Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

Google, Oracle Android settlement talks heat up Ellison, Page to duke it out

By | September 12, 2011, 7:01am PDT

Summary: Oh what joy it would be to listen as Larry Ellison and Larry Page duke it out as Oracle and Google wrestle over an Android settlement.

Google and Oracle will hold a settlement conference Sept. 19 and that talks should be interesting given that the two companies’ lead Larrys—Page and Ellison, respectively—are forced to attend.

Oh what joy it would be to sit in on those talks.

Page and Ellison on Friday were ordered to appear for settlement talks as the U.S. District Court of Northern California really doesn’t want to see a trial over Android.

Last week, both parties bought into settlement talks, but Google wanted to send mobile chief Andy Rubin. Oracle was going to send its president Safra Catz. That line-up didn’t quite work given Rubin’s standing in the Google pecking order and authority to seal a settlement so a judge ordered the companies to send their CEOs.

The court said Ellison and Page need to show up to settlement talks and others can attend. Clearly though Ellison and Page are the main attractions. The settlement talks pit a wily Silicon veteran—Ellison—against Page, a relative newcomer to the CEO ranks.

A settlement looks likely, but there is a wide gap to bridge. Oracle will want a big cut of future device sales and Google will obviously disagree. In any case, Google bet that Java would always be owned by Sun, which didn’t really care much about monetizing its intellectual property. Google’s bet went horribly wrong when Oracle bought Sun.

Related:

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and SmartPlanet as well as Editorial Director of ZDNet's sister site TechRepublic.

Disclosure

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan has nothing to disclose. He doesn’t hold investments in the technology companies he covers.

Biography

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and SmartPlanet as well as Editorial Director of ZDNet's sister site TechRepublic. He was most recently Executive Editor of News and Blogs at ZDNet. Prior to that he was executive news editor at eWeek and news editor at Baseline. He also served as the East Coast news editor and finance editor at CNET News.com. Larry has covered the technology and financial services industry since 1995, publishing articles in WallStreetWeek.com, Inter@ctive Week, The New York Times, and Financial Planning magazine. He's a graduate of the Columbia School of Journalism and the University of Delaware.

For daily updates, follow Larry on Twitter.

33
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Google, Oracle Android settlement talks heat up Ellison, Page to duke it out
the.nameless.drifter Updated - 17th Sep
@ldo17

The link you just posted has a page entitled "GNU Public License, version 2, with the Classpath Exception" so it is a GPL 2 version license with an extra an extension and there in lies the problem, the license covers you for desktop it does not cover you for mobile

Also some of the code Google is alleged to have copied was GPL'd and yet appeared in Android with the GPL license replaced with an Apache license
0 Votes
+ -
Oracle has no Copyright Claim. Only Patent Claims
Dietrich T. Schmitz * Your Linux Advocate 12th Sep
It will be tough for Oracle to prove Patent claims in the courtroom given Google has not copied 'with impunity' their Java ME VM source code.

The only code, about 12 pages, represents setup API declarations to Java Object Class definitions, and function prototypes--these are the APIs and the implementation details for Dalvik were 'clean room' written against those Class method and other abstract virtual methods.

That puts Google in the position of waging a countersuit by lobbing a Patent bombshell at Oracle, which will be a certainty if Oracle doesn't settle out of court.

A generous cross-licensing arrangement is most likely to occur but Oracle cannot wage frivolous lawsuits without consequence.
@Dietrich T. Schmitz * Your Linux Advocate
What happened to your "stake", also what happened to the references you provide to "Groklaw"?
0 Votes
+ -
Do you have a point?
Dietrich T. Schmitz * Your Linux Advocate 12th Sep
@Rama.NET
Give me a decent question and I am happy to answer.
I am interested in your point of view as much as any other.
Let me know!
@DTS
Ok, I was trying to pull your tagline. Leaving it aside, is there any proof stating that Dalvik is a clean room design and implementation? AFAIK, clean room design is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design, and I think I missed the information in this regards to Dalvik VM.
@Rama.NET Doesn???t need to be, since Dalvik is a completely new design and implementation that bears no resemblance to Sun/Oracle JVM at all.

Go on, have a look at the source code for yourself and compare them.
@Dietrich T. Schmitz * Your Linux Advocate

You have shown us that you are obviously not patent literate, yet you continue to claim that Google holds the "upper hand" even though those more knowledgable then you in reference to this consider otherwise.

I am curious, is it fear that forces you to post that which you post, or some other emotion?
plain
@Dietrich T. Schmitz * Your Linux Advocate

It doesn't matter how wide spread the copying only that they did it and if patent protection on those 12 pages was only given for desktop implementations then its 2 fold (I thought we'd have found this out at trial). Sun GPL'd parts in a terribly unclean way maybe out of fear that other companies (IBM) JVMs would replace them.

