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
Re-read, please | 278 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Re-read, please
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 01:27 PM EDT
You'll notice that Oracle decided to defer the statutory damages. Oracle *is*,
as you say, entitled to damages, and yes, Judge Alsup gets to determine the
amount of the damages (because the two sides stipulated to that, avoiding a
damages phase of the trial); however, Oracle made the decision to take $0. Judge
Alsup did not determine what the damages would have been; Oracle made the
decision not to receive a damages award, so the court does not have to make that
decision.

(You'll also want to re-check your math - it's not $DAMAGES_AMOUNT * 37 because
the API's were declared not covered by copyright. I think you meant
$DAMAGES_AMOUNT * 8 for the copied test files (on which I would still disagree
with you, but I think it's what you were trying to say.))

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Commercially reasonable measures
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 21 2012 @ 03:07 PM EDT
Google, in the copied files, took commercially reasonable measures (for example,
their contract with the developers) to not have them copy the test files. When
they found out, they removed the files.

Likewise, the author of the rangecheck() function was simply rattling off
something simple to make a far more significant piece of work operational, never
expecting those lines to be permanent or actually ship with the end product.

So, as PJ says, there's no willfulness here. Fair damages? Given all the other
things that *could* have been copied, I'm with the court, that's $0.

Now Tennenbaum, that's copyright math -- a poison from the RIAA. Best you not
copy a paragraph from here -- or I'll have you in hock for the rest of your
life! (NOT! -- a snippet this small, or this entire post, should absolutely be
"fair use", so be courteous and keep my name attached)

(Christenson)

[ 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 )