

Software company holds out, hoping to bleed Google of more money













We will keep you updated as the trial progresses ahead.

Sources: ZDNet, Reuters

Comments     Threshold


By dodjer42 on 4/3/2012 11:03:27 PM , Rating: 2
1. In the west, tech companies recruit an army of lawyers to protect IP through legal process.

2. In China, companies and government organizations recruit an army of hackers to steal Western IP

- Western Lawyer costs $50 per hour
- Chinese Hacker costs $50 per month

3. Chinese products become more competitive through low IP acquisition cost.

4. Consumer buys Chinese because it contains 95% of the features at 25% of the cost

5. Chinese bundle spyware, allowing them to steal more IP and private information.

6. Pwned.

RE: madness
By FaaR on 4/4/2012 12:13:41 AM , Rating: 4
$50/hour seems like a rather cheap lawyer for a company like Google. I wouldn't be surprised if their legal counsel rakes in twice that or more per hour.

RE: madness
By Jereb on 4/4/2012 12:42:28 AM , Rating: 2
Best i've seen is $600/hr for a partner to look at your case, and this was an industrial over about $3 Million.

RE: madness
By OAKside24 on 4/4/2012 5:43:58 AM , Rating: 3
That's... disgusting.

RE: madness
By GruntboyX on 4/4/2012 1:36:02 PM , Rating: 2
to be fair, a Lawyer has to pay para legals and a small army of assistants to help organize the case for trial. I am sure it still dwarfs the actual cost, but maybe its not so egregious

RE: madness
By Solandri on 4/4/2012 7:17:30 PM , Rating: 2
No, they bill about $100-$150/hr for paralegal time.

RE: madness
By EricMartello on 4/4/2012 12:50:25 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah most lawyers in the US are going to be billing $250-$300 an hour or more, some upwards of $1,000 per hour...and chinese hackers would work for as low as $2-$5 per hour.

RE: madness
By augiem on 4/4/2012 2:35:10 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, $50/hr is half of what a plumber makes and 1/3 of what a car mechanic makes.

RE: madness
By bryanW1995 on 4/4/2012 5:37:55 PM , Rating: 2
I wish that mechanics were making $150/hr! I think my attorney is around $375/hr, though I (fortunately) almost never need her.

Licences used to be so simple.
By drycrust3 on 4/4/2012 1:26:57 AM , Rating: 3

One of the potential problems here is that Java was released by Sun under the GNU General Public Licence in November 2006, which means it was originally released under GPL 2.1, which isn't compatible with the Apache 2.0 licence, but the current GPL 3.0 is compatible with the Apache licence. However, as far as I can tell there isn't an automatic progression from GPL 2.1 to GPL 3.0.
According to Wikipedia's article on GNU GPL, 'if you want to combine code licensed under different versions of GPL, then this is allowed if the code with the older GPL version includes an "any later version" statement.' I looked through the Java licence terms and I couldn't find anything like that, so I guess that means Java was remains under GPL 2.1.
While reading the Java licence, it seemed to me that the terms of it were that it was free for use in "programs", it didn't specifically mention operating systems as well, so Android may have violated the terms of that licence.
There is a version of Java called "IcedTea" which is much less restrictively licenced than the version that Sun released, and has been used by both Ubuntu and Fedora, but this doesn't seem to be the version of Java used in Android.
All in all, I think this means Oracle may have a case.

RE: Licences used to be so simple.
By Trisped on 4/4/2012 6:18:21 PM , Rating: 2
The trial is not about the use of Java, it is about the use of elements which are part of Apache and its license.
"Google used source files from Apache's Java project..."

In my mind the important thing to note is that Sun Original praised the use and did not seek licensing:

So while Google needs to license the software now that Oracle will not continue granting the free use (and free advertising) of the Apache code, Oracle is way out of line with its claims and demands.

If I was Google I would look into ways of removing the copied code and start transitioning to a more open language (like C++) as this would greatly hurt Oracle (who would lose a MAJOR source of software developers) in addition to ending the law suit. It would also put a large company (Google) in a position to add the few features which Java has which are not native to C++.

By drycrust3 on 4/6/2012 3:55:47 AM , Rating: 2
One of the trio that formed the movie company MGM was famous for saying "A verbal contract is worth the paper it's written on". Praise, even by the CEO of a company, doesn't equate to a contract or licence.
As I said, as far as I can tell Java was released under the GNU General Public Licence 2.1, which isn't the same as the Apache licence.
If you look at the licence of Java it uses the term "program", it doesn't say "program or operating system". While this is probably because no one ever thought of using Java as an OS, the distinction remains.

What to buy in the future
By Scootie on 4/4/2012 2:21:16 AM , Rating: 2
If this goes on soon US customers will be left with nothing but to buy iphones ... if MS wont rise again in the mobile sector.

RE: What to buy in the future
By FaaR on 4/4/12, Rating: -1
RE: What to buy in the future
By Laitainion on 4/4/2012 6:07:16 AM , Rating: 2
He wasn't blaming Apple, just observing that this is really to their advantage.

RE: What to buy in the future
By vXv on 4/4/2012 7:55:04 AM , Rating: 2
No if this nonsense does not stop US customers might end up with not having any smartphones left to buy. (including the iphone).

Does not sound like a bad thing though as it might finally open the eyes of the US government to fix this broken system. Currently bribes err "donations" are stopping this from happening.

Oracle don't want damages.
By psonice on 4/4/2012 9:31:28 AM , Rating: 3
What they want is for google to lose this case, because that gives them the power to get android banned from sale (at least until java is removed or made legal).

Why? Because if google loses the case, they'll have to get a license for java (which is what they should have done in the first place from the look of it). Oracle get to decide the licensing fees, and they can ask for a high price *per device*.

Think about it - if android continues selling in huge numbers, and oracle get say $5-10 per device, what's worth more - that license deal, or $100m in damages? And if they win, they'll get the damages thrown in as a bonus.

They're not interested in getting java removed from android or 'killing android' or some crap the various fanboys dream up. They want it properly licensed, and they'll probably insist that it's compatible with regular java in future because that benefits them plenty too.

Caught red handed.

The End of Android
By Mike Acker on 4/5/2012 9:30:59 AM , Rating: 2
with Oracle and Apple both trying to rip the heart out of Android, AND hackers having a field day with Android my prediction is: by the end of summer you won't be able to buy an Android phone. But Jobs will NOT get the last laugh: Windows\Phone8 will become the major competition to the iPhone macumba

By Pirks on 4/3/12, Rating: -1
Crapdroid has to die, WP8 FTW!


Asnwer: To protect us from evil Google




Android is like Linux with dozens of different versions and distro's.











