|
| Authored by: frankieh on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 09:13 PM EDT |
hmmmmm... linky no work. try again:
link
text version just in case:
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/06/oracle-ordered-to-pay-googles-costs-in-late
st-legal-humiliation/[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- link - Authored by: PJ on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 03:04 AM EDT
- link - Authored by: PJ on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 03:08 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: nsomos on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 10:07 PM EDT |
It is concerning the third try at the damages report.
This is only about Googles expenses related to the
third damages report.
There was an old article here covering this ...
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/article.php%3fstory=20120119214029378
But it is easy to forget. Basically it would be unfair
for Google to have all these extra expenses just because
Oracle couldn't do things right the first two times, so
the only way a third attempt is permitted, is if Oracle
agrees to pay Googles expenses associated with this.
(And Kearl too, for his effort in pointing out where
Cockburn is wrong)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 12:32 PM EDT |
This is from when the good judge permitted Oracle a third bite at the damage
report. Google protested that wasn't fair since they'd have to expend resources
on countering it. Alsup ruled that Oracle would have to cover those expenses.
So its only the expense incurred by the damage report, not the total legal
bills... around $300,000.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
