facebook rss twitter

Oracle wants $2.6 billion for Android infringements

by Scott Bicheno on 29 June 2011, 18:11

Tags: Samsung (005935.KS), Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL), Google (NASDAQ:GOOG), Oracle (NASDAQ:ORCL)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qa6jc

Add to My Vault: x

Profitable patents

FOSS Patents - a blog that focuses on technology patent litigation - has had another busy week.

Yesterday it alerted the rest of the world to the news that Oracle has put a precise figure on the amount of money it expects Google to cough up for the alleged infringements by Android on Java patents. $2.6 billion will be what it takes to make Oracle feel better about all this naughty infringement.

The figure has come to light because Google had been going through some kind of obscure legal process apparently designed to keep a calculation of the amount of damages sought out of the proceedings (FOSS explains it in far more detail here). This has obviously failed, and in an Oracle filing - embedded below, one more courtesy of FOSS - it names the figure of $2.6 billion.

This is comprised of a $0.9-$1.4 billion upfront payment and between 10 and 15 percent of Google advertising revenues on Android phones, which will probably run until 2021. If we say 15 percent of all Google mobile advertising revenues for ten years amounts to $1.5 billion, then we're talking total revenues of billion a year, which seems a bit low, but what do we know?

FOSS was also quick to spot another development in the growing dispute between Apple and Samsung. It's Samsung's turn to escalate things, it seems, and it has filed a complaint with the ITC (International Trade Commission) requesting it conduct an investigation of Apple regarding "Mobile Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computer."

Apparently this means it's looking for an import ban on such devices, and if the ITC decides to conduct an investigation it may take a year and a half to come to a conclusion.

 

Oracle Opposition to Google Daubert Motion

 

HEXUS Forums :: 4 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
Posted by crossy - Thu 30 Jun 2011 10:04
Interesting comment in the FOSS Patents:
It (Google) averred that Oracle's damages claims were in the range “between 1.4 and 6.1 billion dollars”.

Oracle denies the range stated by Google and says the actual amount of its claims is $2.6 billion
Am I missing something here - Google claims 1.4-6.1Bn$ and then Oracle says “no, we're wanting 2.6Bn$”. But surely 2.6 is in the range “1.4-6.1” so Google's right (to an extent)?

I'm also less than impressed with the demand for a slice of ongoing ad revenues - this sounds like extortion to me. I really hope Oracle lose this one - otherwise who knows where they'll turn their Sauron-like gaze next?
It's Samsung's turn to escalate things, it seems, and it has filed a complaint with the ITC
Does complaining to the ITC ever achieve anything? It seems, to me at least, to be nothing more than an attempt to get Apple to “play nice” - perhaps drop the case in return for a reasonable (unlike Oracle) royalty check. (Not that I'm convinced that Samsung is infringing - but that's just my opinion).
Posted by oolon - Thu 30 Jun 2011 10:44
If it is infringing a cut of future profits is exactly why Google will have to do. As patents are a time limited monopoly. The patent holder can licence any way the like (or in fact refuse to licence) and has a complete monopoly of the invention. If you don't like that your have to work around the patent or wait until it expires.

I personally think patents are THE most abused thing out there. The Idea of a patent was to protect someone coming up with an invention in return for them explaining how to use the invention is a way other experts can use, they are granted a limited monopoly on that invention. The problem most of the stuff out there could hardly be decided as “inventions” they are worded in a way that is almost impossible for even an expect to get anything useful out of. When someone “invents” the some something (which becomes sucessful), the are checked like cards to see if they can get a fit. Clearly the patent was not needed for the “invention”, as it was invented separately without knowledge of the patent. Most use of patents being struck down for being “obvious” should be done, they are meant to be an INVENTION. Now a days they are more like someone putting up a fence, in the hope they can capture the land inside.
Posted by aidanjt - Thu 30 Jun 2011 10:55
I agree. Patents were useful when patent expiration times weren't insane, and the invention had to actually be an invention. Nowadays you can US patent virtually anything, from management methods, to software algos, interfaces, genes, and hell, probably atoms if you find/construct new ones. Just put it in front of the clerk, and he'll stamp ‘granted’.
Posted by GaryRW - Thu 30 Jun 2011 14:00
I was bored the other day and looked at the instruction leaflet that came with a HDD desktop dock (it was a similar model to this: http://www.scan.co.uk/products/sharkoon-quickport-combo-for-25-and-35-hdds-(ide-and-sata)-and-optical-pata-525-drives)

The leaflet confirmed that there was a patent held with regard to the HDD ejection mechanism - i.e. the button that you push that in turn pushes the HDD up out of the socket - i.e. a simple lever type arrangement. And that is apparently patentable?? :help: