![]() “The barriers to entry higher and the ability to compete lower …. “The Google platform just got bigger and market power greater,” Oracle said. Supreme Court puzzles over the nature of software in landmark Google v. (Photo by Al Drago/Getty Images) Al Drago/Getty Images President Donald Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court, will begin meeting with Senators as she seeks to be confirmed before the presidential election. Circuit Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett, U.S. Supreme Court stands on Septemin Washington, DC. In a statement, Oracle reiterated its allegation that Google “stole” Java and used its economic dominance to fight a protracted legal battle. The decision gives legal certainty to the next generation of developers whose new products and services will benefit consumers.” Google said the Court’s opinion “is a victory for consumers, interoperability, and computer science. But the Court declined to weigh in on the broader question of whether APIs are copyrightable. In addition to resolving a multibillion-dollar dispute between the tech titans, the ruling helps affirm a longstanding practice in software development. Google’s copying of so-called application programming interfaces from Oracle’s Java SE was an example of fair use, the court held in a 6-2 decision authored by Justice Stephen Breyer. At the end of the day, I think both sides know that no court will issue an injunction that stops any product (because the odds of injunctions per se are low and the ability to design around any such injunction is high), so there really is only money at stake.The Supreme Court has handed Google a win in a decade-old case in software development, holding that the technology giant did not commit copyright infringement against Oracle when it copied snippets of programming language to build its Android operating system. Traditionally, two large producers of consumer products would cross-license each other's portfolios (perhaps with a sweetener payment from one side to the other), but here the strategic goals of at least Oracle aren't completely transparent. ![]() Ravicher continued, "Patent litigation is so inherently unpredictable on a micro level, that only when you have many patents being cross-asserted can you start to rely on averages so as to find a zone of overlap in expected outcomes. Ravicher, Executive Director of the Public Patent Foundation, a not-for-profit legal services organization whose mission is to protect freedom in the patent system, agrees with Carey that "Forced mediation rarely works, especially if there's more than just money on people's agenda, which seems possible here." This seems unlikely to me because Google is infected with a sense of righteousness that makes them oblivious to the possibility that they might actually have their ass handed to them in this lawsuit"ĭaniel B. Carey said, "This sort of forced negotiation is not likely to succeed unless Google offers billions to Oracle. ![]() Thomas Carey, a partner at Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP, a leading IP law firm and chairman of its Business Practice Group, doesn't see any agreement coming. But, what do the experts think? I asked two leading intellectual property (IP) law attorneys for their take, and I got two very different views. So, since there's a minimum difference of a mere $2.5-billion, I doubt there will be an agreement. Google thinks $100-million should be sufficient payoff. ![]() Some estimates had Oracle wanting as much as $6.1- billion large. Oracle started out wanting something on the order of 2.6-billion bucks in damages. For starters, the two companies have this little "gap" between their damage estimates.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |