decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
They want a lottery ticket instead of a pittance | 400 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
They want a lottery ticket instead of a pittance
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 06:17 AM EDT
I guess they want lottery tickets instead of a pathetic win. It doesn't seem
reasonable, but I guess they'd rather just lose the case rather than get what
is, for them at least, a very tiny win.

Maybe they think the headlines sound better if they lose entirely, rather than
going from billions in damages to $150k or so?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Good point
Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 08:06 AM EDT
I assume that the jury will have to decide on the basis of Google's
demonstration of how little of the revenue depended on the infringed goodness.

I think the same arguments I used for actual damages show that rangeCheck costs
Google money and the test files are not used and therefore don't earn money.

I am hopeful that the outcome will be very similar to an actual damages
assessment.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )