Google Asks For $4 Million In Legal Fees From Oracle

from the sliding-backwards dept

Having lost its patent/copyright case against Google in somewhat spectacular fashion, Oracle is now facing the possibility of having to also pay Google over $4 million in legal fees. Google has submitted its calculation of legal fees that it's seeking from Oracle, and it totals up to $4,030,669. Of course, this case is heading for appeal, so this number may be meaningless. However, it does suggest that Oracle -- which once seemed to believe this case might bring it billions of dollars -- may quickly discover that it's costing an awful lot instead...


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    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 chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    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 chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    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 chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      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 chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        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 chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          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 chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            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 chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              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 chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      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 chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      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 chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      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 chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    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 chronology ]

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

    Whoop's

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    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 chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    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 chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      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 chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      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 chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        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 chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    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 chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    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 chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This