9 ms·

Oracle Must Pay Google $1,130,350 in Costs

135 points by darshan 14y ago

krichman 14y ago
If only compensation to Google for Oracle's frivolous litigation were substantial instead of negligible.
cageface 14y ago
I guess we'll never know for sure if Steve Jobs egged on his buddy Larry Ellison to throw this sucker punch at Android but given his apoplectic reaction to Android it sure seems likely.
- lazugod 14y ago
  Why wouldn't we know? Ellison is still alive.
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    And most unlikely to admit he was "egged on" by anyone!
    - reddit_clone 14y ago
      Especially after the egg-on-the-face verdict.
- lifeisstillgood 14y ago
  I don't believe that's how these things work. Power player A meets power player B, they discuss what they hope to do in the near future - plans and interests. Perhaps they will have matters of mutual interest - thats great. Then they seperately take action, happy to know what positions and interests the other players in the game have. Apple and Oracle were both threatened by Android. No-one needed egging on, no-one needed secret deals. They were open and above board about wanting to screw over Larry and Sergey. :-)
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    I never understood why Android's Dalek would be threatening to Oracle.
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  You seriously think that Ellison got where he got by being easily swayed, even by the likes of Jobs?
therealarmen 14y ago
Google had asked for $4,030,669, but the judge cut it back, denying the part that was for the work done by the ediscovery vendor. Truthfully, I've never seen a bill of costs that was not cut back, but the bottom line is, Oracle has to pay for bringing this stupid lawsuit about APIs.
mtgx 14y ago
It seems very little. I'm sure Google paid many more millions of dollars to their lawyers in this lawsuit.
- lifeisstillgood 14y ago
  That's not what matters. Getting costs is like a TKO in boxing. They won, the judge knows they won, but they still had to do the road running and the no sex for a month before the match, so its a sunk cost. Lots of sex after the match does not make up for the month before.
  - badusername 14y ago
    What?
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - ramblerman 14y ago
    Too many metaphors. I really don't understand what you're saying.
    - lifeisstillgood 14y ago
      Getting costs in most civil cases is no longer about making financial restitution - the litigants are usually so well funded it does not matter cost awards indicate not only did the jury agree with you, but your case was so strong the other side should be punished for bringing it. Compare to cads where costs of a dollar are awarded. As for sex, forswearing sex before a sporting match is / was a common means of getting teams away from disruptive or chaotic marriages by wiley coaches, and could be seen as a sunk cost in winning the match. Even if you were awarded restitution after the match the costs were sunk so it does not matter if costs are awarded or not (see the too well funded to care above)
batgaijin 14y ago
Also, I'd like to try and point this out again: http://www.scribd.com/doc/103158031/Google-Shill-List http://www.scribd.com/doc/103158031/Google-Shill-List I don't think an article mentioning the google bloggers ever reached >10 points, at least by my googling.
- andyjohnson0 14y ago
  Here is Oracle's corresponding disclosure: http://www.scribd.com/doc/103156565/12-08-17-Oracle-Disclosures http://www.scribd.com/doc/103156565/12-08-17-Oracle-Disclosu... I appreciate that it probably wasn't yourself who chose to include the term 'shill' in the Google document name, but your referring to 'the Google bloggers' is a bit misleading. To quote from Google's disclosure: "Neither Google nor its counsel has paid an author, journalist, commentator, or blogger to report or comment on any issues in this case. And neither Google nor its counsel have been involved in any quid pro quo in exchange for coverage or articles about the issues in this case." Contrast this to Oracle's retaining Florian Mueller as a paid consultant when he was backing their case on his blog. (Edit: Clarified Oracle/Mueller relationship)
  - tzs 14y ago
    Do you have any evidence that Oracle payed Florian Mueller to promote their case?
    - chris_wot 14y ago
      Or, more to the point, that bloggers ever influenced the judge or jury?
    - andyjohnson0 14y ago
      Page two, line eight of Oracles' disclosure states that they retained him as a "consultant on competition-related matters." Although that isn't necessarily the same as paying him for "promoting their case", its hard not to get that impression when you read his enthusiastic backing of Oracle's legal theory as used in the case. Nevertheless, I'll edit my comment to clarify.
raganwald 14y ago
What I take away from this is that a serious court case costs millions of dollars. Which means is that the current patent system erects a massive moat around the entrenched players with large patent portfolios and the cash to put lawyers to work 24/7/365. From time to time, some small troll wins a few hundred million from Microsoft or whatever, but the real story here is that if you don't have ten million dollars to buy into the game, you can't play. It's almost as if the odd "win" by a bit player is a PR stunt to convince congress that the current system is an incentive for entrepreneurs and dreamers to invent new things. But it's all bullshit. It's a rigged game.
- Retric 14y ago
  It's not that hard to settle out of court and the threat of selling your patent to a patent troll enables you to leverage the threat just as well as the big guys. As to defending yourself, if you don't have the resources to mount a reasonable defense your not worth the cost of a lawsuit.
  - raganwald 14y ago
    Are you speculating or speaking from personal experience?
    - Retric 14y ago
      It's 2nd hand, but I do know someone that uses vary narrow patents to make a decent secondary income stream. Granted, this probably does not work as well for broad software patents, but make the cost benefit analysis obvious enough and you don't need much in the way of sticks.
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  I really like the suggestion of malandrew yesterday on HN: This is one of the main reasons I think that all money spent on lawyers should go into an account that both sides get to draw upon equally to pay legal expenses. You simply cannot have a system capable of meting out justice if money can skew "justice" in your favor. The two questions which immediately come to mind: 1. How to bell the cat (how does one actually get this enacted)? 2. What could possibly go wrong? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4475702 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4475702
mariuolo 14y ago
Pocket change.
meritt 14y ago
Just to put this in perspective, Oracle has just over $30B in liquidity. $1M / $30B = 0.0000333 That's the equivalent of having $300 in your pocket and someone demanding 1 penny.
- JoachimSchipper 14y ago
  True, but a judge awarding damages to your counterparty hurts, even if the amount of money is insignificant.

