The argument that Sun couldn't have defended itself probably won't hold water in court. If Google was hurting them financially, they should have gone after them then and gotten the money. Doing nothing is a decision in disguise. You don't get to choose the consequences of your action or inaction. Oracle might think they have a case with these patents, but if they should have been defended by Sun, then their case is pretty week. Since most lawsuits settle and never go to court, they are probably hoping for a settlement. They probably just want some of the money back they spent and having the EU take so long to approve the merger didn't help Oracle at all.
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]>wrote: > IANAL, but I don't think "the old management didn't have the stones to > do this" is an adequate defense against Google's complaint that Oracle > is engaged in extortion by waiting so long. I believe the core US laws > here focus around the requirement to defend a patent. Change of > ownership doesn't void the duty to do so. But, you know, not a lawyer, > so, we'll have to wait on the cavalry to explain in more detail. > > On Aug 14, 9:21 am, Fabrizio Giudici <[email protected]> > wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On 8/14/10 01:01 , Reinier Zwitserloot wrote: > > > > > fee it wanted, then it's extortion and will be thrown out. By not > > > defending the patent for 5 years and having shown rather clearly > > > that at least sun's tech staff was well aware of how android works > > > internally, it would seem to me that making this case is trivial!). > > > > I think that Oracle lawyers can easily assert that 1) enforcing a > > patent is a matter of corporate politics and one management might be > > not interested, a new management might change idea; 2) Sun was too > > weak to risk the complaint, while now the thing has changed. In other > > words, the fact that the management changed is enough for justify that > > the complaint has been filed only now. > > > > For the rest, it's too early to understand what the target is. We've > > put reasonable scenarios, I'm waiting for the next move. > > > > Ah, probably it's not secondary to recall that, in the meantime, Apple > > has sued HTC (hence Google), and Microsoft sued Google too. Probably > > we should think of those legal actions in the wide. > > > > - -- > > Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager > > Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." > > java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici -www.tidalwave.it/people > > [email protected] > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > > > iEYEARECAAYFAkxmQ/kACgkQeDweFqgUGxeO3QCfUjmoNDQp5x7x5nM2MweoMm9M > > u1UAoLGQywiY/SHfUShjs46tAYo1ZATj > > =arIp > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- Robert Casto www.robertcasto.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