Also davlik isn't 'clean room' as former Java architects have worked on it which invalidated 'clean room' as soon as they spent 1 minute on the project

Settlement likely but its going to cost google, they really should have bought Sun when they had the chance
0 Votes
+ -
oracle has to drop the lawsuit
The Linux Geek 12th Sep
before the community rises and Oracle ends up like $co.
Eli$$on is no match for Page's wit so it's better for Oracle so save itself from embarrassment once more.
@The Linux Geek Page is a lightweight punk in the tech world.
Oracle sucks and everything they touch turns to crap.
Oh yeah, I'm sure Oracle is trembling in fear......You know what maybe Page's is so intelligent he will offer 3.14159265 billions in settlement. Yeah that's it.
@Rama.NET
Apparently johnsuarez10's comment was funny.....
@johnsuarez10
Eli$$on wont get more than $2.71828, enough to buy an ice cream or popcorn.
0 Votes
+ -
Or he could get 6.02x10^23
Bruizer 12th Sep
@The Linux Geek
@The Linux Geek

We still have no clue how this will turn out. There is strong evidence against Google for non-clean room techniques and possible willful patent issues. Google has some areas where there may be possible prior art.
The 'settlement' will be difficult for google to swallow... but they should have thought about it before copying somebody's cope.
@owlnet But that code was open-sourced, which means that we all have permission to copy it. Oracle cannot rescind that permission, even if it wants to.
@ldo17

No it wasn't it, only part of it was open sourced and only for the desktop market. Both Enterprise and mobile are still closed.
@the.nameless.drifter neither J2EE nor J2ME are relevant to this discussion; only the open-source J2SE code (and the open-source class libraries from Apache's Project Harmony). Google had already decided that the J2ME JVM was overpriced and insufficient for the Android security model; that's why they created Dalvik from scratch.
@ldo17

Its very relevant if you open source something for the DESKTOP ONLY as that means that both enterprise and mobile (which android is) are still closed.

Also how can they have created it from scratch if they copied code?

Finally even if the courts were to buy that Sun GPL'd more than they intended the fact that Google have modified code and kept parts of it secret invalidates that license
@the.nameless.drifter Open source means open source. If you try to impose field-of-use restrictions, then it's no longer open source. The fact remains, J2SE was open-sourced, so Google (or anybody else) was free to make use of it as they saw fit, whether on the desktop, or mobile, or anywhere else. Which they did.
@ldo17

Open sourced means the code is available subject to the license conditions the author specifies, Sun specified it was for desktop only
@the.nameless.drifter That's not what the GPL says. It WAS the GPL that Sun used, right?
@ldo17

They used GPL 2 WITH restrictions which is allowable in GPL 2, basically if you were using J2ME for commercial purposes you had to license it from Sun.

Its also note worthy that GPL 2 had unclear patent protection language in it (tightened up in GPL 3) which is also cause for debate
@ZDNet Gravatarthe.nameless.drifter The GPL is a Free Software licence. It does NOT allow restrictions on that Freedom.

Go on, you don't have to take my word for it, go check the GPL for yourself, to confirm what bullsh???it you're spouting. I'll wait.
@ldo17

When Sun open sourced Java, it did so under a license based on GPL v2 they put in a special exception to the license to ensure that applications which link against Java would not be roped in by the copyleft provision, no exemption was made for J2ME you had to aquire a license for it if you were doing commercial development.

Google is caught by the conveluted way the Sun open sourced Java they will have to pay up one way or another. If they say that its not a true Java JVM then they've violated the openJDK license if it is then its J2ME for commercial purposes and they have to get a license.

Oh and I know what GPL is, a question for you:

If Google is completely right and Java is completely open source how do you explain the changing of the license from GPL V2 based to the Apache license used in Android?
0 Votes
+ -
@the.nameless.drifter "When Sun open sourced Java, it did so under a license based on GPL v2 they put in a special exception to the license to ensure that applications which link against Java would not be roped in by the copyleft provision"

You lie. Why? Because the GPL needs no such exception. Consider that apps running under the GPL'd Linux kernel need no such "exception", nor do apps compiled with the GPL'd GCC compilers.

And to prove that you lie, here, for the public record, is the licensing for open-source Java: http://openjdk.java.net/legal/
0 Votes
+ -
@the.nameless.drifter Which is irrelevant, since Android makes no use of J2ME.
@the.nameless.drifter For what GPL'd code?
@ldo17

The link you just posted has a page entitled "GNU Public License, version 2, with the Classpath Exception" so it is a GPL 2 version license with an extra an extension and there in lies the problem, the license covers you for desktop it does not cover you for mobile

Also some of the code Google is alleged to have copied was GPL'd and yet appeared in Android with the GPL license replaced with an Apache license
@owlnet I take it you meant code
Seriously Larry Page's nerdiness may very well derail these talks initially ,until he has a chance to return again to the courtroom and let his lawyers do his job. Page is so out classed by Ellison as a CEO.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix