Google offers Oracle slice of Android profits for patents

Small payment and 0.515% of revenues until 2018


Google has proposed terms its on-going patent spat with Oracle over Java's contribution to Android by offering Ellison's crew a payment for past infractions and a miniscule slice of further revenues from the operating system, should Google be found to be in violation.

According to court papers (PDF) filed on Tuesday, Google is offering $2.72 million for infringements of Patent RE38104 and 0.5 per cent of future Android revenues. It estimates patent 6061520 is worth just $80,000 and 0.015 of any money gleaned from the operating system. In both cases the amount will be shaved to reflect the number of non-infringing handsets.

The payments will be short-lived in some cases. Google's lawyers point out that patent 6061520 expires in December of this year and Patent RE38104 will cease to be valid in 2018. As an additional inticement, Google will acknowledge the validity of Patent 6061520 and is suggesting cutting the court session from 12 hours to eight, and getting rid of juries to speed thing up, should the case come to trial.

Unsurprisingly Oracle's response was that the amount of damages was inappropriate – it's asking for $4.15 million and it wanted its day in court in front of a jury. It did say it was willing to consider shortening the trial sessions from 12 hours to eight, but insisted on having longer to discuss damages as it had expert testimony that was complex and detailed.

"Google also proposes that the trial be shortened by suggesting that Oracle accept patent damages that are lower than Oracle contends are appropriate, and waiving any right to seek injunctive relief for Google’s patent infringement. Oracle cannot agree to unilaterally give up its rights, on appeal and in this Court, to seek full redress for Google’s unlawful conduct," the papers read.

There's now a last chance to avoid a trial next month with a court-ordered conciliation meeting between Oracle's president Safra Catz and representatives from Google. If those fail then the court will finally begin next month. The latest filing suggest the talks are likely to fail, according to FOSS patent watcher Florian Mueller.

"I don't think Google realistically expected Oracle to accept this proposal," he told The Register. "The two patents that are still being asserted are unlikely to give Oracle the leverage it needs for a settlement on its terms. The copyright part of the case still poses considerable risk to Google." ®


Other stories you might like

  • DigitalOcean tries to take sting out of price hike with $4 VM
    Cloud biz says it is reacting to customer mix largely shifting from lone devs to SMEs

    DigitalOcean attempted to lessen the sting of higher prices this week by announcing a cut-rate instance aimed at developers and hobbyists.

    The $4-a-month droplet — what the infrastructure-as-a-service outfit calls its virtual machines — pairs a single virtual CPU with 512 MB of memory, 10 GB of SSD storage, and 500 GB a month in network bandwidth.

    The launch comes as DigitalOcean plans a sweeping price hike across much of its product portfolio, effective July 1. On the low-end, most instances will see pricing increase between $1 and $16 a month, but on the high-end, some products will see increases of as much as $120 in the case of DigitalOceans’ top-tier storage-optimized virtual machines.

    Continue reading
  • GPL legal battle: Vizio told by judge it will have to answer breach-of-contract claims
    Fine-print crucially deemed contractual agreement as well as copyright license in smartTV source-code case

    The Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) has won a significant legal victory in its ongoing effort to force Vizio to publish the source code of its SmartCast TV software, which is said to contain GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 copyleft-licensed components.

    SFC sued Vizio, claiming it was in breach of contract by failing to obey the terms of the GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 licenses that require source code to be made public when certain conditions are met, and sought declaratory relief on behalf of Vizio TV owners. SFC wanted its breach-of-contract arguments to be heard by the Orange County Superior Court in California, though Vizio kicked the matter up to the district court level in central California where it hoped to avoid the contract issue and defend its corner using just federal copyright law.

    On Friday, Federal District Judge Josephine Staton sided with SFC and granted its motion to send its lawsuit back to superior court. To do so, Judge Staton had to decide whether or not the federal Copyright Act preempted the SFC's breach-of-contract allegations; in the end, she decided it didn't.

    Continue reading
  • US brings first-of-its-kind criminal charges of Bitcoin-based sanctions-busting
    Citizen allegedly moved $10m-plus in BTC into banned nation

    US prosecutors have accused an American citizen of illegally funneling more than $10 million in Bitcoin into an economically sanctioned country.

    It's said the resulting criminal charges of sanctions busting through the use of cryptocurrency are the first of their kind to be brought in the US.

    Under the United States' International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEA), it is illegal for a citizen or institution within the US to transfer funds, directly or indirectly, to a sanctioned country, such as Iran, Cuba, North Korea, or Russia. If there is evidence the IEEA was willfully violated, a criminal case should follow. If an individual or financial exchange was unwittingly involved in evading sanctions, they may be subject to civil action. 

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022