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.

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

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).

(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.

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).

Hilbert is dead-on. I'm not 100% informed on all of the details of this case but basically in today's world if there is a sliver of a chance to cash out on a patent or a trademark suit then a company will go for it. We can thank Job's Apple for setting that precedent here. Before I get too much hate I know it isn't just Apple that started it, but they did set the standard for acceptable behavior for the other tech giants.