RSS
Judge Ridicules Oracle's Risky Choice To Forego Statutory Damages And Seek Bigger Payout
from the wow dept
We've written tons of stuff on the ridiculousness of statutory damages for copyright infringement -- which can put damages for a single infringement at up to $150,000 (for willful infringement). When you're talking about a $0.99 song, that seems completely out of line. The reason for statutory damages (supposedly) is that figuring out actual damages is simply too difficult, so a statutory range lets you ignore any discussion of having to prove real damages. In most copyright lawsuits, plaintiffs automatically take the statutory damages rates. It's pretty rare for anyone to opt-out. However, opting out is exactly what Oracle has done in its ongoing lawsuit against Google. And it did this despite the judge ridiculing the company for the decision. From Rachel King at ZDNet:
When Alsup heard Jacobs say this, he warned that if Oracle goes down this path, they might not win anything at all, adding that it is the “height of ridiculousness” to think that Oracle could claim “hundreds of millions” of dollars for nine lines of code.The only thing I can figure here is that Oracle is doing this just to be a pest. Even if it does eventually win on the copyright issue (still an open question given the judge needing to rule on the copyrightability of APIs), it's not going to get that much money either way. The $150,000 statutory damages numbers are pocket change for either company, but as the judge made clear, in all likelihood it would get less (or nothing) if it tries to get "infringer's profits," because the contribution of the code in question is so minimal. However, it is possible that the fight over what those "profits" might be will simply prolong the case... and the expense of the case. So perhaps this is just a strategy by Oracle to drag things out? Maybe its lawyers are hoping that will make Google want to settle? Other than that, I'm with the judge in being a bit perplexed by the reasoning here.
“The law can’t operate that way,” Alsup said. “In my mind, you’re making a mistake.”
In a later discussion on Friday morning, David Boies, also representing Oracle, tried to defend this strategy, arguing that the burden of proof is on Google here — not Oracle.
“What we are saying is once you proved infringement, we think under the law we have claim for infringer’s profit case,” Boies asserted.
I have a business...
To Understand The Data Move It Closer
The Future Of Commerce Will Combine Your Social Network And Mobile Device
I’m looking for research...
Innovate More. Code Less: Optimizing Open-Source Utilization
Geography Of The App Economy
I have an app...
App Developer Conversations: What Does The iPad Mini Mean For The App Economy?
How My First Game Made $28,623
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
9 cents
9 lines of infringing code / 15 million lines of code * $150,000 = $0.09 = 9 cents
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
More money for Lawyers
Or maybe it's a strategy by their lawyers to drag things out ...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More money for Lawyers
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
They are hoping that no one notices.
It isnt going to be hard for Oracle to get profits now, its going to be impossible.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They are hoping that no one notices.
(b) Actual Damages and Profits.— The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing the infringer’s profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer’s gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.
Of course, "attributable", given the breadth of Google's business, is a significant matter that may very well wend its way down to "zero", but that burden would reside with Google, and not Oracle. However, in the process of wending it down Google could very well be put into the uncomfortable position of having to lay its books of accounting open to Oracle...and I know of no company that relishes the prospect of full, financial disclosure.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They are hoping that no one notices.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As for actual damages, if Oracle can establish any, one of our AC's has pointed out the breadth of Google's business as one reason this may be almost impossible to do so I'll add another one which is the nearly equal breadth of Oracle's business. It's hard to imagine what if any profit some part of Google's business made from that and what part of Oracle's operations would have been impacted and to what degree.
Seems like the ideal place to "take the money and run" the shut up about it all. Perhaps Boies got infected with "SCOX Self Importance Complex Disease" from hanging around with Darryl McBride for so long.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
When The Guy Who’s Going To Rule On This ...
... the smart player is not the one who immediately takes his hand off the piece and proclaims “Yes!”
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When The Guy Who’s Going To Rule On This ...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal Fees?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the only way they can get the big money
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is the only way they can get the big money
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Oracle Strategy?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oracle Strategy?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, what? Says who?
Anyway, as you said, $150,000 is nothing in the context of this case. Giving themselves a chance at a much more significant award does not strike me as "the height of ridiculousness."
Just say "without this code, the product wouldn't work" or something, and a jury may very well find that a lot of Google's revenue is attributable to the infringement.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment