5 ms·

Judge to Oracle: "proceed with caution before overreaching again"

59 points by grellas 15y ago

div 15y ago
It's refreshing to read about a judge giving a strong argumentation on a fairly technical subject. If it comes to the point where Oracle will have to show which patents are being infringed, I wonder how they will hold up under the light of scrutiny.
- sigzero 15y ago
  I would imagine pretty good or Oracle wouldn't have brought suit.
  - lambda_cube 15y ago
    You mean like when SCO sued IBM? If SCO didn't have a case they wouldn't have brought suit, right?
nkassis 15y ago
Between 1.4 and 6.1B. That shows Oracle only valued sun for it patents it could use against people like Google (they paid 8B for sun)
- rwolf 15y ago
  To be fair, maybe they just wanted to strangle a bunch of popular open source projects. Seeing the life go out of the eyes of Hudson might have been worth a lot of scratch :)
- eric-hu 15y ago
  The lawyers that come up with these sums don't need a sense of money grounded in the real world. See also: RIAA wants 75 trillion from limewire: http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202486102650 http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202486102650
  - nextparadigms 15y ago
    I wonder if it sounds ridiculous even to them, or they actually believe their own claims.
    - pyre 15y ago
      Probably more like a negotiating tactic. The more that they ask for the more the actual amount awarded will be.
JVerstry 15y ago
"(...) Oracle must be aware that some of the unaddressed criticisms seem, at least on one reading, to have merit, so it should proceed with caution (...)" - It's with judges like these that we could sort the patent mess.
bjonathan 15y ago
Website seems down, here is a cache version : http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YkwoGRQ2C2MJ:patent-damages.com/2011/08/oracle-v-google-ndca-judge-alsup-rejects-nash-bargaining-solution-and-grants-google%E2%80%99s-motion-to-exclude-oracle%E2%80%99s-expert%E2%80%99s-report-and-testimony-advocating-1-4b-to-6-1b-in-d/+http://patent-damages.com/2011/08/oracle-v-google-ndca-judge-alsup-rejects-nash-bargaining-solution-and-grants-google%25E2%2580%2599s-motion-to-exclude-oracle%25E2%2580%2599s-expert%25E2%2580%2599s-report-and-testimony-advocating-1-4b-to-6-1b-in-d/&hl=fr&gl=fr&strip=1 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YkwoGRQ...
wnoise 15y ago
Oy. Every single allocation of surplus is Pareto efficient, and every single allocation can result from the right Nash equilibrium. The 50/50 split of surplus is in no way anymore justified then any other. You have to reach outside game theory for that.
- jigs_up 15y ago
  if you're going to speak on complex law issues, how about learning the difference between then and than?
  - rjbond3rd 15y ago
    Then it's fair game to say you should have an apostrophe after "jig."
  - Natsu 15y ago
    The grandparent post's statements were related to game theory (the branch of mathematics), not law.
NHQ 15y ago
The goal of bargaining is not usually to give the other party the best possible (most profitable) outcome. Does this Nash BS take into account for the bargainers that an agreement not reached will favor neither, or perhaps favor one less than the other. One party says to the other "your math is hogwater, no deal! We'll still build it some other way, but you won't get anything." Leverage is a simple machine.

59 points by grellas 15y ago

div 15y ago

It's refreshing to read about a judge giving a strong argumentation on a fairly technical subject. If it comes to the point where Oracle will have to show which patents are being infringed, I wonder how they will hold up under the light of scrutiny.

sigzero 15y ago
I would imagine pretty good or Oracle wouldn't have brought suit.
- lambda_cube 15y ago
  You mean like when SCO sued IBM? If SCO didn't have a case they wouldn't have brought suit, right?

nkassis 15y ago

Between 1.4 and 6.1B. That shows Oracle only valued sun for it patents it could use against people like Google (they paid 8B for sun)

rwolf 15y ago
To be fair, maybe they just wanted to strangle a bunch of popular open source projects. Seeing the life go out of the eyes of Hudson might have been worth a lot of scratch :)
eric-hu 15y ago
The lawyers that come up with these sums don't need a sense of money grounded in the real world. See also: RIAA wants 75 trillion from limewire: http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202486102650 http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202486102650
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  I wonder if it sounds ridiculous even to them, or they actually believe their own claims.
  - pyre 15y ago
    Probably more like a negotiating tactic. The more that they ask for the more the actual amount awarded will be.

JVerstry 15y ago

"(...) Oracle must be aware that some of the unaddressed criticisms seem, at least on one reading, to have merit, so it should proceed with caution (...)" - It's with judges like these that we could sort the patent mess.

bjonathan 15y ago

Website seems down, here is a cache version : http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YkwoGRQ2C2MJ:patent-damages.com/2011/08/oracle-v-google-ndca-judge-alsup-rejects-nash-bargaining-solution-and-grants-google%E2%80%99s-motion-to-exclude-oracle%E2%80%99s-expert%E2%80%99s-report-and-testimony-advocating-1-4b-to-6-1b-in-d/+http://patent-damages.com/2011/08/oracle-v-google-ndca-judge-alsup-rejects-nash-bargaining-solution-and-grants-google%25E2%2580%2599s-motion-to-exclude-oracle%25E2%2580%2599s-expert%25E2%2580%2599s-report-and-testimony-advocating-1-4b-to-6-1b-in-d/&hl=fr&gl=fr&strip=1 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YkwoGRQ...

wnoise 15y ago

Oy. Every single allocation of surplus is Pareto efficient, and every single allocation can result from the right Nash equilibrium. The 50/50 split of surplus is in no way anymore justified then any other. You have to reach outside game theory for that.

jigs_up 15y ago
if you're going to speak on complex law issues, how about learning the difference between then and than?
- rjbond3rd 15y ago
  Then it's fair game to say you should have an apostrophe after "jig."
- Natsu 15y ago
  The grandparent post's statements were related to game theory (the branch of mathematics), not law.

NHQ 15y ago

The goal of bargaining is not usually to give the other party the best possible (most profitable) outcome. Does this Nash BS take into account for the bargainers that an agreement not reached will favor neither, or perhaps favor one less than the other. One party says to the other "your math is hogwater, no deal! We'll still build it some other way, but you won't get anything." Leverage is a simple machine.