Google’s 12th and 13th defenses say that google and users of android do have a (implied) license. They are making a lot of claims here, I assume that is in case the judge throws out some of their defenses. I am curious how the unclean hands argument will play out. Oracle used to be for totally opening up java prior to buying sun. What ever the case I’d assume google’s clean room implementation avoided sun’s patents if there was any doubt thta they couldn’t win with respect to the alleged copyright violation so this might all be moot. Though I agree with a blogger that said the biggest loser in this lawsuit is the Java language itself.
@GKW & ShannonSmith:
See, your discussion is what will ultimately kill Java unless it is set free.
Devs already hate having to deal with licenses in the first place (is java linking like c linking?) if details make it even more complicated, people will shy away.
@bobjob:
Sure if they win the have cred with the suites. But suites don’t program. (yeah movie reference 
)
That is kinda what I meant in a ‘win the battle, lose the war’ sense.
What’s up with this misconception I keep reading, about clean room implementations to work around patents… :
Or the even bigger misconception that is remotely Java specific. Read (at least) the titles of the patents in question. I’d guess there are a ton of languages that violate one or more of these.
Patents are fun. You are in violation even if you don’t know of the patents existence. Although you won’t get hit as hard if violating through lack of knowledge.
You either have a license or you don’t. Google only has two options since they can’t claim lack of knowledge.
- The patent is invalid.
- We’re not in violation.
There is no other possible response.
Some people seem to confuse patents with copyright. If you want to clone company X’s product, a clean room implementation is “proof” that you did not reverse engineer the original product, and therefore did not infringe company X’s copyright. However, patents protect the idea and not the actual product, so they always apply.
I’m curious - how do software patents apply when international companies are trading in countries that operate under different patent law?
Are Oracle’s patents also registered in the UK and/or Europe? and are they valid in these territories?
Regardless of the outcome of this case, could Google continue to generate profits from Android in European markets without fear of Oracle pursuing a claim?
Patent law is not international. So patents have to be filed in each country. My knowledge is virtually nonexistent here, but I suppose Google could still market Android outside the US if they got hit with a cease-and-desist order. However, I’d image that make for a pretty ugly situation.
[quote]However, patents protect the idea
[/quote]
Actually you can’t patent an idea.
Your not supposed to be able to patent an idea but 99% of software patents are doing just that. Patents are also supposed to spur innovation but that is now only true in very limited fields (Pharmaceuticals mostly). My personal opinion is patents should be abolished and any fields severely effected (Pharmaceuticals) should be (and should have been in the first place) government funded non-profits.
With the speed at which technology progresses in IT, I think the length of patents is absurd. 20 years in the world of IT is the difference between state-of-the-art & obsolescence.
Shortening the patent life to 2-3 years would be far more sensible, and would encourage rapid development.