MASSIVE YACHT-toting, E Corp Lite Oracle has claimed that the addition of Android apps to Google Chrome OS, currently in the early stages of rollout, changes everything about the firm’s beef with Google.
Oracle is licking its wounds after a judge cited ‘fair use’ in deciding once and for all that the company had no right to any of Google’s Android money as it had no right tobill for the APIs to make its open source code work. Amen to that.
One of Oracle’s Lawyers, Annette Hurst, has now told the district attorney that the addition of the Google Play store to Chrome OS showed that Google was trying to break into the market of Java CE for desktops claiming that it broke the entire foundation for Oracle’s case.
“Android is doing this using Java code,” spat Hurst in between foaming at the mouth and raging with thirst.
“That’s outrageous under copyright law. This verdict is tainted by the jury’s inability to hear this evidence. Viewing the smartphone in isolation is a Google-gerrymandered story.”
In English this means that Hurst thinks Google stacked the deck. What she failed to realise is that Google had included information about its plans for ARC, the Android to Chrome runtime, in the filing.
Given that the launch happened during, not after, the verdict (and technically before by some margin really), Oracle’s legal team seems to have a touch of sore loser syndrome.
“No party had a duty to supplement discovery with matters beyond the scope of trial,” said Christa Anderson for Google. “Our answers were appropriate and complete.”
When district attorney William Alsup asked why Oracle didn’t just file another (nuisance) lawsuit, Anderson retorted that she could if she wanted to but that’s not in the rules of swapsies and besides you’re not my friend anymore and you can’t come for tea at my house.
Sorry, correction, she said it could do that, but it didn’t stop the fact that the original trial was “infected and tainted”.
“Google’s whole pitch was: ‘We didn’t harm Java SE because we weren’t on desktops and laptops.’ This jury was entitled to consider the context. Yes, now they are on desktops and laptops. It’s outrageous. They’re lying to the jury! The court can’t countenance this!” Hurst screamed.
Ars Technica reported that today’s hearing actually contains a request for a retrial on the basis that Google submitted so little evidence that Oracle should win by default, leading Alsup to respond: “Don’t we let the jury decide this?”
But then if we show you a picture of the Earth and then say it’s round, we’d have a pretty strong case for its not being flat even if we sat for the rest of the trial eating crisps and nodding along to hip-hop like the ageing b-boys and girls we are.
Meanwhile, Alsup had some straight talking for Google on the back of its $3.9bn demand from Oracle for legal fees.
“We’re arguing over a cost bill,” said Alsup as the two attorneys sat sucking the insides out of eggs (thanks to Carol-Ann Duffy for that metaphor).
“Do you know how many Social Security claimants I can’t rule on while I’m ruling on your cost bill? Why can’t you resolve this on your own?”
Alsup suggested that he felt the figure was too much and that if the two parties couldn’t come to an agreement between themselves on the matter (yeah, that went so well last time), he would deny Google the whole sum “based on greed”.
He also added on the matter of Android on Chrome: “If I had been in your position, I would have disclosed.”
[Source: Inquirer]