135 points by darshan 14y ago

If only compensation to Google for Oracle's frivolous litigation were substantial instead of negligible.

I guess we'll never know for sure if Steve Jobs egged on his buddy Larry Ellison to throw this sucker punch at Android but given his apoplectic reaction to Android it sure seems likely.

lazugod 14y ago
Why wouldn't we know? Ellison is still alive.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  And most unlikely to admit he was "egged on" by anyone!
  - reddit_clone 14y ago
    Especially after the egg-on-the-face verdict.
lifeisstillgood 14y ago
I don't believe that's how these things work. Power player A meets power player B, they discuss what they hope to do in the near future - plans and interests. Perhaps they will have matters of mutual interest - thats great. Then they seperately take action, happy to know what positions and interests the other players in the game have. Apple and Oracle were both threatened by Android. No-one needed egging on, no-one needed secret deals. They were open and above board about wanting to screw over Larry and Sergey. :-)
- jlgreco 14y ago
  I never understood why Android's Dalek would be threatening to Oracle.
Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
You seriously think that Ellison got where he got by being easily swayed, even by the likes of Jobs?

therealarmen 14y ago

Google had asked for $4,030,669, but the judge cut it back, denying the part that was for the work done by the ediscovery vendor. Truthfully, I've never seen a bill of costs that was not cut back, but the bottom line is, Oracle has to pay for bringing this stupid lawsuit about APIs.

mtgx 14y ago

It seems very little. I'm sure Google paid many more millions of dollars to their lawyers in this lawsuit.

