Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

• 

  alanbleiweiss (profile), Jun 21st, 2012 @ 11:17am

  
  

  I'm clueless to the finer machinations of court procedures, litigation and such, however could it be that if they "accept $0 in damages", and if that's language that somehow actually gets into the court record, could, in some future legal action, some shlub lawyer later use the case as "proof we were awarded damages in that case" or at least THINK he/she could do that?
  
  As far fetched as that seems to be, with all the hack nonsense that goes on these days in the legal system, it just seems a possible motive.

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

• 

  Zimzat (profile), Jun 21st, 2012 @ 11:37am

  
  

  Re:

  This is precisely what I was thinking. It wouldn't amount for much in a monetary comparison, but it would add to the number of victories for copyright infringement procedures even though they actually lost. 1-0 wins, or whatever their count is. They could then turn that into an extortion letter for any company that doesn't read the full ruling or pay attention to the news.

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

• 

  Almost Anonymous (profile), Jun 21st, 2012 @ 1:06pm

  
  

  Re:

  Once it became evident that the judge was knowledgeable and wasn't going to buy Oracle's bullshit, Google knew it had a slam-dunk here. It wouldn't make any sense to "settle" at this point in the game if it could possibly come back on them, so I'm guessing that accepting $0 in damages is still a loss as far as the case is concerned. Even more so if Oracle winds up paying Google's legal fees, which I believe can only happen in the case of not just a loss but a trouncing loss.

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

• 

  Anonymous Monkey (profile), Jun 22nd, 2012 @ 1:58pm

  
  

  Re:

  basically, they are still striving for a "win"... "awarding" damages, even if for $0, still would show as a "win" of sorts.
  it's a bait-and-switch kind of thing.
  really sneaky and underhanded if you ask me.

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

• 

  A Dan (profile), Jun 21st, 2012 @ 11:22am

  
  

  Typo

  "Goolge" should, as far as I know, be "Google".

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

• 

  Leigh Beadon (profile), Jun 21st, 2012 @ 11:33am

  
  

  Re: Typo

  whoops - fixed, thanks!

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

• 

  Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2012 @ 12:54pm

  
  

  Goolge works fine too...

  'natch!

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

• 

  Some Guy, Jun 21st, 2012 @ 11:48am

  
  

  Has Techdirt gone off its rocker? Forcing audio down my throat now when I visit the site ... Another great site turns to crap. I couldn't even read this article with the audio superimposed over my music stream. Yesterday it had an obnoxious banner superimposed over the existing obnoxious banner. I understand people gotta eat, but seriously ... I'm about ready to stop visiting, and this has been one of my favorite sites for a long, long time.

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

• 

  Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2012 @ 12:18pm

  
  

  Re:

  i've never seen any of the banners you speak of. before blaming techdirt, i'd suggest at least finding out if the ads are indeed from techdirt and not malware. i've known techdirt to take advertising very seriously and don't want to be too invasive, so it doesn't sound like the techdirt i know. its possible they're not aware of it as well.

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

• 

  Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2012 @ 12:58pm

  
  

  I've got ad blockers, flash block, etc...

  ...and one of the reasons for getting them was the "audiobombs" on techdirt and similar annoying features on other sites, where a careless hover is awarded by a loud ad or annoying pop-up.
  
  No big deal... doesn't bother me now.
  
  But just sayin'....

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

• 

  Rikuo (profile), Jun 21st, 2012 @ 12:36pm

  
  

  Re:

  audio? What'chu talking about? Never has been audio...unless its from an ad that can be easily countered by Adblock+ or Noscript.

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

• 

  Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Jun 21st, 2012 @ 12:57pm

  
  

  Re:

  There's an ad on the right with audio that only plays on mouseover, and a banner on the bottom that has recently gotten larger (and was said yesterday they were working with company for a close or minimize button). Neither of these I find even slightly annoying (I generally run Chrome with no adblock).
  
  If you're getting more than those, you might want to check your browser or system for something else that is generating them.

