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
Google Files Bill of Costs for Oracle to Pay - $4,030,669 - and Its Response to JMOL Motion ~pj | 210 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
corrections thread
Authored by: designerfx on Friday, July 06 2012 @ 12:03 PM EDT
post corrections here

[ Reply to This | # ]

off topic thread
Authored by: designerfx on Friday, July 06 2012 @ 12:03 PM EDT
post off topic comments here

[ Reply to This | # ]

newspicks thread
Authored by: designerfx on Friday, July 06 2012 @ 12:06 PM EDT
post newspick link if this is a fresh thread about a
particular newspick, please.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Just Wondering
Authored by: mexaly on Friday, July 06 2012 @ 12:25 PM EDT
Has the word "zombie" entered the court record yet?

---
IANAL, but I watch actors play lawyers on high-definition television.
Thanks to our hosts and the legal experts that make Groklaw great.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ink Change?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2012 @ 12:49 PM EDT
Just wondering - it is my imagination, or does the ink in the signature block of
the FTI / Adams declaration change between Washington and DC and between the A
in "William A" and Adams?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Ink Change? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2012 @ 06:19 PM EDT
Exemplification?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2012 @ 01:46 PM EDT
Google's bill of costs contains nearly $3 million (more than half the total) in claimed recoverable expenses in the category "Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case."

Unless they have a truly prodigious amount of photocopying that was required, I assume (the specific schedule of costs is sealed) that these costs are related to "Exemplification." What does that term mean in this context, and what would be some examples of "big ticket" items that would fall under this category?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google Files Bill of Costs for Oracle to Pay - $4,030,669 - and Its Response to JMOL Motion ~pj
Authored by: 351-4V on Friday, July 06 2012 @ 02:54 PM EDT
Judge: "Moose, Rocko. Help Larry find his wallet."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google Files Bill of Costs for Oracle to Pay - $4,030,669 - and Its Response to JMOL Motion ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2012 @ 05:24 PM EDT

Maybe Google should have pointed out in their filing that the costs to
Oracle would have been far lower if BSF wasn't involved.

Mind BSF might be winning other cases, but they seem to be on a loosing
streak whenever software is involved.

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca

[ Reply to This | # ]

I may be wrong but ...
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, July 07 2012 @ 12:04 AM EDT
Since Oracle won on limited copyright grounds I think this Judge is unlikely to
award costs beyond the limited costs he already awarded for Oracle's third try
at an expert report.

Google's costs here seem to be their costs for the whole case, well beyond what
the Judge previously awarded and in line with Google's motion for all costs as
the prevailing party, something that is somewhat problematic since arguably the
decisions were split.

OK go ahead and flame me as a troglodyte.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle to Pay - $4,030,669? Their one god is money so this is apposite.
Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, July 07 2012 @ 05:55 AM EDT
Pay up Larry, pay up.

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prediction! Google joins Samsung at least on "Universal Search" Patent!
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 08 2012 @ 10:06 PM EDT
"Live Query Search" = Apple's "Universal Search"
Thermonuclear Weapon... NOT!!!

Judge Lucy Koh has to be near comatose to not realize this
"Universal Search" patent is totally invalid for many
reasons. First off the patent was improperly granted w/o
being tested for validity when first submitted in 2000
(contained no algorithms to support it's claims), basically
just an outline of a "Live Query Search Engine" feature w/o
fully demonstrating one minus Google's algorithms in the mix
too! .....Siri therefore is limited and does not constitute
their own definition in this patent. They're using it only
in an attempt to slow down Android!

Keep in mind that Universal Search goes back to PDA's in
the 80's and 90's. It's desktop incarnations in the mid to
late 90's supplies an enormous wealth of Prior Art. This
patent requires that the file system be hierarchical in
nature w/ journal'd directory structures. Such as those used
on BeOS BFS (not HFS+) for it's "Universal Instant Live
Query = 'FIND' tool in BeOS Tracker". That was actually more
database like than file system like and it was better n
faster w/o database limitations.

Where Universal Search meant exactly what it says it is....
Universal Live Search Query over the entire drive, network
and could include Internet, used in searching out and
delivering proper answers..... instantly, or near so,
depending on connection speeds.

That was the aim of Apple when they hired the very same
engineer who wrote BFS so that Apple HFS+ could use Tracker
Find - like features more efficiently. On BeOS Tracker FIND
could even use it's own NetPossitive Browser engine on the
web! So.... Apple hired Dominic Giampaolo of BeOS BFS Fame.
After they failed to come up with a solution to replace
Finder (limited search tool) on original HFS as well as HFS+
systems.

This file system was a mess and no doubt still is in many
people's eyes. But Dominic was not allowed to write a ground
up file system to replace HFS+ even. So instead they ended
up with him supplementing HFS+ with BFS style metadata
tagging in a sub file system embedded in HFS+. That in
reality is only half good at delivering a True Live
Universal Search tool. So by Dominic going to work on
Apple's Spotlight Search, improving metadata file structures
w/ attributes stored in the files themselves, he was at
least able to deliver a somewhat limited version of his own
BeOS Tracker FIND "Universal Search" Engine..... in
Spotlight.

This was an attempt to make Spotlight at least somewhat
closer to Apple's present patent, than Apple FINDER ever was
to BeOS Tracker FIND Instant Search. Basically they had to
import features already being used by Beagle on Linux and
just do it in a more limited way. They therefore ended up
keeping it just short of being a full Universal Live Query
Search Engine w/o demonstrating their own algorithms to
validate their claims in the first place. By this time
against a myriad of prior art implementations already doing
what this patent had been written for... back in 2000!

Then more recently Spotlight was further stripped and down
ported to iOS. This version is even more limited than
Apple's desktop version by the fact that unlike BeOS w/ BFS
(that already supported online protocols natively in it's
file system).

Spotlight remains a limited Universal Search Engine w/o
harnessing Google's Search Engine algorithms in the first
place. In all reality this couldn't even pass Apple's own
Universal (Instant Live) Query Search patent, this pretends
to be in the first place.

So now 7 full years after Spotlight was born and Apple has
still failed to fully demonstrate this Invention Patent w/
it's own valid implementation, that couldn't ever be fully
implemented (for things like email, etc on it's present file
system). Especially since they have no code/algorithms of
their own to validate it in the first place. Linux, Google
and Microsoft have already proved versions of Universal
Search and it's been being used on Android devices since it
launched. Now it seems Apple is trying to rewrite history.
By not explaining the fact that their "Universal Search
Patent" can't even RUN on an HFS+ file system used by both
Apple's OS-X or iOS file system!

So we are headed for a point, where Google is going to join
this Samsung case on at least "Universal Search" and have
Dominic testifying against his own employer..... Apple. In
support of his own prior art on BeOS Tracker FIND features.
What's so great about this all..... is this guy can't deny
his past writings and code work done prior to working for
Apple. He therefore can not deny that this "Universal
Search" patent has prior art, he himself wrote!

http://daringfireball.net/2004/07/spotlight_on_spotlight
R/click copy n paste into address bar!

If Apple fans are Religious Lunatics on the loose for
Apple..... John Gruber is leading the pack. Writing in his
stereotypical blinded "Doublethink" fanatical Apple loving
style, he exposes many facts here. First off that without
Google, they don't have a Universal Search tool in
Spotlight.... either on Macs or iOS devices to brag about or
even validate their own patent!

[ Reply to This | # ]

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 )