|
Oracle v. Google - And Oracle responds on the Cockburn Damages Report and the Lindholm email |
|
Friday, September 23 2011 @ 11:05 AM EDT
|
Yesterday we discussed the Google requests to suppress portions of the revised Cockburn Damages Report submitted by Oracle and to preserve the Attorney's Eyes Only status of the Lindholm emails. Now Oracle has responded to each of those requests.
Cockburn Damages Report
Oracle submitted a letter asking that Google's request to file a "Daubert" motion with respect to the Cockburn Damages Report be denied. 452 [PDF] This letter is interesting because, for what appears to be the first time, Oracle is ratcheting back what others (and Google) have interpreted as damages claims running to more than $6 billion. Oracle says Google (and for that matter, others) is misinterpreting the numbers Dr. Cockburn is providing, particularly with respect to copyright. Based on this letter one can deduce that the maximum past damages for both copyright and patent infringement that Oracle is seeking is, at the high end, no more than $1 billion, and in all likelihood it would be something less. Much of this reduction appears to be on the patent side of the equation, where the table in the letter shows total damages of no more than $202 million under the License Method of determining damages. Keep in mind that Oracle has the right to (and, in fact, does) provide multiple bases for determining damages.
As Oracle points out, Google has focused on the Google gross revenue numbers that Dr. Cockburn identified as forming the basis for determining copyright damages, not the actual damages. As Oracle also points out, Google has the right (and burden) of showing that the damages base is, in fact, lower than this amount.
The statute provides: “[T]he copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer’s
gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove deductible expenses and the elements of
profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.” 17 U.S.C § 504(b).
What Oracle has not responded to in this letter are Google's assertions that Dr. Cockburn did not comply with the Order governing the damages report in several respects:
He fails to “take into account the varying expiration dates of the asserted patent claims,” as this Court ordered. Order at 11. He also ignores the law and the Order, id. at 6-7, opining that future damages should be based on a hypothetical negotiation after the jury verdict.
Fourth, Cockburn ignores this Court’s Order by omitting a claim-by-claim analysis of the date of first infringement, or apportioning patent damages accordingly. Order at 7.
Whether that is enough to persuade the judge to allow Google's proposed Daubert motion remains to be seen.
One other point. Oracle makes clear that it will be pushing for injunctive relief if, for no other reason, than to increase the likely value of any go-forward license to Google.
Oracle intends to strenuously
pursue injunctive relief to resolve the key issue in this case: whether Google can use Oracle’s
intellectual property to create an incompatible clone of Java and thereby undermine Oracle’s and
many others’ investments in “write once, run anywhere.”
Lindholm Emails
The fight to which Oracle addresses this letter 453 [PDF] is not with Google's motion for relief from Magistrate Ryu's order finding the emails to be non-privileged, it is with Google's separate request to file a motion to preserve the Lindholm emails as Attorney's Eyes Only under the protective order (See 449 [PDF]).
There is a certain Alice in Wonderland aspect about this argument. The Lindholm emails have been made public, in fact widely so. Whether that was done rightfully, as argued by Oracle
Google waived any claim to confidentiality by failing to object when Oracle, consistent with the
Protective Order, stated that it was about to disclose Google’s confidential information at two July 21, 2011 hearings; when the Court stated, “[i]f Google has a memo in their file saying, we
are about to willfully infringe, there is no way I’m going to keep that secret from the public or
the investing public,” (7/21/2011 Daubert Hearing at 19:10-12); when Oracle quoted from the
Documents at the two July 21 hearings; and when the Court read portions of the Lindholm
Documents into public record and subsequently quoted them in its Daubert Order. In fact, not
only did Google’s counsel not object when given the opportunity to do so, but Google’s counsel
waived any objection by arguing the substance of the Lindholm Documents at both hearings.
. . .
Oracle’s counsel stated
clearly and on the record that he did not wish to disclose Google’s confidential documents in
open court. The Court expressly authorized him to do so. (7/21/2011 Daubert Hearing at 19:14.)
