Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:47 PM EDT |
And now, they're going to have to go there before Alsup, not before a jury.
And Alsup's the one who said it wasn't a good idea...
MSS2[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:52 PM EDT |
My understanding is that statutory damages are a fixed amount per infringement,
and that has been said to be ~$150,000.
Oracle did not have to chose which to take (statutory or damages) until they
knew what both were.
They have agreed to take statutory damages if there were no damages phase of
this trial (i.e. If the jury were to decide patent damages, they could decide
copyright damages at the same time. Otherwise they would not waste jury time on
just the copyright damages)
Dennis H.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 05:04 PM EDT |
Google is worth 199B, on revenue of 40B.
Some of that is "profit", by some definition of the term.
However, since this is Hollywood, we'll use Hollywood Accounting to
determine "infringer's proft.
It lost 20M in cash flow from investments.
Hence there is no profit.
Thus infringers profit is a negative number.
Therefore Oracle owes Google a percentage of themoney that Google lost
from its investments.
I'd suggest selling the yacht, and giving the proceeds to Google, to satisfy
claims about infringer's profit.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Summing it up - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 04:55 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 05:13 PM EDT |
You are mistaken - IIRC Oracle stipulated to statutory damages to be determined
by the judge if there is no other finding of copyright infringement.
Oracle can only go after infringer's profits if they get another trial on the 37
packages AND win it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|