“Action in the OraGoogle mess, as I like to call that
litigation. Google has filed its answer to Oracle’s amended
complaint and its memorandum opposing Oracle’s Motion to Dismiss.
And we find out why Google didn’t just roll over and pay Oracle for
a license. Oracle asked in its motion to dismiss that the
counterclaims alleging that Oracle’s patents are invalid be
dismissed. So Google explains more thoroughly why it believes they
are in fact invalid. First,“Google asserts:
“Each of the Patents-in-Suit is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §
101 because one or more claims are directed to abstract ideas or
other non-statutory subject matter.“Did I tell you or did I tell you? There are other reasons, as
I’ll show you in a minute, why Google thinks the patents should be
declared invalid.“Look at this, though. Google also says Oracle’s Exhibit J [PDF]
attached to its amended complaint, Oracle’s side-by-side comparison
of Java (J2SE) and “Android versions of PolicyNodeImpl.java” that
seemed to establish copying, isn’t accurate, in that Oracle “has
redacted or deleted from the materials shown in Exhibit J both
expressive material and copyright headers that appear in the actual
materials, which are significant elements and features of the files
in question.” Wow and double wow. If that proves true, it reminds
me of the 300 lines of code “proof” from SCO in the SCO v. IBM
case, when IBM showed the judge at a hearing that Sandeep Gupta’s
exhibit to a declaration he’d filed for SCO had “juxtaposed” code
in such a way as to “give the appearance of similarity when, in
fact, no similarity exists.”