updated 07:50 pm EDT, Mon May 14, 2012
Noser engineers had Oracle install, copied freely
Oracle and Google continued the debate over how to proceed with the ongoing Java patent infringement suit. During the discussion and filing with the Judge William Alsup, Oracle presented a document summarizing why it is entitled to Google's profits from the case -- "super shady" contractors from Noser in Google's Android team. Google disputes the relevance of the filing.
The only agreement reached over the weekend is moving the question of Google's willful patent infringement from the third phase of the trial (damages) to the second phase (patent liability). Oracle's claim to disgorgement of the infringer's profits, or more simply, damages taken from Google's profits on Android is in debate.
During the filing, Oracle repeated their primary argument why they are entitled to disgorgement by filing with the court. Oracle, in its brief, told the court "the Noser developers had access and used the Oracle installation and copied from it, in this case by using a decompiler to produce source code by this quick and easy method. (Mitchell at RT 1260:8-1261:3). Google claims that its subcontractors decompiled Sun code in violation of their contract with Google, as if this was a surprise, but the evidence shows that Google employees thought the Noser engineers were 'super shady' at the time (TX 281), but did nothing about it."
During Eric Schimdt's time on the stand, the former CEO of Google testified that he hadn't heard about the Noser people being so cavalier with code libraries, or any complaint about them at all. Oracle's point of view remains that Google's lack of concern about even a matter such as contractors decompiling Oracle code was indicative of a "reckless infringement mentality toward third-party intellectual property rights, as opposed to having constituted 'clean-room development'" according to Florian Mueller.
The Google versus Oracle trial fallout continues tomorrow. Google has filed for a mistrial in response to the jury's failure to return a complete verdict. Oracle as requested that any retrial be limited to just the "fair use" issue that the jury was unable to decide. [via Florian Mueller]