Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sea Otter who wrote (211124)	6/17/2011 11:07:43 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361025

Oracle wants billions from Google over Android: And just might get it zdnet.com By Larry Dignan \| June 17, 2011, 5:51am PDT The ongoing volley of court filings between Oracle and Google continues and it’s clear that the software giant wants billions of dollars in Android damages. When you examine some of the moving parts Oracle looks like it just may get what it wants. Google earlier this week in a court document ripped Oracle’s expert witness and maintained that the company shouldn’t get a piece of Android-related ad revenue. Oracle fired back with another filing saying that Google is redacting too much in a move to misrepresent the situation. The key element in Oracle’s latest filing is that Google was trying to hide “references to the fact that Oracle damages claims in this case are in the billions of dollars.” Whatever the merits of Oracle’s lawsuit against Google it’s hard to not notice that the plaintiff has some key advantages. Given that Google has an ongoing revenue stream there’s a lot at stake in this upcoming trial to determine if Android violates Java patents. In the end, Oracle’s $1.3 billion in damages against SAP may look like chump change. Among Oracle’s key advantages: Patents. JMP Securities analyst Patrick Walravens noted that Oracle “carries a big stick in patent litigation.” Why? Oracle has a ton of patents—many acquired through the Sun acquisition. Walravens wrote: We estimate that Oracle has over 20,000 patents. A review of the patent office’s database suggests that Oracle is the assignee for over 12,000 patents in its own name, along with over 7,000 for Sun Microsystems and over 1,000 for its various acquisitions (including PeopleSoft, Siebel and Agile, among others). In comparison, Google is the assignee for only 689 patents. That Google disadvantage is why the company is trying to buy Nortel’s patent portfolio. The legal team. Oracle is using David Boies of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP. That’s the legal team that won Oracle $1.3 billion from SAP. Oracle’s second law firm in the Oracle vs. Google case is Morrison & Foerster, which has Michael Jacobs as lead attorney. Jacobs helped Apple defeat a patent infringement lawsuit in summary judgment. Oracle isn’t intimidated. One long-time tech watcher said yesterday that “Oracle thinks it can sue all of its competition into oblivion.” Given the SAP win, it’s only logical that Oracle would continue to run a winning play. The return on investment motive. When Oracle bought Sun Microsystems, Java was one of the crown jewels—even though the software was never really monetized. At the time, Oracle’s acquisition of Sun’s Java looked like it was more a matter of controlling its own software destiny. Oracle’s middleware is largely Java based. But let’s say that Oracle gets a nice round number in damages out of Google like $2 billion and then ongoing payments for Android devices. Oracle paid $5.6 billion for Sun net of cash and debt. Simply put, if this Android lawsuit bounces Oracle’s way the company could recoup half its outlay for the Sun acquisition. You’d think that Google and its nearly unlimited resources would win most lawsuits. The difference this time is Google is facing an equally well-heeled foe with a bit of an attitude.

To: Sea Otter who wrote (211124)	6/17/2011 11:42:34 AM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361025

As I have mentioned, I did not start my serious education until I was almost 20. When I was a junior in college at 23 (took time out to join the natinal guard to avoid the war) I was walking by the dorms at college and had a true epiphany. I remember the day exactly (lazy Winnie the Pooh day with pretty white clouds against a blue sky - like you get in the Bay area) and the epiphany was very specific. I realized the depth of my ignorance. I remember saying to myself: "I have no idea why Socrates is an important person. I had no understanding at all about what he was talking about, or any of the other great thinkers". I had an easy life and lots of time managing an apartment building for my rent and playing poker for my money. So I started my quest to understand why Socrates was important and find out what he was talking about. I had no idea where to start. So I started at the beginning e.g. Steinbeck, Hemingway, Faulkner, F Scott Fitgerald (best of the bunch). Didn't seem like there was much there (in retrospect there wasn't. Pretty much they are just story tellers). Then I stumbled on Catcher in the Rye and knew it was important, but didn't really understand him. But I read everything he wrote (not much). Then I graduated to Huxly! (a favorite of mine as well, Russell, whitehead, Hesse, Mann, Goethe, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, Andre Malraux, and lots of the ancient Greeks, etc and found substance. I even read the esoteric guys like Watts, Ospensky and Gurdjieff and a bunch of others. My ex who was smarter than I, but less curious, used to ask me: "why do you read those guys"?-lol But it was Sartre and Camus who showed me who I was and what I was looking for. I have since left most of that stuff behind and now and concentrate almost solely on the mystery of the quantum universe which I believe holds the big mystery of what we are experiencing. I will get your book by Goldberg. Thanks.