Google renews bid to sanction Oracle for leaking search deals with Apple

Posted:
in iPhone
Google is once again seeking sanctions against a lawyer for Oracle accused of violating a court protective order by revealing Google's massive annual payments to Apple for iPhone search bar privileges.




"Google and third party Apple were harmed by Oracle's counsel's disclosure regarding the terms of a significant and confidential commercial agreement," according to a June 29 letter to the court seen by Fortune. Google originally tried to pursue sanctions in January, but U.S. District Judge William Alsup said he would only consider them at the end of the Oracle v. Google trial.

That trial -- over whether the use of Java APIs in Android amounted to fair use -- concluded in late May in Google's favor, although Oracle is working to appeal.

Oracle is taking the side the lawyer, Annette Hurst, who works for an outside firm called Orrick. Though it has yet to submit a formal response, an Oracle statement emailed to Fortune indicates that the company will oppose Google's "frivolous" motion, claimed to be "premised on oral arguments in open court that were a response to Google's misrepresentations."

If Google succeeds, Hurst and Oracle could both be fined for contempt of court.

During the trial, Hurst exposed the fact that Google paid Apple $1 billion in 2014 alone, and splits up to 34 percent of the revenue it gets from iPhone searches. Prior to then that data was a closely-guarded secret.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 21
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 1,932member
    I'm all for Google forking out all that money to Apple for searches.  My default setting is DuckDuckGo!!!.  I don't see how Oracle has a case with Google using api's?  The judge in this case learned quite well what was going on and made the right call.   You can't sue a person or company over open api's being used.  
    sockrolidlostkiwibaconstang
  • Reply 2 of 21
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,788member
    Seeking sanctions -> sanctimonious?
    Or is it just sour grapes?
  • Reply 3 of 21
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,749member
    jbdragon said:
    You can't sue a person or company over open api's being used.  
    In your opinion perhaps, but open source and free does not necessarily mean that the APIs are fair use and not copywritable, which is probably why it is going back to court. For example I could get a copy of Red Hat Linux and call it the Volcan operating system and redistribute it. I don't think that would be considered fair use and Linus would probably take exception to it and rightly so. Although that being said, it is hard to believe he reverse engineered Linux legitimately. As far as I could see when it first came out, it looked exactly like Solaris which isn't open source. All the files, applications and configurations were identical. In the case of Oracle vs. Google, it is Google who has to prove that the APIs are fair use and not copywritable, not the other way around.
    patchythepiratelolliverericthehalfbeejony0stantheman
  • Reply 4 of 21
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,530member
    Wait. What? Google has to pay for Apple for being the default search engine choice on iOS devices? Is that not anti-competitive? Shouldn’t Google be allowed on iOS without paying Apple? Isn’t that exactly what Spotify wants? Exposure on iOS devices without having to cough up a percentage of the take. The ability to rake in subscription fees from a potential billion customers but Apple gets nada or maybe a paltry one-time fee of a few pennies.

    Could someone from the “Apple is an evil monopoly” brigade explain this to me? I mean Android rules the world, right?  Why would Google agree to this behavior by the evil, rotten Apple? 
    lostkiwilolliverericthehalfbeestevehlatifbpbadmonknostrathomasjony0
  • Reply 5 of 21
    lkrupp said:
    Wait. What? Google has to pay for Apple for being the default search engine choice on iOS devices? Is that not anti-competitive? Shouldn’t Google be allowed on iOS without paying Apple? Isn’t that exactly what Spotify wants? Exposure on iOS devices without having to cough up a percentage of the take. The ability to rake in subscription fees from a potential billion customers but Apple gets nada or maybe a paltry one-time fee of a few pennies.

    Could someone from the “Apple is an evil monopoly” brigade explain this to me? I mean Android rules the world, right?  Why would Google agree to this behavior by the evil, rotten Apple? 
    I'll bet Elizabeth Warren has blocked Spotify's phone number, and is refusing to return Spotify's campaign contribution.
    patchythepiratestevehlatifbpbaconstangjony0
  • Reply 6 of 21
    It's amusing to think that Google pay at least a dollar per active iOS device per year just to be the default search option - possibly even much more considering the revenue sharing agreement. Says a bit about how much they fear competition in the search space.
    latifbpbaconstangjony0
  • Reply 7 of 21
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,969member
    lkrupp said:
    Wait. What? Google has to pay for Apple for being the default search engine choice on iOS devices? Is that not anti-competitive? Shouldn’t Google be allowed on iOS without paying Apple? Isn’t that exactly what Spotify wants? Exposure on iOS devices without having to cough up a percentage of the take. The ability to rake in subscription fees from a potential billion customers but Apple gets nada or maybe a paltry one-time fee of a few pennies.

