Oracle v Google Poised to Become Very Interesting

Google has dug up prior art invalidating some of Oracle’s patents dating back to the 1960s and 1970s. I was there. Not much of the knowledge of the time ended up on the web and Google had to deploy feet on the ground to discover it. As well, Oracle is trying to hide stuff like it’s own software that predated a patent by more than a year… Oracle actually stated JavaOS implemented the invention and now wants to recant because JavaOS predated the patent by more than a year.

“Google seeks to rely on Oracle’s JavaOS product as anticipating the claims of the ‘702 patent. Oracle stated in its infringement contentions that its “JavaOS” product implements the ‘702 patent, and it is undisputed that JavaOS was publicly released and licensed more than a year before the filing date of the ‘702 patent, invalidating the ‘702 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (“§ 102”). (See Exs. K and L.) However, Oracle did not produce any JavaOS source code until May 2011, and has still not produced the JavaOS source code that predates the ‘702 patent by a year. In view of Google’s persistence on this subject, Oracle just sent Google a letter trying to amend its infringement contentions without leave of the Court, and argue that its identification of JavaOS 1.0 as a product practicing the patent was “in error.” (See Ex. M.) Thus, Google’s difficulty in understanding and charting the relevant JavaOS information is a direct result of Oracle’s own discovery abuse, as Oracle desperately tries to keep its own invalidating product out of the case.”

There really is no innovation in software patents. Everyone solves problems based on prior art and is reasonably skilled in the art so the advancement of the art is by evolution, not innovation.

see
Oracle v. Google – Google Moves to Supplement Its Invalidity Defenses

If Google’s motion to include the new defences is accepted, Oracle’s case grows some huge holes a jury will be hard pressed to ignore. If Google’s motion is denied, Google will have excellent grounds to appeal a negative decision. There is no indication here that Google will take the easy way out and settle. There is indication that software patents will have another nail in their coffin. Google has the resources to find prior art and are experts at search.

The ‘702 patent is about virtual machines, something IBM has been working with since the 1960s to divide up the resources of the System 360 mainframe. I remember that machine with its walk-in compartments and blinking incandescent lights. This all predated UCSD p system and Java by many years. IBM currently uses that history to sell its virtual solutions to customers. I am sure the judge will enjoy the reading. I am sure a fair judge will want the whole story to be told in court.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply