Printed from http://www.electronista.com

Google vs. Oracle judge limits damage to $150k

updated 10:10 pm EDT, Thu May 10, 2012

If needed, Oracle wants retrial limited to 'fair use'

Multiple decisions have been made by Judge William Alsup today in the ongoing Oracle versus Google copyright infringement case. To start the day, the judge told Oracle that by statute, the most it could expect is $150,000 for the nine duplicated lines of rangeCheck. More recently, Oracle filed a brief with the court requesting that any retrial be limited to the one issue the jury couldn't agree on -- "fair use."

If the entire matter goes back to trial in the event of a mistrial, then even the existing jury decision about the infringement is in question. Oracle's filing today seeks to protect the jury's decision that Google has in fact violated Oracle's patents in the event of a future trial. The jury originally found Google to have violated the Java patents on 37 separate occasions, but Judge Alsop reduced it to the single count and the nine lines in question.

Regardless of the jury finding Google guilty of infringement, the second issue of fair use is critical in determining if any award is to be paid at all. If Google's use of Oracle's source code is found to be "fair use" of the possibly not-patentable code in either a matter of law decision by the judge or a jury verdict in a retrial, then Oracle won't see any monetary damages from the decision.

Judge Alsup has not ruled on either Google's request for a mistrial and thus, a new trial, nor has he ruled on Oracle's filing today to divorce the portions of the case already heard and partially decided.

Google was found to have violated Oracle's patents primarily by Joshua Bloch's admission that he "likely copied" nine lines of Oracle code in a single subroutine for Android. Google filed for a mistrial earlier this week in response to the partial jury verdict.



By Electronista Staff
Post tools:

TAGS :

toggle

Comments

  1. shawnde

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Apr 2008

    +4

    This judge is on the take ...

    Everything I've been reading on this trial, seems to indicate that Judge Alsop constantly favors Google's position on practically everything. It's very strange. I'm surprised no one else has caught onto this ....

    I suppose Google has some strong lobbying efforts done by Eric Schmidt in the last little while, and it's paying good dividends ....

    Why did he throw out the 37 counts of infringement? Based on what evidence? What about punitive damages? It's all really weird.

  1. Flying Meat

    Dedicated MacNNer

    Joined: Jan 2007

    +1

    This won't even pay

    for the lawyer fees. Feeble.

  1. Jubeikiwagami

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Dec 2011

    +2

    Pathetic

    Scared of Google. Google has become the new MS!

  1. testudo

    Forum Regular

    Joined: Aug 2001

    0

    Re: This judge is on the take ...

    Everything I've been reading on this trial, seems to indicate that Judge Alsop constantly favors Google's position on practically everything. It's very strange. I'm surprised no one else has caught onto this ....

    Yes.... you're the only one who sees the 'obvious', that the judge is ruling in favor of Google on nearly everything. Must be on the take. Can't be that Oracle doesn't have much of a case. Nah.

    And if Apple starts having everything go it's way in the Samsung trial, hmmmm, maybe that judge is on the take too.

    I suppose Google has some strong lobbying efforts done by Eric Schmidt in the last little while, and it's paying good dividends ....

    You don't lobby judges. And judges don't take orders from lawmakers.

    Why did he throw out the 37 counts of infringement? Based on what evidence?

    Maybe they didn't apply by law (juries don't understand the law as much as some people think they do). Or maybe he had other reasons. He would have explained it to both parties involved. Just because you don't know the reason doesn't mean it isn't valid.

    What about punitive damages? It's all really weird.

    There's some debate but the current reading of copyright law is that punitive damages are not allowed.

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

Sponsor

Recent Reviews

Life n Soul BM211 Bluetooth speaker

Bluetooth speakers aren't only for listening to some music at the park or on a long bus ride, but can also be built with tablets in mi ...

Epson PowerLite Home Cinema 2030 projector

With high-definition televisions now the standard, 4K televisions becoming the next big thing, and plasma TVs going the way of the din ...

Life n Soul 8 Driver Bluetooth headphones

When it comes to music on the go, consumers generally have some options to consider when looking for the best experience. While Blueto ...

Sponsor

toggle

Most Commented

 
toggle

Popular News