Did Ellison sue Google as favour for Steve?

"Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word 'no'"<p>[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridges_Law_of_Headlines" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridges_Law_of_Headlines</a>

There's no argument or evidence presented for this claim, other than that Jobs was apparently a friend of Ellison, and Ellison is known to look out for his friends. (Third last paragraph.)

I actually wish that were true. I don't have any real interest in this particular case, but I would actually find it fascinating if a billionaire used his corporate resources to settle a personal vendetta against another compnay (although it seems like a gross misuse of company resources).<p>But that being said, I think it's incredibly unlikely that that's what happened here. I think Oracle is just genuniely displeased that Android has completely subsumed Java on the mobile platform, and wants to find a way to attach themselves to Google's success.

When a case such as this is brought to trail, does the judge and jury need to take into account the implications of the decision or do they only have to judge within the context of the given situation?<p>I mean, if in this case a decision was made in favor of Oracle it would mean that basically the entire software industry would have a significant problem.

&#62; The Inquirer<p>The question-headline and the article without any usable content is thus explained.