Understanding Oracle America v Google: The patents at issue

I want to credit Groklaw with pointing out this useful post by Carlo Daffara which has links to the specific patents under which Oracle America has filed their lawsuit.  The article itself is an interesting read beyond just the usefulness of the links.  One byproduct of my research on this issue has been familiarizing myself with Carlo Daffara's work.  He's a major player in the support of free software in the EU, and does work on open source business models.  Here's a link to info on Mr. Daffara.

Understanding Oracle America v Google: The Oracle Corporation

The Oracle Corporation is best known in the Information Technology world for the Oracle relational database management system, but is probably known most in the business world for its high profile CEO Larry Ellison.

The beginnings of the Oracle Corporation were in 1977 when Larry Ellison, Ed Oates, and Bob Miner formed the consulting group Software Development Laboratories.  Oates had shown Ellison a 1970 paper in which IBM's Ted Codd had proposed the relational database model for data.  IBM was very slow on the drawn in implementing the work of their own researcher, so SDL jumped in to fill the void.

By 1979 the company was successfully marketing their product, and in 1979 changed their name to Oracle Corporation after their flagship product.

By successful marketing and by acquisition of other companies Oracle grew to be the corporation that has the third largest revenue from software, behind only Microsoft and IBM.

Oracle's most significant acquisition in terms of their recent trajectory was in January of this year, when they completed their acquisition of Sun Microsystems.  Sun was well known as a producer of enterprise servers and storage devices.  They were also a powerhouse in Research and Development, had a great deal of trouble monetizing their research, and had been on an acquisition spree of their own before being acquired by Oracle.  I'll write more on Sun and the properties Oracle got with the acquisition  when I cover Oracle America, the name Oracle has given to the subsidiary comprising the former Sun.

Oracle is in some ways an old fashioned software company.  While Oracle has dabbled in open source software and software which is free in the sense of "free beer", it's exhibited little understanding of the culture of the free software movement.  The first evidence of this is the awkward and heavy handed manner in which it handled relations with the Open Solaris community (I've written brief posts on that relationship  here and here).

Why is Oracle suing Google?

There isn't really an easy answer at the moment as to the motivation and timing of this lawsuit.  It has the obvious effect of disrupting, and potentially damaging, future adoption of Java.  So it's likely Oracle has some specific goal in mind beyond a one time settlement.  I can't imagine Oracle deciding to compete with patent trolling firms like Acacia.  In fact in 1994 Oracle went on record opposing software patents in principle (in agreement with a substantial portion of the IT world). 

This early in the game my best candidate for a quick guess is that Oracle is interested in getting a strong foothold in the mobile industry, either by forcing a licensing agreement with Google, or blowing Android out of the water and introducing a competing device.  Oracle did something similar to the latter when they tried to compete with Red Hat Linux a few years back.  That attempt was a complete and utter failure.



As the suit unfolds Oracle's specific strategy will probably become obvious.  But I doubt that it's moral indignation over violation of their IP.  After all, Oracle got its start implementing research that was carried out on IBM's dime.

Oracle v Google -- getting started

Before I begin to summarize what might actually be going on in the Oracle v Google lawsuit,  it might be a good idea to aggregate some of the information already on the web to give readers a chance to draw their own preliminary conclusions.  The links I'm posting are the sources of information I've found so far, and I've tried to edit them down to reduce the redundancy and provide a good starting point for really figuring out what's going on.

The most important document for understanding the case (although if you're not a lawyer it may not be the first thing you'll want to read) is the complaint itself, which was filed in the United States District Court -- Northern District of California.

The law firms representing Oracle  in the case are Morrison and Foerster LLP, and Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP

Here is a link to Oracle's press release on the suit.

... and a link to a TechCrunch article quoting a response Google sent via email.

For basic info the the following articles are representative of what the press is carrying at the moment:

Epic smackdown looms in Google vs Oracle  from CNNMoney.com

Lawsuit may signal era of Oracle, Google tensions  from the Economic Times (India)

Oracle sues Google over Android from Mashable

Here's an interesting blog from Taylor Buley at Forbes, which raises a question I had pondered.  Why didn't Oracle file the suit in the Eastern  District of Texas, which is a patent troll's paradise?  I'll have to mull over Buley's reasoning, but the reasons behind the chosen venue is a good point to ponder.

Groklaw, which has long been the best (though most partisan) site for following the various SCO lawsuits will be following Oracle v Google in depth.

Finally, here is Richard Stallman's call to arms Fighting Software Patents.  It doesn't have any direct bearing on Oracle's chances of success, but it's a nice little manifesto to review when an important software patent case arises.

Google's Agnilux acquistion

For the past two days there has been a great deal of discussion in the business and technology press about Google's acquisition of the secretive start-up company Agnilux. Agnilux was founded by individuals who had been part of the Apple team which developed the chip for the iPad.

There had been some speculation that Google would use Agnilux to develop low power processors for cloud computing servers.

The New York Times, however, ran an article asserting that the company was primarily purchased for its expertise in hardware-software integration, and that their primary focus may be to port Chrome and Android onto other platforms (tablets for example).

The founders of Agnilux include Amarjit Gill, Puneet Kumar, and Mark Hayter, all of whom were officials at P.A. Semi, and were absorbed into Apple when that company was aquired by Apple. At P.A. Semi Gill had been the VP for Sales and Business Development, Kumar had been the VP for Systems Software, and Hayter was the Chief Systems Architect and VP for Systems Engineering.

Kevin Rose on Buzz

Given that Buzz is in the face of gmail users at the moment it doesn't exactly qualify as "Off the Beaten Path". It is, however, an important development in communications technology because of the ubiquitous nature of Google, and because of the dramatic way they launched it.

My first impulse is that it was nothing more than an attempt to do a frontal attack on Facebook. Kevin Rose made this video which puts forward another view, that Buzz is primarily about giving Google a more sophisticated data mining pool for customer information.