Are the tables turning in Oracle v. Google?
IPBlog has discussed Oracle’s use of Dr. Iain Cockburn as expert and his damages report. In a reading of Google’s Daubert motion to strike the report, however, there appeared to be a crack in the Google strategy with this revelation: “[Dr. Cockburn] ignores Google’s negotiation history with Sun regarding a Java license for the mobile space, which would have included far more than the patents-in-suit and during which Google rejected a proposal to pay Sun orders of magnitude less than what Cockburn now says Google would have paid.”
Now U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup reportedly has asked for a clarification of this statement, which indicates Google knew Android was infringing on Sun Microsystems’ patents (now owned by Oracle). If Google acknowledges there is infringement, how should this affect the analysis of damages and the issues of willfulness and equitable relief?