Google fails to settle with Oracle over Android, getting grilled on the Hill for antitrust issues today

Google fails to settle with Oracle over Android, getting grilled on the Hill for antitrust issues today
Google's CEO Larry Page and Oracle's head honcho Larry Ellison sat yesterday in the same room, trying to reach a settlement agreement before they go to trial over purported Java code copied directly into the Android source code. Google stopped denying this is exactly what happened, but claims the damages caused are not in the realm of billions, as Oracle insists, but rather something in the $100 million ballpark. 

Obviously the meeting, mediated by Judge Paul Grewal, turned into a game of wolf eyes, but nobody blinked, so the talks will continue again today, with the hope to avert a full-blown trial. If Google is forced to start paying royalties, this could be another blow to Android as a free and open mobile OS, after Microsoft already managed to wrangle up to $5 payment from HTC for each Android phone it sells.

Google's other main man, Chairman Eric Scmidt, on the other hand, will be fending off criticism during a Congressional hearing today, which has antitrust and privacy issues as a topic. Rivals like Expedia, Nextag and Yelp are gunning for a lawsuit to coincide with the hearing, saying that Google is unfairly pushing up its own results. We feel for Expedia, since the free Google Flight Search just launched in limited beta, powered by the $700 million ITA acquisition, but if the folks at Mountain View feel they are doing a superior job, it would only be natural to list their results first. After all, when you type a flight search into Bing, it returns its own Bing Travel results first. 

We'll keep an eye what comes out of the Congressional hearing, but we've seen a number of those, including with Hank Paulson and Goldman Sachs during the financial crisis, and nothing major came out of it, while these guys had done much worse things than Google favoring its own services.

via AllThingsD (1) & (2)  

FEATURED VIDEO

55 Comments

1. iankellogg

Posts: 155; Member since: Jun 15, 2011

I bet if google left their search results to themselves google services would still rank near the top. Also google puts ads for their service in the premium links section which is basically the same thing the travel agencies could do.

2. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

normaly when i have to try a new service and there is a google option, i try the google option first, then the first name brand I recognize if i dont like the google option.

5. PeterIfromsweden

Posts: 1230; Member since: Aug 03, 2011

Hey rimixfa. Go check the ipad article where we have been discussing... You've got some answers from me there.

14. protozeloz

Posts: 5396; Member since: Sep 16, 2010

I saw what you two where doing there..... I think you should leave this kinds of topics out of a technology site....... Both should be working together to make things better

16. PeterIfromsweden

Posts: 1230; Member since: Aug 03, 2011

I agree it was probably a little of topic : P

22. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

when it goes off the front page, its out of my mind. :) besides, its a circle arguement like ive said before. you cant do a single thing to change my mind nor vice versa.

28. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 2009

Hey Peter: http://paleo.cc/paluxy/delk.htm Don't even dare claim that you can't view non work related links, as you were obviously able to post links to your own nonsense. Have a nice day.

30. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

sniggs, he probably has his links memorized :) lol

31. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 2009

Probably, lol. Although he also said in the iPad 3 thread that he was able to check his own links to ensure that they worked. Oh, and I must say I have a smidgen more respect for Taco now that I know he's not a young earth creationist.

32. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

buzzed through it. amazing, that article agrees with many of the comments i had after 30 seconds of looking at those photos.. foot formation, lack of depth and weight bearing impressions, ect ect ect. look at something with an open mind and you will have questions. look at it with a closed mind and you will have answers.

34. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 2009

Yeah, after reading the article and looking through your subsequent responses to Peter I did notice the similarities, lol. Carl Baugh, the asshole who originally presented these footprints as proof of creationism, has been told to shut the f**k up even by OTHER CREATIONISTS.

37. PeterIfromsweden

Posts: 1230; Member since: Aug 03, 2011

Let me guess, you got that info from Wikipedia, that Carl bough has been told to shut up by other creationists... Wikipedia can't possible be used in any scientific matter, as they even have a disclaimer saying "WARNING USE WIKIPEDIA AT YOUR OWN RISK. The information at wikipedia is not guaranteed to be correct, and should not be taken for truth"

36. PeterIfromsweden

Posts: 1230; Member since: Aug 03, 2011

"that article agrees with many of the comments i had after 30 seconds of looking at those photos" That souldn't be really amazing at all. All evolutionists try to come up with the same answer whenever they get proved wron, they start saying the evidence is fake even when it is not. When it comes to foot formation, if you would have watched the whole video, you would have seen that the foot formation is what you would expect to find when looking at a human and dino footprints. Even the depths if the footprints was proven to be correct after doing scanning on the footprints. How come you fail to mention this or recgonize this ?

35. PeterIfromsweden

Posts: 1230; Member since: Aug 03, 2011

No, i can't view non work related links on my work computer. I got those links via a friends computer.

39. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 2009

So find a library computer or something to look at the links from. Or are you afraid of what you might see? And Wikipedia has been proven to be about as accurate as Encyclopedia Brittanica unless you're talking about pop culture and pop culture figures.

