Last month we reported that Oracle was looking for billions of dollars in damages in the case, in which Oracle claims Google infringed on its Java patents by promoting its Android mobile devices. Oracle’s damages expert in the case claimed that the fairest negotiation would bring about a result of “about $2.6 billion,” according to court papers.
Nay, nay, said the judge, who ordered the damages claim reduced. Instead, U.S. District Judge William Alsup said that the starting point for Oracle’s damages claims should be $100 million, just a fraction of what Oracle was looking for. The starting point is based on the last offer in 2006 by Sun Microsystems in its negotiations with Google over Java licensing, which went nowhere. That starting point can then go up or down depending on various factors. The most recent court filing spells it all out it plenty of legalese detail, if you’re so inclined.]]>
After publishing the story, consultant Kerry Osborne from Enkitec wrote back with his thoughts on the announcement. Here are a couple excerpts from his email to me:
The storage expansion rack is interesting. You could already buy individual storage cells ($55K), so presumably you could put these together on your own already. But it’s now packaged and there appears to be a slight discount as you buy larger configs (full rack storage is slightly less per cell than half rack). We have a customer that has run out of both storage and processing (CPU) capability on the storage cells, but the DB servers are fine. So adding additional storage is the way to go for them.
Oracle salespeople, however, might not be too excited about the storage racks:
Oracle sales people have been hesitant to recommend (just adding additional storage) because they have been trained to push the “balanced config” story saying that the ratio of DB servers to storage cells is somehow magic. So they tend to want customers to buy another quarter rack Exadata. This announcement will make it easier for customers to tell sales guys they just need more storage.