Oracle seeking an injunction against Android as an "incompatible clone of Java"

Oracle's comments in its infringement lawsuit against Google's Android platform has revealed that the company is seeking not just royalties, but a legal order stopping the distribution of Android entirely.

Oracle and Google are deadlocked in settlement talks ordered by the judge overseeing the case, according to a report by FOSS Patents blogger Florian Mueller.

Mueller analysis of the talks suggests that Google hopes to postpone any settlement with Oracle until its acquisition of Motorola Mobility is finalized, with the intent of filing retaliatory countersuits against Oracle.

However, Mueller separately notes that while Oracle has calculated demands for past damages, including patent damages, copyright damages and a share of Google's profits as an infringer, it is not detailing future damages in the form of an ongoing royalty, similar to the fees Microsoft has negotiated with Android licensees such as HTC.

Instead, Oracle notes in a filing that it "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."

Mueller explains that this means Oracle views Android as a fragmentation of Java, and that rather than seeking future royalties, it would prefer to see an injunction that would either force Google to create an entirely new platform for Android that does not infringe Java (a massive investment that would render all existing Android software obsolete), or to apparently to recognize Android as Java, involving steep Oracle licensing costs for the platform going forward.

Oracle may not be granted the injunction it is "strenuously pursuing." In that case, if Google "is found to infringe but Oracle is denied an injunction," then "Google can continue to infringe but has to pay the amount determined by the court, which might be a per-unit royalty or a percentage of revenues," Mueller states.

While Oracle is directly suing Google over the technical foundations of Android's Java-like runtime, Apple has so far limited its lawsuits to hardware vendors licensing Android, including Samsung and Motorola Mobility.

With Google now in the process of buying Motorola Mobility, Apple's infringement claims now involve Google itself. However, because that deal is not finalized, Apple has recommended that the case be put on hold until Google's acquisition is completed.

Currently, Motorola Mobility lacks the legal ability to negotiate its patent rights and obligations without Google's input as a buyer. However, because the deal is still pending Google is restricted from involving itself in the case because it doesn't yet own the company. Apple therefore claims that Motorola currently lacks standing to negotiate the rights to its own patents.

Apple's lawyers have pressed the legal council of Motorola Mobility for more information on its confidential merger agreement with Google, a sensitive subject that Motorola has tried to avoid while deciding how to maneuver in the weeks since Apple filed its motion to stay the case.

Apple's attorneys have complained that the company "is expending enormous resources litigating toward final judgments that may be invalid if Motorola lacks standing."

Meanwhile, Motorola Mobility has finally responded to Apple's motion to stay its infringement case by filing to request "a limited period of time before the entry of any such order [to stay] so that Motorola can attempt to cure the defects in standing."

However, Mueller notes that Motorola Mobility can't "cure its defects in standing" without a revised agreement with Google, as its existing agreement prevents Motorola from settling pending patent litigation. But such a new agreement would also be a problem, because as Mueller notes, Motorola's management "must operate the company independently, within the parameters of the merger agreement, until the transaction is closed."

Google's deal to buy Motorola Mobility is therefore threatening to hold up Motorola's ability to "defend" Android from infringement cases by both Oracle and Apple, the opposite of what Google intended its $12.5 billion acquisition to do. Instead, it is delaying settlement opportunities and threatening to make it even more expensive to resolve the issues.

How can Google be infringing if there is an open source version of Java out there?

http://openjdk.java.net/

Just because some one has created a clean room work alike of JAVA does not invalidate Oracle's copyrighted version of JAVA which Google ripped off. Even your link makes the distinction and links to Oracle's download site. Your link is Open Source JAVA for Linux. . . a different thing than Oracle's multi platform, write once JAVA.

Google's legal entanglements derive from the fact they ripped off the Oracle code verbatim, stripped off the comments, copyright notices, and published as their own work! Numerous examples have been posted down to spacing and indentations in the code, and a smoking gun email in which high mucky-mucks in Google discussed the need to license the code and made the decision to go ahead and just use it sans license!

Pertinent sections from Oracle's JAVA license:
A. COMMERCIAL FEATURES. You may not use the Commercial Features for running Programs, Java applets or applications in your internal business operations or for any commercial or production purpose, or for any purpose other than as set forth in Sections B, C, D and E of these Supplemental Terms. If You want to use the Commercial Features for any purpose other than as permitted in this Agreement, You must obtain a separate license from Oracle.
G. COMMERCIAL FEATURES NOTICE. For purpose of complying with Supplemental Term Section C.(v)(b) and D.(v)(b), your license agreement shall include the following notice, where the notice is displayed in a manner that anyone using the Software will see the notice:
Use of the Commercial Features for any commercial or production purpose requires a separate license from Oracle. “Commercial Features” means those features identified Table 1-1 (Commercial Features In Java SE Product Editions) of the Software documentation accessible at http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/documentation/index.html
J. TERMINATION FOR INFRINGEMENT. Either party may terminate this Agreement immediately should any Software become, or in either party's opinion be likely to become, the subject of a claim of infringement of any intellectual property right.

The license also requires any derivative version must be backwardly compatible with Oracle's version of Java, and that any Apps designed to run on it MUST also run on Oracle's JAVA. Android, a derivative was deliberately made incompatible and the Apps do not also run on Oracle's JAVA, in violation of the license.

Google made the conscious decision to steal Oracle's copyrighted (not patented-although there are some patented algorithms in the code) intellectual property instead of buying a commercial license that everyone else has done who uses Java for commercial purposes! Thus, Google could use the JAVA code, ignore the licensing provisions, and worry about legalities later. My, how ethical!

Given this evidence the judge in the case strongly suggested the two CEOs meet and hammer out a licensing agreement because "Google is likely to loose in court". . . But Oracle is NOT interested in future licensing revenue from Google. They want past infringement fines, and payment of illegally acquired profits, AND an injunction against future distribution of the infringing product: Android. If it goes to trial and Google does lose, they are looking at TREBLE damages because the infringement was willful!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.