Revealed that Google raised over 3.6 trillion yen in Android
Google has made great revenue, but how much of it is due to Android, the breakdown to date has been unknown. However, Oracle, who is seeking damages against Google over the use of Java, revealed its breakdown.
Google's Android Generates $ 31 Billion Revenue, Oracle Says - Bloomberg Business
Google's "Android" revenue of approximately 3.65 trillion yen - Oracle lawyer - Bloomberg
What is contested between Google and Oracle is about using Java on Android. Google argued that "Oracle can not assert copyright for basic commands related to Java", while Oracle said "Oracle acquired Java developer Sun Microsystems in 2009, so copyright is Oracle There is a refutation. The trial contested from 2010, the Federal Supreme Court dismissed Google's appeal on June 29, 2015.
US Supreme Court dismiss Google appeal, copyright lawsuit with Oracle | Reuters
However, there is no sign of reconciliation yet, in December 2015, Google announced a policy to change the Java language library to open source "OpenJDK" at the next Android (Android N), aimed at avoiding the problem .
Google confirms next Android version will use Oracle's open-source OpenJDK for Java APIs | VentureBeat | Dev | by Emil Protalinski
The information revealed this time, on January 14, Annette Hurst, an agent on the Oracle side, took note of the extraordinary enormity of Google's commercialism towards the Federal Security Service. According to this, Google is getting on AndroidRevenue is $ 31 billion (about 3.64 trillion yen)so,The profit is $ 22 billion (about 2.6 trillion yen)It is said that it goes up.
This information has never been published before, and Google insists that it is based on secret information. I requested editing / erasing of record on January 20. There is no information that this request was officially accepted, but this information was deleted from the electronic trial record at 15:00 local time. In addition, it said that it did not leave a record of "deleted".
Apparently, it seems that it was not "a factless number", but that it is revealed in this way ... ....
in Note, Posted by logc_nt