Two Larrys to go head-to-head in Google-Oracle case It's on: Ellison versus Page. The top executives of Oracle and Google have been ordered to get in a room together and try to resolve their multi-billion-dollar Java patent clash like grown-ups, face to face. The Larrys must show up on September 19 at 9am Pacific time, a US magistrate has said in a written court order. The …
This post has been deleted by its author
From Oracles filing; "The Court’s mediation plan is the last chance to resolve this case before a major investment of time and resources by the parties and the Court"
Maybe Oracle is finally beginning to understand what's a stake here: a small pot of money, no costs award and massive collateral damage *to itself* along the way. The Reg bootnote is a timely reminder that awards in this case are geographically restricted and their dreams of $6bil damages are beyond resurrection. And the court already bumped the starting point down to $100-200mil range!
By fighting an opponent not in the same patent MAD system they've already lost patents, because G has no reason *not* to challenge patents, unlike the business's Ellison is used to dealing with.
At the end of this the whole world will understand better the limits of Oracles control of Java and it's going to get a lot easier to say no when Oracle comes looking for licence fees. Much of Oracles case is a repeat of SCO vs IBM with the same ludicrously wrong arguments about API's. Sadly SCO escaped into bankruptcy before trial, kind of Oracle to give a 2nd chance to clarify what's legitimate, what's just licence extortion.
"I can tell you from personal experience in mediation the last person you want in the room is the CEO. That is a recipe for disaster. For a mediation to have a chance, the representatives need to be able to check their egos at the door, listen to the other side and the mediator, and provide the CEO of the company the flexibility to make a call on settlement without having to be personally present. Unfortunately, with this move Judge Alsup and the magistrate have almost assured another failed mediation."
Also, unless the two parties agree otherwise (unlikely) the mediation will be completely confidential - so no opportunity to read about entertaining bustups between the two I'm afraid.
"I wonder whether the Judge's ego is even larger."
The judge is doing what all US judges do: trying to get the case ended before he has to waste serious time on it. Don't read too much into it, this is pretty normal. In this case Judge Alsup appears clueless about software or IP law so it's a difficult case (he's got to spend lots more time researching the law) he'd much rather not hear.
It's also about the maximum pain he can impose before trial but there's not much chance it will work, if anything he just annoyed Google enough to guarantee appeals. Appeals *really* annoy judges...
Given the point about CEOs not being good in mediation, maybe they'll each be smart enough to bring someone else along to do the talking - and they'll show this comment to the judge.
Maybe the judge does want to hear more about the case at length in many hearings, it may be quite dull but there are still worse things that they could be hearing about, and it's fairly unlikely that he'll be assassinated if someone doesn't like the verdict, which isn't always the case.
The most amusing results would be
1: Page.."After careful and thorough discussion and negotiation we could reach no common ground or reasoning, so instead we finally settled with Paper Scissors Stone"
2: Ellison "I've decided to take Page as my next bride and you can look forward to our wedding this Christmas"
3: Page: "After careful and thorough negotiation, Mr Ellison made a decent offer and so I've decided to sell up Google to him....see here is my signature in blood...sorry Sergey"
From the bootnote: "Google is reported to have argued it's clear of any blame on Android, as code for its operating system came from outside the US." - no, it's arguing that (per Groklaw) "the loading of Android onto devices outside the United States and any subsequent use of those devices outside the United States is excluded from the patent infringement claims.", so no damages relating to overseas profits from Android devices, unless the actual devices (i.e., not the code) are imported to the US, or exported from the US.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
