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
Winning on the merits should mean not losing money! | 100 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections thread
Authored by: nsomos on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 10:06 AM EDT
Please post corrections in this thread.
Before offering a correction to PDF transcripts,
check against the original PDF.
A summary of the correction in the title may be helpful.

Thinkx -> Thanks

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ, did you just advocate bribing politicians?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 10:18 AM EDT
"If you want new law, go to Congress and get it to write it and pass it for
you, not to the courts. Thanks. The public would appreciate it very much."

I know bribing politicians is standard procedure for companies who want new
laws, but I thought you believed that the system actually works for the benefit
of the people?

[ Reply to This | # ]

landmark issue of national importance
Authored by: DannyB on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 10:21 AM EDT
Wow, Larry really needs to take a lesson from Darl.

I seem to recall Darl generalizing that in the conflict between proprietary
software and open source that the entire global economy was at stake. While
saying that he painted open source as some kind of illegal piracy.

I would have expected Larry to shoot higher. Oracle's case is a matter of
galactic importance.


---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Winning on the merits should mean not losing money!
Authored by: jimrandomh on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 11:01 AM EDT

I think courts need to err much more strongly on the side of forcing unsuccessful plaintiffs to pay defendants' costs. While Google can afford to pay their costs, many companies that are forced to defendant against bogus IP claims can't. When defendants anticipate losing money even if they win, they're often forced to settle out of court, even if they would have won, denying them a fair hearing.

It's especially bad in patent cases, where the legal burden of proving that a patent is invalid (and thus the expense of calling expert witnesses and collecting prior art) falls exclusively on the defendant. In light of this disproportionate burden, "litigation in good faith" should not be sufficient justification for denying costs.

I'd actually take it a step further, and say that in many patent cases (but not this one), where plaintiffs are shell companies that will dissolve if they lose, they should be forced to post a bond to cover defendant's costs when litigation begins.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Thread
Authored by: YurtGuppy on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 11:04 AM EDT
Wherein we discuss the News Picks instead of the posting.

---
a small fish in an even smaller pond

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Thread
Authored by: YurtGuppy on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 11:06 AM EDT
Wherein we discuss other things all together.

(things of interest to Groklaw readers)

---
a small fish in an even smaller pond

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Structure, Sequence and Organization of APIs" makes no sense
Authored by: SLi on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 01:06 PM EDT

The SSO is the API. You cannot say "structure, sequence and organization of APIs".

Moreover, I would be careful of using API in plural form. It's a sort of uncountable. Like "interface", or "protocol", also in the diplomatic sense. You talk about the diplomatic protocol, not about the set of individual "protocols". That's thay way it's with API too.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Their fault.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 02:12 PM EDT
Well, the legal costs of Google would have been quite less if Oracle had not
made a sport of ignoring court orders.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle Objects to Google's Bill of Costs ~pj
Authored by: 351-4V on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 04:13 PM EDT
I choked on my coffee when I read the "in good faith" part. All the media
exposure, the statements of "Beeelions", none of that was in any way, shape or
form intended to arrive fair compensation for infringed technology. Nor was it
intended as good faith negotiation. Fair compensation is normally arrived at
skilled and sincere negotiation, not a media circus of hyperbole. Good faith,
hah!

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm guessing
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 05:37 PM EDT
The Judge will, except for those costs related to the third expert report,
require each party to bear their own costs.

The result is arguably split, Google won some and Oracle won some. He has
indicated disdain for corporate litigation and both parties can afford their
cost. These costs are a drop in the bucket compared to the legal fees and would
not even merit a footnote in the SEC filings.

---
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 Objects to Google's Bill of Costs ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 25 2012 @ 07:12 PM EDT
Oh, it would have been "landmark", all right. As in, "totally
re-arranging the legal climate".

And it was novel. Nobody had ever even suggested that such a theory had legal
validity.

But those two attributes are true of every crackpot, borderline-insane legal
theory that's ever put forth in a courtroom. Those aren't virtues; they're
vices. They aren't reasons why Oracle should avoid paying Google's costs;
they're reasons Oracle should have to pay them.

MSS2

[ 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 )