lifeisstillgood 14y ago
That's not what matters. Getting costs is like a TKO in boxing. They won, the judge knows they won, but they still had to do the road running and the no sex for a month before the match, so its a sunk cost. Lots of sex after the match does not make up for the month before.
- badusername 14y ago
  What?
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- ramblerman 14y ago
  Too many metaphors. I really don't understand what you're saying.
  - lifeisstillgood 14y ago
    Getting costs in most civil cases is no longer about making financial restitution - the litigants are usually so well funded it does not matter cost awards indicate not only did the jury agree with you, but your case was so strong the other side should be punished for bringing it. Compare to cads where costs of a dollar are awarded. As for sex, forswearing sex before a sporting match is / was a common means of getting teams away from disruptive or chaotic marriages by wiley coaches, and could be seen as a sunk cost in winning the match. Even if you were awarded restitution after the match the costs were sunk so it does not matter if costs are awarded or not (see the too well funded to care above)

batgaijin 14y ago

Also, I'd like to try and point this out again: http://www.scribd.com/doc/103158031/Google-Shill-List http://www.scribd.com/doc/103158031/Google-Shill-List I don't think an article mentioning the google bloggers ever reached >10 points, at least by my googling.

andyjohnson0 14y ago
Here is Oracle's corresponding disclosure: http://www.scribd.com/doc/103156565/12-08-17-Oracle-Disclosures http://www.scribd.com/doc/103156565/12-08-17-Oracle-Disclosu... I appreciate that it probably wasn't yourself who chose to include the term 'shill' in the Google document name, but your referring to 'the Google bloggers' is a bit misleading. To quote from Google's disclosure: "Neither Google nor its counsel has paid an author, journalist, commentator, or blogger to report or comment on any issues in this case. And neither Google nor its counsel have been involved in any quid pro quo in exchange for coverage or articles about the issues in this case." Contrast this to Oracle's retaining Florian Mueller as a paid consultant when he was backing their case on his blog. (Edit: Clarified Oracle/Mueller relationship)
- tzs 14y ago
  Do you have any evidence that Oracle payed Florian Mueller to promote their case?
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    Or, more to the point, that bloggers ever influenced the judge or jury?
  - andyjohnson0 14y ago
    Page two, line eight of Oracles' disclosure states that they retained him as a "consultant on competition-related matters." Although that isn't necessarily the same as paying him for "promoting their case", its hard not to get that impression when you read his enthusiastic backing of Oracle's legal theory as used in the case. Nevertheless, I'll edit my comment to clarify.

raganwald 14y ago

What I take away from this is that a serious court case costs millions of dollars. Which means is that the current patent system erects a massive moat around the entrenched players with large patent portfolios and the cash to put lawyers to work 24/7/365. From time to time, some small troll wins a few hundred million from Microsoft or whatever, but the real story here is that if you don't have ten million dollars to buy into the game, you can't play. It's almost as if the odd "win" by a bit player is a PR stunt to convince congress that the current system is an incentive for entrepreneurs and dreamers to invent new things. But it's all bullshit. It's a rigged game.

Retric 14y ago
It's not that hard to settle out of court and the threat of selling your patent to a patent troll enables you to leverage the threat just as well as the big guys. As to defending yourself, if you don't have the resources to mount a reasonable defense your not worth the cost of a lawsuit.
- raganwald 14y ago
  Are you speculating or speaking from personal experience?
  - Retric 14y ago
    It's 2nd hand, but I do know someone that uses vary narrow patents to make a decent secondary income stream. Granted, this probably does not work as well for broad software patents, but make the cost benefit analysis obvious enough and you don't need much in the way of sticks.
dredmorbius 14y ago
I really like the suggestion of malandrew yesterday on HN: This is one of the main reasons I think that all money spent on lawyers should go into an account that both sides get to draw upon equally to pay legal expenses. You simply cannot have a system capable of meting out justice if money can skew "justice" in your favor. The two questions which immediately come to mind: 1. How to bell the cat (how does one actually get this enacted)? 2. What could possibly go wrong? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4475702 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4475702

mariuolo 14y ago

Pocket change.

meritt 14y ago

Just to put this in perspective, Oracle has just over $30B in liquidity. $1M / $30B = 0.0000333 That's the equivalent of having $300 in your pocket and someone demanding 1 penny.

JoachimSchipper 14y ago
True, but a judge awarding damages to your counterparty hurts, even if the amount of money is insignificant.