DeepCool LS720 (LCS) review
Fractal Design Pop Air RGB Black TG review
Palit GeForce GTX 1630 4GB Dual review
FSP Dagger Pro (850W PSU) review
Razer Leviathan V2 gaming soundbar review
Guru3D NVMe Thermal Test - the heatsink vs. performance
EnGenius ECW220S 2x2 Cloud Access Point review
Alphacool Eisbaer Aurora HPE 360 LCS cooler review
Noctua NH-D12L CPU Cooler Review
Silicon Power XPOWER XS70 1TB NVMe SSD Review
Oracle: Google generated 22 Billion dollar profit with Android
In a copyright lawsuit against Google, Oracle (the guys behind JAVA) released some information. It appears that Google already had 31 billion revenue with 22 billion us dollar profit based on Android.
More juicy details, Google also paid Apple 1 billion dollars in 2014 to get Apple to keep their search engine as standard in their iOS. It also shows how Apple benefits financially from Google’s advertising-based business model that Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook has criticized as an intrusion of privacy.
Oracle has been fighting Google since 2010 over claims that the search engine company used its Java software without paying for it to develop Android. The showdown has returned to U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco after a pit stop at the U.S. Supreme Court, where Google lost a bid to derail the case. The damages Oracle now seeks may exceed $1 billion since it expanded its claims to cover newer Android versions.
“The specific financial terms of Google’s agreement with Apple are highly sensitive to both Google and Apple,” Google said in its Jan. 20 filing. “Both Apple and Google have always treated this information as extremely confidential.”
Oracle wants to use financial information from Google to show that the search engine company was in a rush to use Java software to create Android and reap profits from it. The database maker also wants to peg its damages demand to how much Google has earned from Android -- the higher the revenue, the more that Oracle can claim it’s owed for copyright infringement when the case goes to trial.
The transcript vanished without a trace from electronic court records at about 3 p.m. Pacific standard time with no indication that the court ruled on Google’s request to seal it.
I know there's a lot of money to be made in smarthphones, but sheesh these numbers.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 44096
Joined: 2000-02-22
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 44096
Joined: 2000-02-22
#5221987 Posted on: 01/22/2016 04:19 PM
Every time I hear about some Oracle:Google dispute, I find it irritating because there is a stark lack of information on the issue. Java is free and largely (if not entirely) open-source. As far as I'm aware, Google didn't pirate something from Oracle. From what I heard several years ago, Google took some open-source code from Oracle that had some sort of license restriction on it, but Google eventually reverted it with their own in-house code.
So, I'm not really understanding what is still going on here.
In the end it always comes down to one thing: money
Every time I hear about some Oracle:Google dispute, I find it irritating because there is a stark lack of information on the issue. Java is free and largely (if not entirely) open-source. As far as I'm aware, Google didn't pirate something from Oracle. From what I heard several years ago, Google took some open-source code from Oracle that had some sort of license restriction on it, but Google eventually reverted it with their own in-house code.
So, I'm not really understanding what is still going on here.
In the end it always comes down to one thing: money
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 6575
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 6575
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5221989 Posted on: 01/22/2016 04:27 PM
Understood, but under what pretenses does Google owe anything? How is Oracle's demand quantified? Where in Java's license does it say Oracle can be rewarded/compensated anything?
I'm not being facetious or anything, I'm legitimately wondering. Sure, Oracle is a relatively dumb company (lots of lost opportunities when they bought Sun), but I don't think they're dumb enough to sue a company bigger than them for a ridiculous reason such as "well even though Java is free to use, I made Java so I should earn some of Google's money!"
(I'm not saying that's what Oracle is suing Google over, it just seems that way to me).
In the end it always comes down to one thing: money
Understood, but under what pretenses does Google owe anything? How is Oracle's demand quantified? Where in Java's license does it say Oracle can be rewarded/compensated anything?