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

• 

  MrWilson, Jun 21st, 2012 @ 12:58pm

  
  

  Re:

  Another great discussion interrupted by someone complaining about something that they have the power to change.

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

• 

  Some Other Guy (profile), Jun 21st, 2012 @ 1:13pm

  
  

  Re:

  I'm going to guess that these are adverts you're talking about. Does your web-viewing platform support ad-blocking?

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

• 

  Mike Masnick (profile), Jun 21st, 2012 @ 2:49pm

  
  

  Re:

  Has Techdirt gone off its rocker? Forcing audio down my throat now when I visit the site
  
  Er... where? If that's true it's certainly NOT intended. We've never forced audio on people on purpose. If you're aware of it happening, let us know so we can stop it.

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

• 

  Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2012 @ 8:10pm

  
  

  Re: Re:

  Always wanted to thank you for having the class to do something about those things. Adverts don't bug me so much, but flashing banners and music blasting my ears out makes me so much less inclined to even consider a product...

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

• 

  Tom Forest, Jun 21st, 2012 @ 8:41pm

  
  

  Re: Re:

  It's the 'a word from our sponsors' Samsung ad. If the mouse hovers over it music starts playing then 3 seconds later a large pop-up appears.

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

• 

  Brent (profile), Jun 22nd, 2012 @ 7:05am

  
  

  Re:

  Install AdBlock. I think its available on almost every browser now. I didn't even know this site had ads. (sorry techdirt)

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

• 

  Anonymous Coward, Jun 22nd, 2012 @ 11:05am

  
  

  Re: Re:

  It would be nice if those ad-blockers allowed text ads through. I don't mind a kilobyte or two for an ad, but javascript, images, let alone flash, are far too much of my resources to devote to selling me something. If I am looking, and if it is relevant, a correctly placed and well timed text ad might lead to me at least considering buying that.

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

• 

  Mr. Smarta** (profile), Jun 21st, 2012 @ 11:51am

  
  

  Settle instead of lose?

  Could it be Oracle just wanted to say in the future that they "settled" rather than lost? Losing outright would mean everyone could use snippets of code or whatever. Settling means they didn't actually lose, but they could seek damages from anyone else.
  
  Not sure if I'm really reading this correctly.

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

• 

  Almost Anonymous (profile), Jun 21st, 2012 @ 1:11pm

  
  

  Re: Settle instead of lose?

  I don't buy that this is considered a settlement. As you noted, that could leave the door open for future lawsuits by Oracle, perhaps even against Google again. It just doesn't make sense for Google to convert what was clearly a major win, and an awesome precedent, into a whimpering settlement, so I don't think that's the case here. I think at most it is a way for Oracle to save a teeny tiny bit of face.

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

• 

  Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2012 @ 11:59am

  
  

  I think Oracle should get $0,000,000. They deserve the extra 0s for all the hard work they put into this lawsuit.
  
  On a side note, I see the Oracle guy just bough a Hawaiian island. Are they going to be prepping their appeal from their new volcano based lair?

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

• 

  Disgusted, Jun 21st, 2012 @ 9:50pm

  
  

  Re:

  So much for performance based pay. You can be stupid enough to captain your ship onto such obvious rocks, and yet well renumerated enough for those efforts that you can buy Hawaian Islands.

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

• 

  That One Guy (profile), Jun 21st, 2012 @ 12:17pm

  
  

  Can you say 'legal precedent'?

  Seems to me that what they're going for here is a legal precedent that shows that they 'won', by getting a settlement out of google.
  
  If so it wouldn't matter that they didn't actually get any money out of the deal, they still have a case that they can go back to and point to the fact that they 'won', which would be worth much more money than they could expect from google at this point.

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

• 

  Mr. Oizo, Jun 21st, 2012 @ 12:17pm

  
  

  0 would be fine too

  Was that $ really necessary in the title ? I mean, it doesn't matter anymore what unit it is it is the same in all of them. Pure american imperialsm we are witnessing here.