Google made no objection.
or wrongfully, as Google asserts
Finally, it is no answer for Oracle to say that the Lindholm emails should lose their AEO designation because they were discussed publicly in court and subsequently in the media. That was not Google’s doing. As Google has mentioned repeatedly, Oracle was able to discuss one of the Lindholm emails during the July 21, 2011 hearings only because it violated the protective order by failing to give Google the required prior notice that it planned to use that email at those hearings. Had Oracle given the proper notice, Google would have had the opportunity to investigate and to inform Oracle that the email was inadvertently produced prior to the hearing, thus avoiding the disclosure and ensuing media coverage. For Oracle to use the inevitable result of its protective order violation to justify full public disclosure is unreasonable.
is for the court to determine. To this point the court has certainly allowed the emails to be discussed. And it is a bit hard to imagine that this genie can be stuffed back into the bottle. One thing we believe is certain here: Boies Schiller's hands are not entirely clean when it comes to how the emails became public. The emails are widely known publicly now because Boies Schiller made them widely known.
*************
Docket
452 – Filed and Effective: 09/22/2011
Letter
Document Text: Letter from Steven C. Holtzman Oracle's Response to Google's Letter Precis. (Holtzman, Steven) (Filed on 9/22/2011) (Entered: 09/22/2011)
453 – Filed and Effective: 09/22/2011
Letter
Document Text: Letter from Alanna Rutherford Oracle's Response to Google's Letter Precis. (Rutherford, Alanna) (Filed on 9/22/2011) (Entered: 09/22/2011)
**************
Documents
452
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP letterhead
September 22, 2011
The Honorable William Alsup
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102
Re: Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc., No. C 10-3561 WHA
Dear Judge Alsup:
Google’s request to file a Daubert motion rests on mischaracterizations of Prof.
Cockburn’s report, this Court’s orders, and the law of damages. It should be denied.
Following both Georgia-Pacific and the Court’s guidance, Prof. Cockburn offers the
following damages estimates:
Google’s complaint about the amount of damages mistakenly focuses on the gross revenues in
the infringer’s-profits figure. This is a complaint about the copyright statute, not Prof. Cockburn.
The statute provides: “[T]he copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer’s
gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove deductible expenses and the elements of
profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.” 17 U.S.C § 504(b). Prof.
Cockburn properly follows this approach, noting that if Google argues that Android gross
revenues are attributable to other factors, he may be asked to respond. Google thus
mischaracterizes both the $823.9 million figure and the “$1.2 billion for future unjust enrichment
damages for 2012 alone.” Although the latter figure certainly illustrates some of the enormous
profits enabled by Google’s infringement, it is not part of Prof. Cockburn’s damages estimates.
Google’s complaints about Prof. Cockburn’s hypothetical-license analyses are meritless.
First, Google asserts that a copyright hypothetical license should be limited to the terms
of the “starting point” because the parties (so Google says) would not have negotiated an
incompatible license. Google is wrong. Adding what Sun expected to earn from a compatible
The Honorable William Alsup
September 22, 2011
Page 2 of 3
Android, but lost when Google infringed the copyrights and fragmented Java, is consistent with
Ninth Circuit law, Polar Bear Prods., Inc. v. Timex Corp.Oracle USA, Inc. v. SAP AG,
No. C07-1658 PJH, at Dkt. No. 1088, and Georgia-Pacific. Google’s “one price fits all”
approach reverts to the “Soviet-style negotiation” that the Court has already rejected.
Contrary to Google’s claim that the upward adjustment “has no record support” and is
based on a “single . . . Sun presentation,” the adjustment is supported by a wealth of evidence,
including Google documents contemplating that Sun would provide a commercial
implementation of Android. Both economics and Georgia-Pacific support accounting for
expected convoyed sales that the infringing implementation eliminated. Google says “there is no
evidence Sun would have been able to establish a viable business to exploit Android” and “it
never did so in reality,” but the first is false and the second is a tautology: the reason Sun never
did so was that the incompatibility of Android eliminated the business case.
As Prof. Cockburn explains, using the Sun business model presentation to quantify the
adjustment is conservative because both Google documents and other Sun documents show that
the model’s projections omit significant revenue streams that Sun anticipated would “dwarf”
what that model included. Google complains that the adjustment fails under the Panduit lostprofits
test, but the Panduit factors do not apply to hypothetical-license analysis. To the
contrary, the Georgia-Pacific analysis “depends” on “the anticipated amount of profits that the
prospective licensor reasonably thinks he would lose.” 318 F.Supp. 1116, 1121 (S.D.N.Y. 1970).