56. PeterIfromsweden

Posts: 1230; Member since: Aug 03, 2011

If you claim wikipedia is a reliable scientific source, well then sorry for you but you are then not scientific at all. Wikipedia is one of the least reliable sources you can find. They even have a disclaimer saying that themselves.

40. PeterIfromsweden

Posts: 1230; Member since: Aug 03, 2011

Sniggly and remixfa. Some of these footprints have been discovered on the bottom of the paluxy river. In order to get to these footprints the scientists have been forced to pump out water of the river and put parts of the river dry. How can you possibly suggest that these footprints are faked or carved or whatever, when they are discovered at the bottom of a river ??? Did someone scuba dive and carve them ? Come on, you got to admit that these footprints are not faked, and are indeed good evidence that dinos and humans lived at the same time !

41. Droid_X_Doug

Posts: 5993; Member since: Dec 22, 2010

What is with the hijacking of this thread?

51. PeterIfromsweden

Posts: 1230; Member since: Aug 03, 2011

Dont know, Sniggly seems to have started it.

42. protozeloz

Posts: 5396; Member since: Sep 16, 2010

Look guys, I beg you stop this fight. It's of topic and wayyyyyy of topic. I came here to see devices news articles and comments related with mobile tech. Here is this an Idea, add eachother to mail and argue for eternity. But keep the comments in here Relevant

43. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 2009

But... *in a childlike voice* He started it!

45. protozeloz

Posts: 5396; Member since: Sep 16, 2010

Just don't do it.... When I go check the ipad post because of the high number of posts o was thinking it was the mother on tech flame wars but instead its about nothing of that matter.... And now this post too? Can't you just live together regales of what theory you think is right

47. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 2009

I can, sure. But then Peter compounds the problem by spewing on about bada with each post. :D

53. PeterIfromsweden

Posts: 1230; Member since: Aug 03, 2011

bada has nothing to do with evolution !

52. PeterIfromsweden

Posts: 1230; Member since: Aug 03, 2011

Haha, Sniggly, you started it in this article by publishing the paleo.cc link.

44. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 2009

They aren't good evidence. Are you suggesting that it's impossible that some guys desperate to prove their religion is right would fake evidence that it is?

48. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

lol.. sorry proto, i really dont want to have this arguement.. but its hard for me to resist, especially with peter trying to force photos of fake prints down my throat as irrifutable evidence.. lol its like sitting a starving fat kid infront of a jar of candybars and telling him not to eat as you walk away.. its gonna happen.. lol Peter, there is nothing in any article that you pointed to that shows any kind of PROOF that those are real. a cat scan does not proof accuracy only that it "looks" like a foot of some sort.. lol.. and no ancient foot print of any kind is so well reserved you can see individual toes in print after print. And do you know why my questions mirrored the guy sniggly linked to? because they are VALID questions for anyone that has ANY knowledge of anatomy, weight distribution, weathering of stones, on and on and on. Unless this ancient dude walked only on the balls of his feet, his toes should have been depressed as much if not more than the ball of his foot instead of raised up.. those prints were fake and staged. BTW, your guy said they used a BULLDOZER to uncover them... and magically they were there. Ive never seen a paleontologist use a bulldozer.. wanna know why? that huge weight will CRUSH evidence.

50. protozeloz

Posts: 5396; Member since: Sep 16, 2010

It's just that, he isn't convincing you. You aren't convincing him, you probably have seen more he probably has too. It's an eternal battle where one side is forcing the other side to look at the whole picture when there isn't a whole picture to look at I've been there..... It's not fun

55. PeterIfromsweden

Posts: 1230; Member since: Aug 03, 2011

You know proto, it is a little hard to resist discussing with these guys ; ) But as you said, it seems impossible to convince them. I usually say it like this. It is impossible to convince evolutionists, evolution is wrong because they do not want to believe in God. It is impossible to make a creationist believe evolution, because all the scientific evidence clearly shows creation is right ; ) But i agree, it is of topic and i'll not comment any more about it (except the last comment i made 1 minute ago, but that is the last one).

54. PeterIfromsweden

Posts: 1230; Member since: Aug 03, 2011

As protozeloz has said, this is waaaay of topic on PhoneArena, so i'm not going to post anymore about this regardless what you try and come up with. Since protezeloz wants us to stop arguing this since it is of topic, this will be my last post about this (but remember, sniggly started it in this article). Those footprints are not fake. They are found at the bottom of a river, do you really suppose someone scuba dived and carved them ??? Really ? That doesn't just happen. All scientists that have been studying them properly have come to the conclusion that these footprints are genuine, even some evolutionist scientists have come to that conclusion. Even when i myself studied these footprints from the pictures i have seen, everything matches for a perfect genuine footprint (for both the human foortpint and the dino one). The weight pressure points, everything matched for a genuine footprint. The problem here is that you so desperetly want to defend your evolutionist theory (because you do not want to believe in God) despite all evidence against you. That is neither scientific, nor any smart. As said, this is of topic so this will be my last comment about this subject.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.