Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Court costs seems reasonable | 393 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Court costs seems reasonable

Authored by: pem on Sunday, May 27 2012 @ 03:02 PM EDT

After all, there is nothing in the record that shows that Oracle asked Google
for $240.

No, the record shows that Oracle asked for lots more (profit, injunction, etc.)

That's frivolous litigation.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Why is Oracle paying Google's costs unrealistic?

Authored by: Wol on Sunday, May 27 2012 @ 06:09 PM EDT

They wouldn't have a snowball in hell's chance of avoiding it over here.

The only thing Oracle have actually won on in court is that little thing where
Google said "mea culpa". In a UK court that would probably land them
straight into major damage limitation mode in an attempt to avoid a ruling for
costs (in American terms, that would be "paying attorney fees and
expenses").

That's why we don't have that sort of litigation over here, the prospect of
being landed with ALL the costs of the case prompts a very strong desire for a
reasonable settlement.

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I think - Authored by: pem on Tuesday, May 29 2012 @ 12:20 PM EDT
- I think - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 29 2012 @ 04:51 PM EDT
  - Agreed, but... - Authored by: pem on Tuesday, May 29 2012 @ 07:46 PM EDT

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 )