The case between Oracle and Google continues today over the rights to Java or more specifically, whether Google had the right to use Java without having to pay a licensing fee to do so. So far this week, both parties have made their cases with Google explaining that it was not Java that made Android what it is, but the "Google know-how." While Oracle has looked to prove that the Java code was an aspect which essentially helped to further the use of Android and therefore, royalties received for that use should be distributed accordingly.
Today, in the most recent developments of the ongoing case and the latest defense being used by Oracle to explain why Google should be held liable for the use of Java, Oracle has not focused on how Java helped Android expand, but more on the results of Android's expansion. Namely the loss in revenues by Oracle due to the expansion of Android. The latest details came from Safra Catz, Oracle's co-Chief Executive, who told the court that a number of their customers essentially downgraded their financial commitments to Oracle in the wake of the release of Android and its 'free to distribute' nature. In particular, Catz name-dropped both Samsung and Amazon as prime examples of companies who significantly reduced the amounts they were paying for Java due to Android.
In terms of Samsung, Catz notes that payments from the South Korean firm, dropped from $40 million down to only $1 million following their adoption of Android. Likewise, Katz notes that with Amazon changing to Android for the release of its Fire range, this also resulted in the amount of revenue which could be generated from Java. According to Catz, Oracle was forced to discount the use of Java by as much as 97.5-percent to entice Amazon to use Java for their upcoming (at the time) Paperwhite Kindle reader. With both examples of the drops in revenue highlighting what Catz describes as "a very negative impact" on Oracle. Of course, these are just the latest developments in the case and as the trial continues, the court, the jury and media, will be made privy to more arguments by both sides as to why they are right in the Java licensing dispute.