million in revenue from music sales in 2011, which certainly hasn’t panned out. Though Google Music has some of the features touted in the presentation for a future Google music service, Google is far from a leader in music sales.

    Google's plans to sell music

    Some of Google’s predictions have been exceeded by the success of the Android platform. Both unit sales for Android devices and Google’s mobile revenue greatly exceed even the optimistic predictions seen in the 2010 slide presentation. Other predictions, though, have not come to pass. The tablet sales and revenue expected, in particular, are far below what Google had predicted. Still, Google can’t be faulted for thinking big and setting impressive goals. Especially when they have met most of those goals. No matter what the next twist for the mobile market is, as Android transitions to phase four in 2013 the platform will, most likely, continue to pull in big revenue for Google.

    Take a look at Google’s slide presentation yourself and see what a difference two years can make in the mobile sector. If you have insight about where Android has been and where it is going, make sure to leave a comment below and let us know.

    (via Marketing Land)
    (Slide pictures courtesy The Verge)

  • Eric Schmidt Testifies About Google’s Use of Java

    Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt was in court yesterday defending Google’s use of Java in its development of Android. The trial, which is in its seventh day, is over whether Google illegally used Oracle’s intellectual property when it used Java to develop the Android smartphone operating system.

    In his testimony yesterday Schmidt said that Android was based on a “clean room” version of Java that did not use any of the code on which Sun Microsystems (later bought by Oracle) held any copyrights or patents. This, Schmidt said, came after negotiations between Google and Sun to partner for Android development fell apart due to Google’s insistence that Android remain open source.

    Schmidt said that he was told during the development process that Android “did not use Sun’s intellectual property,” and that he “was very comfortable that what we were doing was legally correct. He also insisted that Sun had full knowledge of what Google was doing with Android and never objected or asked for a licensing agreement concerning Google’s use of Java. Schmidt – himself formerly the CTO of Sun – said that he met with Jonathan Schwartz – Sun’s CEO – regularly and that Schwartz never objected to the way Google was developing Android with Java.

    While Oracle admits that Java is a programming language and thus freely available, they insist that Java’s APIs are their own intellectual property, and that to use them, Google needed a license. Oracle contends that Google knew this, and went ahead with development anyway. Google insists that the APIs can no more be copyrighted than the programming language itself, and that Google did not need a license to use them. The APIs, Schmidt argued during his testimony, are necessary to “make something happen” with the programming langage, and that “the Java language is not useful without the ability to make something happen.”

    The trial is currently in its seventh day. Each side has scored points in its examination of witnesses. Oracle CEO Larry Ellison found himself ill-prepared to take the stand last week, while Google CEO Larry Page was evasive on the stand about whether Google needed a license to use Java.

    In all, the trial is expected to take about eight weeks. If Oracle wins, it could cost Google as much as a billion dollars in damages and, perhaps more importantly, force Google to re-write the Android OS.

  • Oracle Wins Java Patent Claim

    In the heat of Oracle’s court battle with Google concerning copyright infringement, the owner of the open-source Java programming language saw a small victory on April 19th, when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office confirmed a previously rejected Java patent. In the ongoing case, Oracle seeks to to prove that the manipulation of Java APIs, a practice Google utilized while developing its Android OS, could be perceived as copyright infringement, as certain portions of the code should be considered as protected creative works.

    The patent in question, number 5,966,702, which relays a method for preprocessing and packaging class files to improve Java performance, was previously rejected by the courts on two different occasions. Now that the patent stands, it is unclear if and how Oracle plans to use the ruling in court. So far, the proceedings have seen Oracle CEO Larry Ellison looking confused on the stand, as well as Google CEO Larry Page appearing to give Oracle’s legal counsel the runaround. Oracle’s main point of contention surrounds its assumption that Google had pre-knowledge of the fact that portions of Java needed to be licensed, regardless of the language being open-source. It’s unclear how the ruling on patent 5,966,702 would help the case, as Google might just turn around and point out that there was indeed no patent in place while it began building Android.

    The case might set a precedent, not only because of the possible 1 billion dollars at stake, but it could change general laws regarding how open-source software is manipulated. As I’d previously reported, the trial could transpire in three stages – copyright claims, patent claims and a third stage to asses any damages to be awarded to Oracle, if the company wins the first two segments. If the final stage is met, damages will depend on whether or not Oracle can prove that Google willfully violated any patents, which automatically triples fines. Check back as the Google/Android, Oracle/Java saga continues to unfold.

  • Google’s Larry Page Evasive with Oracle Attorney

    It was recently reported that Oracle CEO Larry Ellison seemed a bit confused while answering questions from Google’s legal team, while on the stand during the Oracle/Java, Google/Android trial that commenced this week – and when it was Google CEO Larry Page’s turn, his demeanor was reportedly more elusive than confused.

    After an hour of exhaustive questioning, Page finally admitted that Google never achieved a license from Oracle to alter its Java APIs while developing the Android operating system. Still, Page elaborated that Google didn’t think a license was necessary, and that only open-source Java content was used, which wouldn’t eventuate any infringement issues, being freely available in the public domain.

    As while Google lawyers grilled Oracle’s Ellison, U.S. District Judge William Alsup repeatedly interrupted Page to order him to give yes or no answers – Page reportedly remained elusive, stating, “When we weren’t able to reach terms on a partnership, we went down our own path,” when asked by Oracle attorney David Boies about any licensing agreement. When Oracle’s legal team questioned Page about internal company emails acknowledging that a Java license was likely needed, the 39-year-old Google co-founder claimed he either wasn’t familiar, or didn’t remember.

    Google attorney Robert Van Nest in turn cross-examined Page concerning the internal Google emails in question, and Page explained that any discussion referred to a potential and broader partnership with Sun Microsystems (the developer of Java), which would turn out to be unnecessary. It would appear that Google’s Page remained much cooler than Oracle’s Ellison under the veil of $1 billion at stake.

  • Google Lawyers Confound Oracle’s Ellison

    Google’s trial against Oracle, who is suing over patent infringement regarding the use of Java in building the Android OS, finally commenced this week – 18 months after Oracle’s initial complaint.

    Today Oracle CEO Larry Ellison took the stand, and seemed to have been ill-prepared for the questioning of Google’s legal team. When lead counsel Robert Van Nest asked Ellison a quite obvious question – “Do you understand that no one owns the Java programming language?,” Ellison started in on a drawn-out answers, and was interrupted by Judge William Alsup, who told him it was a “yes or no” question. Ellison paused and said, “I’m not sure.”

    Van Nest continued, “And anyone can use it without royalty?” At this, the perpetually tanned Ellison again replied, “I’m not sure.” Then Van Nest and Google’s legal team showed a video of Ellison being previously asked the same questions, though answering “That’s correct” to both. Surely the Oracle team will point out the varying contexts of Ellison’s answers – Still, it would appear the Google’s lawyers might not have to work very hard in defending the company’s rights to Oracle’s Java patents.