Oracle and Google are due up for another round in court this May. When they meet again, Oracle will be seeking to win up to $9.3 billion from Google for alleged copyright infringement.
Oracle, which picked up Java along with developer Sun Microsystems, has been accusing Google of using protected properties to build out its version of Android. Oracle alleged that Google borrowed from Java's APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) without permission.
Google and Oracle met in court over the issue back in 2012. But the jury was split on whether or not Google's use of Java's APIs qualified as "fair use," a common condition that helps defendants in copyright cases pass muster when protected content is used in a transformative manner.
While it wasn't able to pin down Google during the last round, Oracle is still pursuing the copyright suit. The company will seek $475 million in damages from Google, as well as $8.8 billion in profits related to the use of the APIs, reported IDG News Service's James Niccolai.
Google likely thinks differently on the amount of damages it owes, and that's if it ends up having to pay them to Oracle. Google's damages lawyer may have capped the estimates on damages at $100 million, going by a damages report filed by Oracle.
And if Google does lose this next right, it is also likely to try to whittle down that $8.8 billion Oracle is after. Oracle initially asked for a fraction of that figure, but its demands have risen along with the popularity and proliferation of the Android operating system.
On May 9, the two sides will spar before a fresh set of faces. Those new faces, the men and women of the jury, will go into the trial without filling out a questionnaire that both Google and Oracle hoped they would.
Early in March of this year, U.S. District Judge William Alsup shot down a jury survey because the court felt that the questions were too vague. The court also suspected that Google and Oracle wanted to do some cyber sleuthing on the jury candidates, and that the vagueness of the survey's questions would be contested by which ever side loses in May.
"In short, no questionnaire will be used," stated Alsup. "We will use the Court's usual [swear-in] procedure. We will use traditional safeguards to root out any bias. We will have a jury sworn in about three hours and then proceed to opening statements."