Google’s accusation that the upward adjustment involves “double counting” is false for
the same reason. The “starting point” license included a royalty (to replace losses to Sun’s Java
ME licensing business) and an opportunity for Sun to earn revenue on top of Android. Because
the infringement eliminated both, it is not double counting to account for both in the hypothetical
royalty – the former in the “starting point” amount, the latter in the upward adjustment.
Second, Google complains about Prof. Cockburn’s opinion that 30% of the “starting
point” and the upward adjustment should be apportioned to the seven patents-in-suit. Prof.
The Honorable William Alsup
September 22, 2011
Page 3 of 3
Cockburn’s apportionment analysis rests on technical benchmarking analyses, contemporaneous
Google evidence about the importance of speed and memory, and two separate analyses of actual
consumer demand for the precise functionality the patents-in-suit provide. Google’s précis
neither mentions nor critiques any of that analysis. It just asserts that the result – 30% of the
starting point – must be too high. Google’s ipse dixit is not grounds for a Daubert motion.
Third, Google complains that Prof. Cockburn does not “provide a firm calculation of
future damages.” The Court directed that past and future royalties not be mixed by advancing
royalties in a lump-sum payment. Prof. Cockburn complied. Oracle intends to strenuously
pursue injunctive relief to resolve the key issue in this case: whether Google can use Oracle’s
intellectual property to create an incompatible clone of Java and thereby undermine Oracle’s and
many others’ investments in “write once, run anywhere.” If future royalties are applied, it is well
established that they should be based on a separate, post-verdict assessment. See, e.g., Paice
LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 504 F.3d 1293, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Boston Scientific Corp. v.
Johnson & Johnson, No. C 02-0790 SI, 2009 WL 975424 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2009).
Fourth, Google summarily complains that Prof. Cockburn does not provide a “claim-byclaim
analysis of the date of first infringement.” In fact, Prof. Cockburn notes that the dates of
first infringement for each patent range from mid-2006 to mid-2007, and adopts the earliest date
(most favorable to Google) as the date of the hypothetical negotiation. Selecting a different date
anywhere in that range would have zero effect on the royalty calculation.
When Google complained about Prof. Cockburn’s report last week, the Court responded:
“[I]f you want to bring a motion to knock [Oracle’s new damages study] out, that should be one
of your motions in limine.” (9/15/2011 Tr. at 67:3-7.) Google’s month-in-advance request to
file a Daubert motion addressing predicted rebuttal opinions that have not even been offered is a
calculated attempt to evade the Court’s limit on the number of its in limine motions. None of its
current arguments warrant an additional Daubert motion.
Sincerely,
/s/ Steven C. Holtzman
453
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP letterhead
September 22, 2011
The Honorable William Alsup
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102
Re: Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc., No. C 10-3561 WHA
Dear Judge Alsup:
After thrice refusing to meet and confer about the issue, Google asks the Court to permit
it to designate the Lindholm Documents as “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only”,
despite the fact that the Documents have been read in open court; despite the fact that whole
paragraphs of the Document have been reprinted in the press; and, significantly, despite the fact
that the Lindholm Documents simply do not meet the criteria for such protection.
As Google acknowledges, “the purpose of the AEO designation is to shield from public
disclosure material that is not privileged, but which nonetheless ‘would create a substantial risk
of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means’ if disclosed publicly.” (Dkt.
No. 449 at 2.) The Lindholm Documents do not fall into that category. Although Google claims
for the first time that the Lindholm Documents are “competitively sensitive” and somehow
reveal Google’s litigation strategy (id. at 1–2), this argument mischaracterizes the Documents.
The Documents on their face make no mention of litigation. The Documents also do not reveal
any current sensitive business information. What the documents do reveal is a disclosure of a
strategy, which has already been made public, and which has no bearing on any matter other than
this lawsuit. Indeed, the only party that had any interest in the substance of the Lindholm
Documents is Oracle, and Oracle has the Documents through discovery.
Moreover, the AEO designation serves no practical purpose, as the substance of the
Documents has already been published by the Court in its Orders and in three hearing records.
Google waived any claim to confidentiality by failing to object when Oracle, consistent with the
Protective Order, stated that it was about to disclose Google’s confidential information at two
Honorable William Alsup
September 22, 2011
Page 2 of 3
July 21, 2011 hearings; when the Court stated, “[i]f Google has a memo in their file saying, we
are about to willfully infringe, there is no way I’m going to keep that secret from the public or
the investing public,” (7/21/2011 Daubert Hearing at 19:10-12); when Oracle quoted from the
Documents at the two July 21 hearings; and when the Court read portions of the Lindholm
Documents into public record and subsequently quoted them in its Daubert Order. In fact, not
only did Google’s counsel not object when given the opportunity to do so, but Google’s counsel
waived any objection by arguing the substance of the Lindholm Documents at both hearings.
The Court has three times denied Google’s subsequent requests to seal and redact portions of the
public transcript and Order which reference the substance of the Lindholm Documents. (Dkt.
Nos. 255, 271, 355.)
Google’s repeated attempts to escape responsibility for its failure to object by alleging
that Oracle failed to comply with the Protective Order are meritless. Oracle’s counsel stated
clearly and on the record that he did not wish to disclose Google’s confidential documents in
open court. The Court expressly authorized him to do so. (7/21/2011 Daubert Hearing at 19:14.)
Google made no objection.
Google mistakenly asserts that Oracle has not accepted Google’s invitation to engage in a
voice-to-voice meet and confer. In fact, it is Google that has consistently refused to accept
Oracle’s invitation. Oracle asked Google to meet and confer regarding the confidentiality
designations for several deposition transcripts and the Lindholm Documents. The King &
Spalding team that initially engaged in these discussions stated that Google’s other law firm,
Keker & Van Nest, would handle Oracle’s request regarding the Lindholm Documents. Mr.
Daniel Purcell, who was identified as the Keker & Van Nest partner responsible for the
discussion, did not attend the call. Oracle confirmed its position on the Lindholm Documents in
writing to Mr. Weingartner on that same day. After several follow-ups, Mr. Purcell asked Oracle
to again set forth its position in writing; Oracle complied, and informed Mr. Purcell that Oracle’s
counsel would be available for a meet-and-confer at his convenience. Rather than participating
Honorable William Alsup
September 22, 2011
Page 3 of 3
in such a meet and confer, or even responding to Oracle’s offer, Google, without once speaking
to any of Oracle’s counsel, declared that “we’re at an impasse,” and filed Google’s précis.
Finally, as noted in the correspondence with Mr. Purcell, while Oracle believes that the
Lindholm Documents are public and should receive no confidentiality designation, Oracle
proposed that as a compromise, pending the resolution of yet another Google attempt to classify
the Documents as privileged, that the Lindholm Documents should be labeled Confidential
instead of Highly Confidential. The distinction is important. Our client, like millions around the
world, has read about the Lindholm Documents in the press; yet Oracle’s counsel is currently
prohibited from discussing with, much less showing, Oracle executives the Documents
themselves. Oracle has also requested that the “PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL” footer,
which Google added to each of the recently reproduced Lindholm Documents, be removed, to
avoid misleading the jury should those documents be shown at trial. Rather than discussing
these compromises, Google bypassed every required procedure, refused to meet and confer, and
filed its letter précis.
In sum, Google’s précis is an empty effort to squeeze these Documents into the mold of a
“trade secret” or other “extremely sensitive” information to support its efforts to maintain AEO
designation. Oracle respectfully requests that the Court decline Google’s invitation to entertain
its meritless motion.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Alanna Rutherford
|
|
Authored by: JK Finn on Friday, September 23 2011 @ 12:02 PM EDT |
Corrections here. State the change in the title, please. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JK Finn on Friday, September 23 2011 @ 12:04 PM EDT |
Please use the title of the news item, and please include links in the
comment.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Speed of Light broken - report CERN - Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, September 23 2011 @ 02:08 PM EDT
- Microsoft Convinces Yet Another Company to Cough Up 'Protection' Money - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 23 2011 @ 04:15 PM EDT
- Koh Dismisses Privacy Complaints Against Apple, App Makers - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 23 2011 @ 05:14 PM EDT
- US net neutrality rules finalized, in effect November 20 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 23 2011 @ 10:40 PM EDT
- News Picks thread ms lockin win 8 - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 24 2011 @ 08:51 AM EDT
- News Pick The Soap Opera at HP Continues - Authored by: dio gratia on Saturday, September 24 2011 @ 09:20 PM EDT
- Mims's Bits White House Petition to End Software Patents Is a Hit - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 25 2011 @ 06:14 AM EDT
- Verizon Asks [PDF] to Intervene - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 25 2011 @ 08:36 AM EDT
- Microsoft's Non-Response to the Secure Boot Problem - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 25 2011 @ 05:46 PM EDT
- O'Reilly Android Open Conference Oct. 9-11 [Sponsored by Microsoft ?!] - Authored by: betajet on Sunday, September 25 2011 @ 08:57 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Kilz on Friday, September 23 2011 @ 12:05 PM EDT |
For all posts that are not on topic. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Sniped - Authored by: JK Finn on Friday, September 23 2011 @ 12:08 PM EDT
