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.
Winning on the merits should mean not losing money!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 11:53 AM EDT
One creative judge made the Lawyers pay when the shell company
they representd lost and disolved.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Absolutely agree
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 01:01 PM EDT
It is utterly ridiculous that Google should pay for Oracle-
generated costs in issues that it won; it did not seek a
lawsuit. Oracle did. It did not infringe, as Oracle claimed.
To do anything less than award costs is to encourage
frivolous claims and lawsuits with the purpose of costing
another money. What's worse is that Google can't claim for
the time and effort it spent defending itself, or the damage
caused to its name by all the Oracle-inspired press. I
understand that Google has the money to pay, but not all
defendants do.

I'm not sure about plaintiffs posting a bond: the courts
should not only be for the rich, but perhaps this could work
if the boundaries were very carefully drawn. I do like the
idea of law companies bearing some costs on occasion. At the
moment it sometimes seems like law companies win, no matter
who else ends up ruined.

[ 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 )