|
|
|
| Authored by: vb on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 06:48 PM EDT |
Only because it can't be any less. That would really send a message to Oracle.
Google should pay it in pennies.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- I say $200 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 07:23 PM EDT
- Limit on pennies - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 10:27 PM EDT
- I say $0 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 08:43 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 02:08 AM EDT |
...I think the verdict is going to be.
If the judge goes for too low damages, Oracle will probably
have good grounds for appeal. OTOH, even if he goes for
maximum damages, it is $150K, or if he finds multiple
counts, a multiple of that. In any case, that would be
pocket change compared to what either party already sunk in
legal costs for this trial; there are few ground for Oracle
to appeal, and I do not think Google would have any interest
to do so.
If Oracle goes through, however, with their crazy scheme of
damages-based award, I do not know what is going to happen.
Probably less than that statutory damages, but even if it is
more, it is going to be below $1M.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 05:07 AM EDT |
Hmm why haven't the defendants in downloading cases argued that their collection
of music is a "compilation" of their own making and thus a single
work, instead of paying $30,000 per song?....[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 06:22 AM EDT |
I'm sure the judge has come to a conclusion on the profits and damages over
rangeCheck which was handed back to Oracle with an excellently enhanced
timsort.
I am not so sure about the eight decompiled test files. He
does not seem to have accepted that Google did not know they were there, did not
use them, did not get developers to use them and took them out of Android when
informed about them by Oracle. Here's what the judge wrote when he reversed the
jury's decision on them:
In its opposition brief, Google argues
that the jury may have found that Google’s use of
the copied files was de
minimis because these copied files were only “test files” that were not
shipped
on Android phones. This is unpersuasive. Professor Mitchell testified that using
the
copied files even as test files would have been significant use. There was
no testimony to the
contrary. Moreover, our court of appeals has held that it is
the amount of copying as compared
to plaintiff’s work that matters for the de
minimis inquiry, not how the accused infringer used the
copied work. Google
has
admitted to copying the entire files. No reasonable jury could find that
this copying was de
minimis.
Although he has decided that the
copying was not de minimus, the judge must revisit Mitchell's comment to decide
on actual damages and profits. He might agree that ' that using the
copied files
even as test files would have been significant use'. 'There was no testimony to
the
contrary'. However, there was testimony that Google did not know they were
there and promptly removed them. Whether or not use would be significant and
Google did not say otherwise, that is irrelevant if he agreed that Google did
not use them since lack of use cannot contribute to damage or to
profits.
So, my guess is for $1.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
