Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   anon, Jul 9th, 2012 @ 8:52pm

   
   

   Where

   yes where will they get the money from, well they will just have to find someone who has developed something similar to one of there other patents and sue them to make up for the millions they have lost.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2012 @ 9:18pm

   
   

   4 mill for oracle is like 24cents to you or I.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2012 @ 9:22pm

   
   

   Re:

   but it sets an unfavorable precedent

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   Digitalistically Speaking (profile), Jul 9th, 2012 @ 9:24pm

   
   

   Re:

   I add my 2 cents to that.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   Wally (profile), Jul 9th, 2012 @ 9:36pm

   
   

   4 million

   I could twist this and say $4.3 million US is like a drop into the perverbial ocean of piss in Google's budget. They are a muti-billion dollar cooperation. Google asking this of Oracle shows they are just out to punish anyone for suing them.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   That One Guy (profile), Jul 9th, 2012 @ 9:57pm

   
   

   Re: 4 million

   Argument fail. 4 million may be 'a drop into the perverbial ocean' for them money wise, but it's still a good chunk of money they had to pay out for legal fees caused by a bogus lawsuit, so of course they'd want to get that money back.
   
   Alternatively, they could be trying to set a precedent for there being an actual punishment for patent trolling, instead of the nothing(or if the judge is really mad, a sternly worded rebuke for bringing the case up) there is now.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   MrWilson, Jul 9th, 2012 @ 10:02pm

   
   

   Re: 4 million

   And Oracle damn well should be punished. It was a frivolous lawsuit where Oracle was trying to use patents they bought to cash in on Google's success. The fewer lawsuits like this happen, the less innovation will be held back.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2012 @ 10:05pm

   
   

   Well I think Google should get its 4 mil for the frivolous lawsuit Oracle tried.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   

   Wally (profile), Jul 9th, 2012 @ 10:10pm

   
   

   Re: Re: 4 million

   It was a jury trial. Both companies can afford the legal fees. If Google asked of this during the hearings, then there would have been precedent for punishing other patent trolls. This is more like a counter suit.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    

    Noah Callaway (profile), Jul 9th, 2012 @ 10:10pm

    
    

    Re: 4 million

    I will twist it back. If it's a drop in the bucket, then Oracle has no reason to bother fighting it.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    

    arcan, Jul 9th, 2012 @ 10:15pm

    
    

    Re: Re:

    what unfavorable precedent? that basic functions can't be patented and copyrighted?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2012 @ 10:33pm

    
    

    Whoop's

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2012 @ 2:29am

    
    

    Re: Re: Re:

    Everything can be patented. It is just a case of making the wording sufficiently vague, but at the same time seem specific. It is an art writing a good troll-patent, but it is not an impossible task to get it to be a court-winner, with the right judge etc.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14.  

    

    Duke (profile), Jul 10th, 2012 @ 2:38am

    
    

    Only 4 million...

    $4m for a first instance decision? And I thought legal costs in the UK were high. Come on, people, this is getting downright silly; whatever happened to justice being fair, blind, accessible and all those things?
    
    Also, $2.9m of that is apparently "Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case." - That's one expensive photocopier they've got there.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

15.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2012 @ 2:39am

    
    

    Irrational

    Anyone else remember when they were auctioning off those Nortel patents, and Google began bidding multiples of irrational numbers? I can't help but wonder if their new $4,030,669 amount is somehow linked to more creative math.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

16.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2012 @ 2:48am

    
    

    Re:

    Could I borrow 24 cents from Oracle, then?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

17.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2012 @ 3:54am

    
    

    Re: Re: Re:

    Yes. That's not what Oracle wants here.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

18.  

    

    Jeremy Lyman (profile), Jul 10th, 2012 @ 4:06am

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Oracle just forgot that you have to have something written down at all to make a valid claim.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

19.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2012 @ 4:18am

    
    

    Re: Irrational

    I'd doubt it, since this is not an arbitrary number invented by Google, but is simply the sum of their costs. Even if they are Google, I do not believe they were able to engineer their costs so the total would add up to an interesting number.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

20.  

    

    Berenerd (profile), Jul 10th, 2012 @ 4:48am

    
    

    Re: Only 4 million...

    Every copy they get made for a court case has to be notarized which is quite expensive when you are talking how many copies they needed to make of the lines of code.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

21.  

    

    Some Other AC (profile), Jul 10th, 2012 @ 5:32am

    
    

    Re: Only 4 million...

    Considering this article, I think it is quite reasonable...
    http://www.geekshut.com/google-asks-for-4-million-in-legal-fees-from-oracle/2571

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

22.  

    

    Hephaestus (profile), Jul 10th, 2012 @ 5:33am

    
    

    Re: 4 million

    You know the old saying take care of the dollars and the pennies will take care of themselves.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

23.  

    

    New Mexico Mark, Jul 10th, 2012 @ 6:16am

    
    

    Re: Irrational

    The only way that might have a chance of working is if Google specifically chose to exclude certain legal expenses in order to bring the number down to an interesting one. Even then they'd be taking a chance on how a judge might interpret that action if discovered.
    
    Usually judges and geek humor mix about as well as oil and water.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

24.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2012 @ 11:17am

    
    

    How are costs awarded in a mixed judgement?

    Does this mean Google could get costs for the portions of judgement they won on?
    
    Doesn't the fact that Oracle won on statutory infringement offset this?
    
    This whole thing seems like a PR exercise than a matter of law.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

25.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2012 @ 11:55am

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: 4 million

    It is pretty standard to ask for lawyers fees in these things. Don't know why it matters to you, anyways. $4 mill is nothing to either of these companies. That's like a $40 speeding ticket for most everyone else.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

26.  

    

    Wally (profile), Jul 10th, 2012 @ 12:36pm

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Re: 4 million

    Hence my "it's a perverbial drop in an ocean of piss", as it is quite unnecessary for google to ask of this. No matter how someone twists it, is it really necessary to ask someone to pay your legal fees after a jury based civil trial where you not only won in a sufficient way? It should be a fine to the plantif for a frivolous lawsuit if the plantif looses. That fine goes to the court in the form of legal fees. Since they both refused to settle, it went to jury and neither of then should get the others' money.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

27.  

    

    Mason Wheeler, Jul 10th, 2012 @ 1:04pm

    
    

    Re: Re: 4 million

    I thought it was the other way around...

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

28.  

    

    Niall (profile), Jul 12th, 2012 @ 4:19am

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 4 million

    Because it cost Google unnecessary money, so why should they pay it, 'drop in the ocean' or not? Because it might make a patent troll think twice before picking on someone smaller?
    
    $4 million may not be a lot to Google, but it might still be the cost of supporting some small 'free' service that people use and enjoy.
    
    Is the economy so strong that we can encourage people to 'waste' $4 million?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

29.  

    

    Niall (profile), Jul 12th, 2012 @ 4:21am

    
    

    Re: Re: Irrational

    I'm sure a judge wouldn't have an issue with them *excluding* costs from their demand. It's only adding in frivolous ones that matters...

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

30.  

    

    référencement site web, Nov 15th, 2012 @ 6:50am

    
    

    Je me renseigne sur le référencement. Que pensez vous de ces éléments:. Les astuces webmarketing consistant à l'acquisition de trafic positionnant sur les requêtes de recherche des les visiteurs web est connu en tant que référencement Internet. Des conseils ?
    
    formation référencement http://goo.gl/R2rTd cours référencement web

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment