|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 03:43 PM EDT |
9 lines divided by 15 Million lines * 1 Billion devices equals
$600.
That's less then the $750 minimum in statutory damages
range!
Of course, that would be the primary reason Oracle wouldn't want
the calculations to be based on quantity of code.
According to Wikipedia,
there's "over 300 million Android devices in use by February 2012". 300 million
would put the damages at: $180.
:)
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 03:58 PM EDT |
And the '104 patent is the one the USPTO has
preliminarily ruled invalid. If the final
decision confirms, the worth will be zero.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- 377150{} - Authored by: BJ on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 05:17 PM EDT
- 377150{} - Authored by: BJ on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 05:21 PM EDT
- 377150{} - Authored by: BJ on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 05:23 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 04:17 PM EDT |
| When a 2-year long legal case results in no damages worth mentioning, and
specifically when the damages are less than the associated court costs and legal
fees, there should really be a punitive fine ruled against the plaintiff
and against the plaintiff's lawyers.
In the engineering
discipline of Control Theory, a system without negative feedback is a system
that is essentially out of control. This applies to all
systems, including legal ones.
Litigation in the US legal system is out of
control because there is no negative feedback to discourage plaintiffs from
litigating on a whim, and there is no negative feedback to discourage lawyers
from taking on speculative cases that have extremely doubtful merit.
It's
seriously broken, because by not discouraging litigation without merit, it
effectively encourages a culture of litigation by making the process so
lucrative for lawyers regardless of prospects or outcome. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: DieterWasDriving on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 06:24 PM EDT |
You might be focusing on the immediate list and missing the larger picture.
Oracle started the case claiming massive infringement. The judge told them to
select a representative subset to try. The patent selected were representative
of the whole collection that Oracle claimed were possibly infringed -- the
"champions" so that the whole army doesn't need to fight.
The total damages will be calculated based on the proportion of the original
patent claims that Google is found to infringe.
This is somewhat unfair to Google, since Oracle could pick its strongest
patents. But by the time the formula for value was argued ("the top N
patents represent X% of the value"), enough of Oracle's claims had been
invalidated that Google didn't put up too much of a fight.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