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

• 

  Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2012 @ 12:22pm

  
  

  Re: 0 would be fine too

  it is necessary. if they said zero, you'd have no clue what they said they want zero amount of. so, yes, it is absolutely necessary. zero dollars = $0, not 0%, or 0degC. Plus its in the US, so if you're complaining that its the same as 0 EUR or 0 AU, etc, well, you're dumb, cause that's making it needlessly complicated. We're in the US, we'll use the US unit for representing money instead of them saying "0 generic dollars".
  
  honestly, this comment is kinda dumb from any and all angles. I'm sorry, but it is.

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

• 

  Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2012 @ 1:03pm

  
  

  Stupid question...

  Stupider answer.
  
  Zero dollars is not an amount of dollars, and it is absolutely and exactly equivalent to NOTHING at ALL.

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

• 

  MrWilson, Jun 21st, 2012 @ 1:10pm

  
  

  Re: Stupid question...

  Sure, it's just semantics, but it's significant in certain scenarios. If you had $12 and you spent $12, you now have $0. Just because having no money is the same as having nothing of some other unit, you still wouldn't say, "spending $12 of $12 leaves you with 0 frogs..." Unless you were just trying to be absurd.

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

• 

  Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2012 @ 1:33pm

  
  

  Re: Re: Stupid question...

  If you spent the $12 on a frog exterminator you might say that.

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

• 

  MrWilson, Jun 21st, 2012 @ 3:44pm

  
  

  Re: Re: Re: Stupid question...

  You're just trying to be absurd now! :-)

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

• 

  Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2012 @ 1:38pm

  
  

  Re: Stupid question...

  Trust me when i say that you definitely want zero dollars to be an amount of dollars and not exactly equivalent to nothing.
  
  For instance if zero were a simple indication of nothing at all, exactly and absolutely nothing, then strange things like a lack of oxygen might crop up spontaneously.
  
  At that point i'd expect you'd find that zero dollars is significantly different than nothing.

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

• 

  Anomalous Coward, Jun 22nd, 2012 @ 8:46pm

  
  

  Re: Stupid question...

  Maybe Oracle should get NULL dollars.

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

• 

  Doug D (profile), Jun 21st, 2012 @ 12:23pm

  
  

  Maybe Oracle is counting on the verdict being stored in an Oracle database somewhere -- their software can then corrupt the data in the AMOUNT column more easily if the rest of the row has the right structure.

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

• 

  Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Jun 21st, 2012 @ 1:01pm

  
  

  Re:

  "more easily"?
  
  You make it sound hard.

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

• 

  Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2012 @ 1:04pm

  
  

  "more easily" is the equivalent of...

  ...-1 harder.
  
  Anony-math in action!

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

• 

  Anonymous Coward, Jun 21st, 2012 @ 2:33pm

  
  

  Oracle wants the precedent that they "won" the case for copyright infringment its to set up future lawsuits and ask for a ton of damages. In similar cases they can say ah we won so they can win another related case against a not so smart company. Not to mention they can also try to alter the damages later so long as they establish that Google "infringed". Really its a ploy to make it that Oracle "won" so they can use this in future lawsuits to troll.

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

• 

  Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jun 21st, 2012 @ 5:13pm

  
  

  The Biggest Winner In All This Is David Boies

  The guy seems to have built a successful career out of getting clients to pay him lots of money to lose cases for them: previously SCO, now Oracle.

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

• 

  Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jun 21st, 2012 @ 8:31pm

  
  

  They’re Not Asking For Zero Dollars ...

  ... they’re asking for zero billion dollars. You think this is the kind of $0 you can just whip out your wallet and not pay? Hell no. This is the kind of $0,000,000,000 that only big corporations and rich kids can afford to call up their bankers to not pay. This is not your ordinary-Joe-and-Jane petty-cash zero, this is your team-of-lawyers-and-financial-funds, special-letter-of-credit-delivered-by-armoured-car-courier, big-ass now-we’re-talking-real-money zero.
  
  Mark my words, even in giving up damages, Oracle is determined to make it sting for Google to not pay this.

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

Add Your Comment