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
Summing it up | 543 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Summing it up
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:47 PM EDT
And now, they're going to have to go there before Alsup, not before a jury.

And Alsup's the one who said it wasn't a good idea...

MSS2

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I think the $150,000 is an exact figure. Oracale did not have to decide until
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:52 PM EDT
My understanding is that statutory damages are a fixed amount per infringement,
and that has been said to be ~$150,000.
Oracle did not have to chose which to take (statutory or damages) until they
knew what both were.
They have agreed to take statutory damages if there were no damages phase of
this trial (i.e. If the jury were to decide patent damages, they could decide
copyright damages at the same time. Otherwise they would not waste jury time on
just the copyright damages)

Dennis H.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Summing it up
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 05:04 PM EDT
Google is worth 199B, on revenue of 40B.
Some of that is "profit", by some definition of the term.
However, since this is Hollywood, we'll use Hollywood Accounting to
determine "infringer's proft.
It lost 20M in cash flow from investments.
Hence there is no profit.
Thus infringers profit is a negative number.
Therefore Oracle owes Google a percentage of themoney that Google lost
from its investments.

I'd suggest selling the yacht, and giving the proceeds to Google, to satisfy
claims about infringer's profit.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Summing it up - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 04:55 AM EDT
Summing it up
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 05:13 PM EDT
You are mistaken - IIRC Oracle stipulated to statutory damages to be determined
by the judge if there is no other finding of copyright infringement.

Oracle can only go after infringer's profits if they get another trial on the 37
packages AND win it.

[ 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 )