- Off Topic - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 23 2011 @ 12:09 PM EDT
- "misleading" - Microsoft responds to secure boot accusations - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 23 2011 @ 02:34 PM EDT
- "Teaching does not get anymore dangerous than this." - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 23 2011 @ 03:09 PM EDT
- Apple Patent Extortion - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 23 2011 @ 04:13 PM EDT
- Photoshop or GIMP ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 23 2011 @ 04:53 PM EDT
- a spin on why computer programs are math - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 23 2011 @ 08:42 PM EDT
- Law firm suspects HP directors misled everyone - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 23 2011 @ 08:46 PM EDT
- Why patents are bad - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 23 2011 @ 10:53 PM EDT
- Particles Found to Travel Faster than Speed of Light - Authored by: JamesK on Saturday, September 24 2011 @ 07:51 AM EDT
- Electronic Arts ToS Agreement bans users from sueing - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 24 2011 @ 12:16 PM EDT
- TLS and the Beast - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 24 2011 @ 05:26 PM EDT
- Inner Workings of the Supreme Court (Canada) - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 24 2011 @ 11:53 PM EDT
- Hints that things could be better - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 25 2011 @ 04:30 AM EDT
- unreported protests on WallStreet - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 25 2011 @ 12:49 PM EDT
- Anyone know of status of "GNU Free Call" (SIPwitch)? Any Youtube videos? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 25 2011 @ 07:44 PM EDT
- Fed buys imaginary bonds? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 25 2011 @ 09:56 PM EDT
|
Authored by: JK Finn on Friday, September 23 2011 @ 12:06 PM EDT |
COMES transcriptions here, please. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JK Finn on Friday, September 23 2011 @ 12:19 PM EDT |
The statute provides: “[T]he copyright owner is required to
present
proof only of the infringer’s gross revenue, and the infringer is
required to
prove deductible expenses and the elements of profit
attributable
to factors
other than the copyrighted work.” 17 U.S.C § 504(b).
Wouldn't
that be rather trivial? How would the Google gross revenue
from ads and other
monetized content change if every Android
user
used some other mobile
platform instead? ISTM that the money comes
from
pushing the content, not
pushing it specifically on Android.
But IANAL etc. JK Finn [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BJ on Friday, September 23 2011 @ 01:57 PM EDT |
Boies Schiller's hands are not entirely clean
No -- I
just pictured myself throwing up on them.
bjd
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Friday, September 23 2011 @ 06:07 PM EDT |
in “write once, run anywhere.”
It's just struck me. The *ONLY* investment undermined, is Google's!
Any code written for Dalvik will run on any other valid JVM. It's only code
written for a JVM that will not (as is to be expected!) run on Dalvik, because
it's not a JVM!
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 23 2011 @ 06:45 PM EDT |
In regards to the Lindholm email drafts, it doesn't seem like anyone's hands
are completely clean. Remember, they were first introduced in a hearing before
the magistrate judge in part over whether Oracle should get a chance to depose
Lindholm. Google insisted that Lindholm had no meaningful role in regards to
Android and this case, and the draft of the email was produced to rebut that
argument. Was Google being honest in their original representation of Lindholm's
complete non-involvement? The second time the drafts were revealed before the
court, it was Judge Alsup who insisted that Oracle's counsel bring them up, and
it was the Judge who read parts of the draft text into the record. Since the
court originally approved the protective order in the first place, doesn't it
make sense that the court might also have the power to define the scope of its
own protective orders when circumstances call for it?
What no one seems
to want to talk about is how discovery rules are supposed to be followed. Google
has an obligation to justify its claims of privilege for material otherwise
responsive to discovery demands. No doubt some things turned up in discovery can
be embarrassing to one party, and maybe even damaging to its case in some
fashion, but the rules need to be followed if fairness in the adversarial legal
process continues to be valued. Google's self-described methodology of marking
discovery responses privileged through automatic application of analytics,
analytics that apparently included flagging any correspondence to or from
attorneys as privileged, does not seem consistent with a careful and limited
application of privilege only where it is appropriate. Over-application of
privilege claims can thwart the intended purpose of discovery, and reduce the
efficiency and fairness of the legal process.
In addition, Google's
attempt to keep the Lindholm emails labeled as Attorney's Eyes Only after
they've already been widely made known does seem reminiscent of a fantasy story.
If there was any harm to be caused by their disclosure, the time to protect
against such harm has long since passed. If the courts finally rule that the
latest version of the email, the one that was actually addressed and sent, is
not privileged, then Google should be faulted for withholding information from
discovery that should have been turned over in the first place. That would
include the final version and all of the previous drafts.
You can try
and fault BS&F for how they've handled this discovery matter, but everyone
is aware of how important thorough discovery is in cases against big
corporations that are normally highly secretive about how their businesses are
run. Perhaps no one is more aware than David Boies, and by extension his law
firm, considering the impact discovery had in one of the highlight cases of his
legal career (before BS&F was founded), Microsoft's antitrust prosecution by
the U.S. government. Keep in mind that Groklaw has made preserving access to the
Comes documents from the Comes v. Microsoft antitrust case a feature of the
site. Its significance and value would be far less if Microsoft had been able to
shield much of the material as privileged simply by including the name of an
attorney as one of the senders or recipients of correspondence.
Cases
such as this one offer some rare opportunities
to look past the corporate veil
and see how some of today's biggest and most powerful corporations operate out
of sight of the public. It's not always a flattering
view.
--bystander1313 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 24 2011 @ 02:38 AM EDT |
The trial is coming soon since they can't agree on a settlement.
Oracle will cite Google's emails which plainly show Google's willful
infringement
of Oracle's IP.
Any jury will side with Oracle on this one.
What a disaster for Google is looming should an injunction be approved.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, September 24 2011 @ 03:39 AM EDT |
The statute provides: “[T]he copyright owner is required to present
proof only of the infringer’s gross revenue, and the infringer is required to
prove deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors
other than the copyrighted work.”
But, gross revenue from what,
exactly? If an author publishes a book which contains a chapter infringing on
another copyright work, is the gross revenue that forms the basis for the
damages the gross revenue from that book or, in addition, the gross revenue
from every other book, magazine and newspaper article the infringing author has
ever written?
If the infringer publishes books, makes films and runs a
global bank all within the same company, is the basis for damages the gross
revenue from the whole company? I am convinced that the Act refers to just the
gross revenue from the item that includes the alleged
infringement.
Even then, Oracle will be at the very extreme
interpretation of the act, in this action. An Android phone does not infringe on
any Oracle copyrights because no copyright materials from Oracle ever gets to
the 'phone or 'pad. The test files are not used on each phone and only the
abstract ideas and unprotectable names from the APIs reach the phones (if that).
The 'mobile' advertising revenue, even if linked to Android phones and pads,
does not infringe in any way on the copyrights claimed in the case.
I
don't believe, for a moment, that the Act says that the entire company gross
revenue from all its global activities is the sum that the plaintiff is entitled
to use as a basis. Google can, as a handy simplification, be said to be a
company that gets revenue from advertising linked to its global search service
and revenue from selling Android apps or advertising related to Android apps.
Neither of these are related in any way to the copyright infringements asserted
by Oracle.
The very broadest case that Oracle should be allowed to
start with is the gross revenue related to use of Android phones
in the US including any support contracts for the Android OS that Google may be
paid for in the US. Then, as the Act appears to say, Google can go on to show
that even this is a hollow assertion and without foundation.
Even if
Google were infringing on copyrights outside of the US jurisdiction in
contravention of the Berne Convention, is any US court allowed to award damages
for actions of copyright infringement outside of their jurisdiction? If the US
starts a copyright war against the rest of the world, it will
lose.
--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patent: code for Profit! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: darrellb on Saturday, September 24 2011 @ 08:35 AM EDT |
Oracle claims that the key issue in this case is whether Google can use Oracle’s
intellectual property to create an incompatible clone of Java. That may be
Oracle's overarching issue, but I don't see how the claim that Google created an
incompatible clone of Java is in-suit at all.
The infringed patents don't cover or protect the entirety of Java -- at the most
the patents protect some implementation details. The infringed copyrights amount
to a small fraction of the total of Java.
It seems to me that Oracle's position is that "but for" the patented
inventions and copyrighted works Android would not and could not exist at all.
---
darrellB[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|