All the Air is out of Ellison’s Balloon

In Oracle v Google:
“With respect to Oracle’s claim for relief and Google’s counterclaim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement for the ’520 and ’104 patents, judgment is entered for Google and against Oracle. With respect to Google’s counterclaims for declaratory judgment of invalidity for the ’520 and ’104 patents, judgment is entered for Oracle and against Google, such counterclaims having been abandoned during trial. With respect to the five remaining patents, claims for relief by Oracle were completely dismissed with prejudice by Oracle (and may not be resurrected except as indicated in the orders of May 3, 2011, and March 2, 2012, with respect to new products). In this regard, it is the intent of this judgment and order that general principles of merger of claims into the judgment and res judicata shall be applicable.
With respect to Oracle’s claim for relief for copyright infringement, judgment is entered in favor of Google and against Oracle except as follows: the rangeCheck code in TimSort.java and ComparableTimSort.java, and the eight decompiled files (seven “Impl.java” files and one “ACL” file), as to which judgment for Oracle and against Google is entered in the amount of zero dollars (as per the parties’ stipulation).
With respect to Google’s equitable defenses, judgment is entered for Oracle and against Google as to waiver and implied license. As to equitable estoppel and laches, no ruling need be made due to mootness.”

That’s a fitting end to Oracle’s pompous claims of $billions in damages and trolls’ pronouncements on the death of Android/Linux. There’s nothing “there”, just as in SCOG v World. Coincidentally but probably not by accident the same law firm ran both cases against FLOSS, Boies, Schiller and Flexner… Perhaps people should stop taking legal advice from those guys about FLOSS and let it be.

Issues that have wider application included copyright on APIs that folks were permitted to use under the licence for a programming language, Java. Unfortunately, neither Google nor the court examined the general invalidity of software patents, which were involved. I think that was a mistake but Google won most of the battle anyway. $0 is a fine award of damages…

see the complete “Final Judgement”.

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.

11 Responses to All the Air is out of Ellison’s Balloon

  1. Ivan says:

    Are any of those antitrust lawsuits or are you grasping at straws to support a tenuous position in support of your favorite monopoly?

  2. Ivan wrote, “Companies don’t file these lawsuits without reason, Bob”.

    Sure they do:

    • M$ v TomTom,
    • SCOG v World,
    • Oracle v Google, and
    • Apple v Samsung

    all have one thing in common. There was no basis in fact or law for the suits. These companies filed suits to extort money, plain and simple.

  3. Ivan says:

    it is not clear that Google has done anything to create or to maintain monopoly illegally

    http://www.lmbtfy.com/?q=Google+Antitrust+Lawsuit

    Companies don’t file these lawsuits without reason, Bob.

  4. It’s clear that Google has monopoly power and may be subject to relevant law but it is not clear that Google has done anything to create or to maintain monopoly illegally. Anyone can use another search engine or make their own. Google has not set up any barriers to entry as M$ did.

    Google is not a monopoly in the sense that they do not insist on being the only search engine, pressure people not to use other search engines or make exclusive deals to exclude other search engines from the market for search engines. In fact, Google is an advertising business that created a search engine for the purpose of advertising. M$ created a monopoly with a contract with IBM and exclusive dealing, quite a different kind of fish. I remember when M$ laughed at Google claiming they had no business plan… That’s hardly an indicator of a monopoly.

  5. Ivan says:

    Eric Schmidt believes Google is a monopoly:

    Senator Herb Kohl, a Wisconsin Democrat who chairs a Senate antitrust panel, asked Schmidt:

    But you do recognize that in the words that are used and antitrust kind of oversight, your market share constitutes monopoly, dominant — special power dominant for a monopoly firm. You recognize you’re in that area?

    Schmidt replied:

    I would agree, sir, that we’re in that area….I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding of monopoly findings is this is a judicial process.

    In other words, Schmidt agreed that Google has the kind of dominant market share that might subject it to monopoly rules

    You have to be on some serious mind altering medication to not see Google as a monopoly, unless of course, you are trolling.

  6. Viktor wrote, “Default search engines, let’s see:

    – Firefox: Google (bought with money).
    – Opera: Google (hard to believe they don’t get money).
    – Chrome/Chromium: Google.”

    Hmmm. That means 50-60% default search engines are IE/Bing, and he’s still not happy.

  7. Viktor says:

    Google is not a monopoly. You are free to choose
    any search engine you like. The majority of people choose Google.

    LOL. Spoken like a true freetard. They don’t choose. Most people don’t even know that you can switch search engines. Default search engines, let’s see:

    – Firefox: Google (bought with money).
    – Opera: Google (hard to believe they don’t get money).
    – Chrome/Chromium: Google.

    Let’s not forget that Google’s services are mandatory on nearly every Android device. Most users will never use anything else.

    “Don’t be evil.” LMAO.

    Bob and his little friends are trying to whitewash Google as often as they can.

  8. Clarence Moon says:

    M$ gets ten times as much revenue for permitting copying of stuff they made years earlier

    You are letting your emotions run away from your common sense, Mr. Pogson! Consider that the OEM has to sell a unit package costing around $500 in order for Microsoft to get their $50 tax on the sale. So the OEMs clearly get 10 times the revenue rather than Microsoft.

    The OEMs have it easy, too. They don’t have to invest tens of billions of dollars into R&D in order to come up with the next hot idea. All they do is churn out equipment based on the innovations flowing from Intel and Microsoft. They build everything with cheap Chinese or other Asian country labor and collect their profits from the rivers of cash that flow from buyers eager for the next Wintel creation, faster and more functional than the last.

  9. Glen wrote, of M$’s approach to markets, “Why? Greed.”

    Greed alone does not explain the compulsion to eliminate competition. Athletes strive to improve. Only the criminals amongst them poison competitors. Greed plus immoral leadership are part of the problem with M$. Consider the “technological evangelism” they practise. Promoting the product is a good thing and is partly motivated by greed. Denigrating the competitors’ products by stacking panels and bribing journalists and analysts goes far beyond that. It’s evil. M$ knows it’s evil because they prescribe getting others to do the lying. M$’s business plan is founded on getting others to do the work while M$ gets most of the money for that work.

    Consider the poor OEMs who are “partners”. They build the PCs, build the factories, pay the workers, and sell the product to retailers and get a tiny percentage of revenue. M$ gets ten times as much revenue for permitting copying of stuff they made years earlier. That happens because M$ has paralysed the PC industry into thinking the only way to make any money is to use M$’s stuff. That’s not true, of course, but transition to GNU/Linux would likely cause a precipitous drop in revenue for the first to go so the OEMs are doing it gradually, like putting a toe in the pool. I think the OEMs should just refuse to install that other OS and send M$ to Hell. Instead they seem to be doing an end-around play where they ramp up Android/Linux. It’s all good.

  10. Glen says:

    Google is not a monopoly. You are free to choose
    any search engine you like.
    The majority of people choose Google.

    It is only MS that seeks to dominate markets by eliminating competition
    using illegal and underhand tactics instead of
    making a superior product.
    Why? Greed.

  11. Ivan says:

    Why don’t you wait to see what the Appellate court says about it before making your sweeping pronouncement over your favorite search monopoly?

Leave a Reply