decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Oracle v. Google - Just sayin' . . .
Wednesday, July 27 2011 @ 05:13 PM EDT

Here's a transcript from the video, uploaded on June 4, 2009 to YouTube, of Scott McNealy and Larry Ellison at JavaOne 2009 (San Francisco, California June, 2009) starting at 7:02: http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=_Dtqe1e0tXg

The transcript, at 7:02:
McNealy: "So any messages or key areas you'd like to see this gang target? Any last messages?"

Ellison: "Well, I think, you know, I'm reading a lot in the newspaper that devices based on Java that are Android devices, which is very exciting. We're flatterÖ I guess everyone should be flattered when, to some extent, Android is a big shakeup, and there are going to be notebooks based on Android, and I think we can see lots and lots of Java devices, some coming from our friends at Google, but I don't see why some of these devices shouldn't come from Sun, Sun/Oracle. So I think you'll see us get very aggressive with Java in developing Java apps for things like telephones and notebooks. They'll be computers but fundamentally based on Java and JavaFX, devices fundamentally based on Java and JavaFX, not only from Google but also from Sun."


  


Oracle v. Google - Just sayin' . . . | 192 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, July 27 2011 @ 05:49 PM EDT
If any for such a short one.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Thread
Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, July 27 2011 @ 05:50 PM EDT
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Pick discussions
Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, July 27 2011 @ 05:51 PM EDT
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic discussions
Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, July 27 2011 @ 05:52 PM EDT
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Translation
Authored by: argee on Wednesday, July 27 2011 @ 06:00 PM EDT
All they are saying is "it's open source, and we are
going to steal it ..."

In fact, I think a couple years ago Ellison said about
the same thing, maybe edited for language.


---
--
argee

[ Reply to This | # ]

phone hack from ellison ten minutes ago...
Authored by: fudnutz on Wednesday, July 27 2011 @ 06:10 PM EDT
What do they have up?

...

I said what?

...

Well I didn't KNOW SUN had patents we could troll them with...

...

That's not fair! I'm sure we as "SUN/Oracle" can change our minds ...
We're always obliged to the stockholders ... ME!

..

I'm not worried about any deposition. I don't have to explain that. I'm the
chief not the expert!

...


We have to get in mobile or google has to pay.

...

The Jury will love me! I'm a hero. I can explain it; I didn't know.

...

[Att FBI: Not a technical hack. Overheard in a john at OSCON.]

[ Reply to This | # ]

"you'll see us get very aggressive with Java in developing Java apps"
Authored by: Yossarian on Wednesday, July 27 2011 @ 06:21 PM EDT
Oracle is very aggressive, no doubt about that.

But why is this "aggressiveness" in going after Google, big
time? I assumed that staying friends with Google,
and developing applications for Google devices, could
bring much more $$$$ than this ugly lawsuit. (It is "ugly"
because, win or lose, open source people will hate Oracle.)

What does Ellison see that I missed?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Out of Context?
Authored by: Shadow Wrought on Wednesday, July 27 2011 @ 06:22 PM EDT
"You see your Honor, at the time those statements were, made we had no
idea just how much money Android was going to be taking in..."

---
"It's a summons." "What's a summons?" "It means summon's in trouble." -- Rocky
and Bullwinkle

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle v. Google - Just sayin' . . .
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 28 2011 @ 01:03 AM EDT
IANAL, but I can easily see this being spun:

Ellison is going to say,

"I thought it was a great idea, and that we should consider doing our own version, because we had such great patented stuff that would make it so much better. I was shocked, *shocked* I tell you, to discover that they were *already* using our inventions!"

[ Reply to This | # ]

aggressive: adj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 28 2011 @ 03:21 AM EDT
ready or likely to attack or confront;

translation: demand their slice of the action, license fees, shakedowns,

[ Reply to This | # ]

Taking what CEO's say with a grain of salt
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 28 2011 @ 03:41 PM EDT

Sometimes public statements by CEOs have to be considered in context. Two examples given on Groklaw illustrate this pretty well. The first was Jonathan Schwartz's blog post on November 5, 2007, the same day Google first announced Android. A commenter on Slashdot who was an editor for the site java.net at the time points out the skepticism that existed around Schwartz's statement at the time with a link to:

You'll Come Around

But I didn't end up putting this on the front page, because I just couldn't source the Java angle well enough (no offense, Jonathan, but you did say ZFS would be on Leopard...). CNN.com doesn't mention Java at all, while the New York Times reports that Andy Rubin, Google's director of mobile platforms, "said the software system that Google has designed is based on the Linux operating system and Sun Microsystems' Java language." But there aren't any details beyond that:

At the time, no one outside Google knew exactly what was inside Android because the code contents had not been revealed yet. Schwartz's comment on his blog could be attributed to some misunderstanding, something which people familiar with him didn't consider very unusual.

It was on November 12, 2007, that Google first released code for Android and people really noticed that the VM they used wasn't a Java JVM. An example pointed out was this blog, posted that same day:

Dalvik: how Google routed around Sunís IP-based licensing restrictions on Java ME

Ellison's comments at JavaOne 2009 could be taken in a similar vein. A contemporary account of his statements is given here:

Ellison pits Sun and Oracle against AJAX and Google

The article makes it clear that Ellison, who could only be speaking unofficially about Sun plans since Oracle had not yet completed its acquisition of the company, was really hyping the prospects for JavaFX. JavaFX was Sun's attempt to become a major player in what they termed Rich Internet Applications (RIA). Ellison talked about JavaFX replacing AJAX as a way for developers to build interactive web applications, as well as being used in Sun-produced mobile devices. None of those ideas have panned out to date. His observation that Android was actually a Java platform seems to be based on little more than what he read in the newspapers.

Well, I think, you know, I'm reading a lot in the newspaper that devices based on Java that are Android devices ... I think we can see lots and lots of Java devices, some coming from our friends at Google, but I don't see why some of these devices shouldn't come from Sun, Sun/Oracle. So I think you'll see us get very aggressive with Java in developing Java apps for things like telephones and notebooks. They'll be computers but fundamentally based on Java and JavaFX, devices fundamentally based on Java and JavaFX, not only from Google but also from Sun.

Ellison couldn't have been right about Google producing devices based on Java and JavaFX, because JavaFX only runs on a real Java JVM. While it's technically possible to run a Java JVM on an Android device, it's not a configuration that many people can easily use, even today. Ellison was hyping a Sun technology in JavaFX that never achieved much support from major smartphone platform vendors, and has so far failed to dislodge rival application development platforms for web and mobile applications in any appreciable way.

Both cases are examples of how CEOs can make statements that are not necessarily based on actual knowledge of events around them, even those that you'd think were directly related to the businesses they were leading.

--bystander1313

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle v. Google - Just sayin' . . .
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 28 2011 @ 10:18 PM EDT
... so, where are these Oracle-devloped phones and tablets that LPOD was touting?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Software patents, shrimp deveiners and incitement
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, July 29 2011 @ 04:43 AM EDT
I keep asking myself what Google have done wrong in legal terms and whether Sun
incited the wrongdoing. It always takes me back to the various Supreme Court
cases about software patents.

My conclusion is that, even if Oracle USA, get past the patent invalidation
foothills, they have a mountain to climb.

It's a long ramble, so I make it a child comment to this one.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Patented inventions must be obvious. You could never work them out from the
patent disclosures.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )