|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 10:19 AM EDT |
IANAL!!!! But, my father was one. IIRC, it was standard
practice then for the lawyer to get 30% of the winings.
Little cases = little bucks.
Big cases = BIG BUCKS!
MEGA cases = M E G A B U C K S !
Things may be different now and in other places.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: designerfx on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 10:24 AM EDT |
you missed something: the question of "from what period of
time should they even be entitled to a portion of profits
from".
Most of this involves 2008-2010 and I would imagine (correct
me if I'm wrong) that estoppel/laches will come into play as
well, so any even potential amounts of liability will be
reduced further.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 10:46 AM EDT |
Alsup says they are making a mistake.
See tweets thread. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 01:51 PM EDT |
Aha! This is where Oracle runs into a Catch-22 problem:
Code that is functional in nature is not protectable.
Code that is not functional is protectable, but no damages
can be claimed because, hey, it DON'T DO NUTTIN'!
Unfortunately, after more than a year, they still don't get
the point.
--------------------------
EVERYBODY denies it's a conspiracy - that proves it IS one![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, May 11 2012 @ 05:37 PM EDT |
Now being generous to Oracle, let's suppose that all past
infringing versions of Android have earned Google, let's say, $50
Billion.
Did I not read somewhere that Android made
Google zero dollars in direct income? Google's income is from advertising, not
from licensing Android. So how can one attribute even $1 of income to
Android? Given that, wouldn't the more appropriate damages amount be
1/1,000,000th of $zero?
---
"When I say something, I put my name
next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