I'm not being facetious or anything, I'm legitimately wondering. Sure, Oracle is a relatively dumb company (lots of lost opportunities when they bought Sun), but I don't think they're dumb enough to sue a company bigger than them for a ridiculous reason such as "well even though Java is free to use, I made Java so I should earn some of Google's money!"
(I'm not saying that's what Oracle is suing Google over, it just seems that way to me).
sykozis
Senior Member
Posts: 22107
Joined: 2008-07-14
Senior Member
Posts: 22107
Joined: 2008-07-14
#5222063 Posted on: 01/22/2016 09:12 PM
It seems that way because both Oracle and Google are keeping quiet about what's going on.
(I'm not saying that's what Oracle is suing Google over, it just seems that way to me).
It seems that way because both Oracle and Google are keeping quiet about what's going on.
Asgardi
Senior Member
Posts: 247
Joined: 2010-11-13
Senior Member
Posts: 247
Joined: 2010-11-13
#5222364 Posted on: 01/23/2016 08:07 PM
Understood, but under what pretenses does Google owe anything? How is Oracle's demand quantified? Where in Java's license does it say Oracle can be rewarded/compensated anything?
I'm not being facetious or anything, I'm legitimately wondering. Sure, Oracle is a relatively dumb company (lots of lost opportunities when they bought Sun), but I don't think they're dumb enough to sue a company bigger than them for a ridiculous reason such as "well even though Java is free to use, I made Java so I should earn some of Google's money!"
(I'm not saying that's what Oracle is suing Google over, it just seems that way to me).
Oracle bought Java and can decide about its licensing how they wish. The point is that Google started using Java before Oracle bought it, and Google claims its using only the free part of Java, and have re-engineered the parts that are an issue in this case. But obviously Oracle claims that this re-engineering doesn't change anything as the code still does the same thing (which is totally a valid point).
Long story short: Google created Android purely by using other peoples work, how ever it was licensed and is now making ****loads of money with it. It has been amazing that they could pull it off in the first place.
I don't care how this trial ends. The amount of money Google has made is the most interesting thing. Android is supposedly "free" but it seems clear there is some serious licensing stuff going on behind the scenes (which would be a real problem in the EU anti-trust case). Or Google makes this money by selling their users data, which is even worse.
Any way, these cases will open up more information about how Google operates and that is a good thing for everybody.
Understood, but under what pretenses does Google owe anything? How is Oracle's demand quantified? Where in Java's license does it say Oracle can be rewarded/compensated anything?
I'm not being facetious or anything, I'm legitimately wondering. Sure, Oracle is a relatively dumb company (lots of lost opportunities when they bought Sun), but I don't think they're dumb enough to sue a company bigger than them for a ridiculous reason such as "well even though Java is free to use, I made Java so I should earn some of Google's money!"
(I'm not saying that's what Oracle is suing Google over, it just seems that way to me).
Oracle bought Java and can decide about its licensing how they wish. The point is that Google started using Java before Oracle bought it, and Google claims its using only the free part of Java, and have re-engineered the parts that are an issue in this case. But obviously Oracle claims that this re-engineering doesn't change anything as the code still does the same thing (which is totally a valid point).
Long story short: Google created Android purely by using other peoples work, how ever it was licensed and is now making ****loads of money with it. It has been amazing that they could pull it off in the first place.
I don't care how this trial ends. The amount of money Google has made is the most interesting thing. Android is supposedly "free" but it seems clear there is some serious licensing stuff going on behind the scenes (which would be a real problem in the EU anti-trust case). Or Google makes this money by selling their users data, which is even worse.
Any way, these cases will open up more information about how Google operates and that is a good thing for everybody.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 6575
Joined: 2012-11-10
Every time I hear about some Oracle:Google dispute, I find it irritating because there is a stark lack of information on the issue. Java is free and largely (if not entirely) open-source. As far as I'm aware, Google didn't pirate something from Oracle. From what I heard several years ago, Google took some open-source code from Oracle that had some sort of license restriction on it, but Google eventually reverted it with their own in-house code.
So, I'm not really understanding what is still going on here.