    Could someone from the “Apple is an evil monopoly” brigade explain this to me? I mean Android rules the world, right?  Why would Google agree to this behavior by the evil, rotten Apple? 
    I believe that's been an ongoing deal since the first iPhone, and also the comparison with Spotify doesn't work because Apple isn't in the search business. 
  • Reply 8 of 21
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,969member
    It's amusing to think that Google pay at least a dollar per active iOS device per year just to be the default search option - possibly even much more considering the revenue sharing agreement. Says a bit about how much they fear competition in the search space.
    Fear of competition in the search space is exactly why they developed Android. The fear wasn't of Apple but of Microsoft. Google didn't have the luxury of waiting to see if their partner Apple could make a dent in the mobile space against the incumbent players at the time. 
    nostrathomasstantheman
  • Reply 9 of 21
    red oakred oak Posts: 627member
    34% is significantly lower vs other Google search distribution deals.  Apple needs to step up its game
  • Reply 10 of 21
    williamhwilliamh Posts: 622member
    Google's CEO once said "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."    Anyhow, kind of funny that Oracle is monetizing Google's info just like Google does to everyone else. 
    nostrathomasosmartormenajrbloodshotrollin'redjony0Habi_tweet
  • Reply 11 of 21
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,969member
    williamh said:
    Google's CEO once said "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."    Anyhow, kind of funny that Oracle is monetizing Google's info just like Google does to everyone else. 
    The deal was well known. The specifics weren't, big difference. 
  • Reply 12 of 21
    williamhwilliamh Posts: 622member
    williamh said:
    Google's CEO once said "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."    Anyhow, kind of funny that Oracle is monetizing Google's info just like Google does to everyone else. 
    The deal was well known. The specifics weren't, big difference. 
    My friend,  Schmidt wasn't saying "if there are some specifics that you don't want anyone to know...."  He was challenging the very notion of privacy.  I think Schmidt's quote is in direct opposition to their mantra about not doing evil. 

    edited July 2016 nostrathomas
  • Reply 13 of 21
    volcan said:
    jbdragon said:
    You can't sue a person or company over open api's being used.  
    In your opinion perhaps, but open source and free does not necessarily mean that the APIs are fair use and not copywritable, which is probably why it is going back to court. For example I could get a copy of Red Hat Linux and call it the Volcan operating system and redistribute it. I don't think that would be considered fair use and Linus would probably take exception to it and rightly so. Although that being said, it is hard to believe he reverse engineered Linux legitimately. As far as I could see when it first came out, it looked exactly like Solaris which isn't open source. All the files, applications and configurations were identical. In the case of Oracle vs. Google, it is Google who has to prove that the APIs are fair use and not copywritable, not the other way around.
    If you took the sources of RHEL and built your own OS from it after replacing the RH branded bits with your own 'Volcan' bits then you are free and clear. How do you think that clones like CentOS and others do it eh?
    This is because of the GPL.
    There is an open sourced version of Solaris. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSolaris
    Not been updated since 2010.

  • Reply 14 of 21
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,701member
    jbdragon said:
    I'm all for Google forking out all that money to Apple for searches.  My default setting is DuckDuckGo!!!.  I don't see how Oracle has a case with Google using api's?  The judge in this case learned quite well what was going on and made the right call.   You can't sue a person or company over open api's being used.  
    API's? it's not about that is it? it's trade-secret financial terms between Apple and Google that's the issue. I agree that Oracle should not have been permitted to reveal them as it causes significant harm to any future contract negotiations. 

    EDIT: OOPS! Misread the point of your post. Overall I agree with you on API's and copyright as do some other US courts, the EU and various other countries around the world. 
    edited July 2016
  • Reply 15 of 21
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,749member
    If you took the sources of RHEL and built your own OS from it after replacing the RH branded bits with your own 'Volcan' bits then you are free and clear. How do you think that clones like CentOS and others do it eh?
    This is because of the GPL.
    There is an open sourced version of Solaris. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSolaris
    Not been updated since 2010.

    Except  Cent OS is still branded Linux. Volcan OS stripped out all the GNU copywrites and replaced it with mythical UNG foundation copywrites.
    Habi_tweet
  • Reply 16 of 21
    Google and Apple do Evil together... Tut, tut...
  • Reply 17 of 21
    lkrupp said:
    Wait. What? Google has to pay for Apple for being the default search engine choice on iOS devices? Is that not anti-competitive? Shouldn’t Google be allowed on iOS without paying Apple? Isn’t that exactly what Spotify wants? Exposure on iOS devices without having to cough up a percentage of the take. The ability to rake in subscription fees from a potential billion customers but Apple gets nada or maybe a paltry one-time fee of a few pennies.

    Could someone from the “Apple is an evil monopoly” brigade explain this to me? I mean Android rules the world, right?  Why would Google agree to this behavior by the evil, rotten Apple? 
    It's the biggest reflective billboard space on the planet.
  • Reply 18 of 21
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,969member
    williamh said:
    The deal was well known. The specifics weren't, big difference. 
    My friend,  Schmidt wasn't saying "if there are some specifics that you don't want anyone to know...."  He was challenging the very notion of privacy.  I think Schmidt's quote is in direct opposition to their mantra about not doing evil. 

    Huh? Are you saying this deal is evil? Apple is party to it so how evil can it be? Keeping monetary amounts secret on deals amongst business partners is commonplace 
    gatorguy
  • Reply 19 of 21
    stanthemanstantheman Posts: 309member
    The 'leak' by Oracle's lawyer about Google paying Apple $1 billion annually is old news. I recall reading it 3-4 years ago. So Google's request to the judge to sanction one of Oracle's attorneys seems petty -- perhaps a personal feud between two lawyers who don't like one another.
  • Reply 20 of 21
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,701member
    The 'leak' by Oracle's lawyer about Google paying Apple $1 billion annually is old news. I recall reading it 3-4 years ago. So Google's request to the judge to sanction one of Oracle's attorneys seems petty -- perhaps a personal feud between two lawyers who don't like one another.
    The difference is details on the revunue sharing agreement which I guarantee you didn't read "3 or 4 years ago".
Sign In or Register to comment.