Even The Judge Wonders What Oracle Is Up To As It Asks For $0 In Copyright Damages From Google

from the procedural dept

Thu, Jun 21st 2012 10:44am — Mike Masnick

Having lost both its patent and copyright claims against Google in somewhat spectacular fashion (remember when it was claiming billions in damages?), Oracle recently agreed in court that it was fine with receiving $0 in statutory damages for the short snippets of code that were copied. This even took the judge by surprise, who asked if there was a "catch" he should be aware of. The issue is one that is really more procedural than anything else: everyone realizes that the only thing that matters now is what happens in the appeal, and if Oracle happens to win the appeal, it can revisit the damages question. Either way, however, it is a bit symbolic to see Oracle "accept" $0 in damages. And, of course, there is still one more part to this round in district court, which is that Google is expected to seek attorneys' fees from Oracle as well -- meaning that Oracle's plan to get billions from Google may turn into not just a loss, but a really, really expensive loss.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: api, appeal, damages, java
Companies: google, oracle

38 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

alanbleiweiss (profile), 21 Jun 2012 @ 11:17am

I'm clueless to the finer machinations of court procedures, litigation and such, however could it be that if they "accept $0 in damages", and if that's language that somehow actually gets into the court record, could, in some future legal action, some shlub lawyer later use the case as "proof we were awarded damages in that case" or at least THINK he/she could do that?

As far fetched as that seems to be, with all the hack nonsense that goes on these days in the legal system, it just seems a possible motive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zimzat (profile), 21 Jun 2012 @ 11:37am
  
  Re:
  This is precisely what I was thinking. It wouldn't amount for much in a monetary comparison, but it would add to the number of victories for copyright infringement procedures even though they actually lost. 1-0 wins, or whatever their count is. They could then turn that into an extortion letter for any company that doesn't read the full ruling or pay attention to the news.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Almost Anonymous (profile), 21 Jun 2012 @ 1:06pm
  
  Re:
  Once it became evident that the judge was knowledgeable and wasn't going to buy Oracle's bullshit, Google knew it had a slam-dunk here. It wouldn't make any sense to "settle" at this point in the game if it could possibly come back on them, so I'm guessing that accepting $0 in damages is still a loss as far as the case is concerned. Even more so if Oracle winds up paying Google's legal fees, which I believe can only happen in the case of not just a loss but a trouncing loss.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Monkey (profile), 22 Jun 2012 @ 1:58pm
  
  Re:
  basically, they are still striving for a "win"... "awarding" damages, even if for $0, still would show as a "win" of sorts.
  it's a bait-and-switch kind of thing.
  really sneaky and underhanded if you ask me.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Dan (profile), 21 Jun 2012 @ 11:22am

Typo
"Goolge" should, as far as I know, be "Google".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Leigh Beadon (profile), 21 Jun 2012 @ 11:33am
  
  Re: Typo
  whoops - fixed, thanks!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jun 2012 @ 12:54pm
    
    Goolge works fine too...
    'natch!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some Guy, 21 Jun 2012 @ 11:48am

Has Techdirt gone off its rocker? Forcing audio down my throat now when I visit the site ... Another great site turns to crap. I couldn't even read this article with the audio superimposed over my music stream. Yesterday it had an obnoxious banner superimposed over the existing obnoxious banner. I understand people gotta eat, but seriously ... I'm about ready to stop visiting, and this has been one of my favorite sites for a long, long time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Jun 2012 @ 12:18pm
  
  Re:
  i've never seen any of the banners you speak of. before blaming techdirt, i'd suggest at least finding out if the ads are indeed from techdirt and not malware. i've known techdirt to take advertising very seriously and don't want to be too invasive, so it doesn't sound like the techdirt i know. its possible they're not aware of it as well.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jun 2012 @ 12:58pm
    
    I've got ad blockers, flash block, etc...
    ...and one of the reasons for getting them was the "audiobombs" on techdirt and similar annoying features on other sites, where a careless hover is awarded by a loud ad or annoying pop-up.
    
    No big deal... doesn't bother me now.
    
    But just sayin'....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 21 Jun 2012 @ 12:36pm
  
  Re:
  audio? What'chu talking about? Never has been audio...unless its from an ad that can be easily countered by Adblock+ or Noscript.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 21 Jun 2012 @ 12:57pm
  
  Re:
  There's an ad on the right with audio that only plays on mouseover, and a banner on the bottom that has recently gotten larger (and was said yesterday they were working with company for a close or minimize button). Neither of these I find even slightly annoying (I generally run Chrome with no adblock).
  
  If you're getting more than those, you might want to check your browser or system for something else that is generating them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 21 Jun 2012 @ 12:58pm
  
  Re:
  Another great discussion interrupted by someone complaining about something that they have the power to change.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Some Other Guy (profile), 21 Jun 2012 @ 1:13pm
  
  Re:
  I'm going to guess that these are adverts you're talking about. Does your web-viewing platform support ad-blocking?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Jun 2012 @ 2:49pm
  
  Re:
  Has Techdirt gone off its rocker? Forcing audio down my throat now when I visit the site
  
  Er... where? If that's true it's certainly NOT intended. We've never forced audio on people on purpose. If you're aware of it happening, let us know so we can stop it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jun 2012 @ 8:10pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Always wanted to thank you for having the class to do something about those things. Adverts don't bug me so much, but flashing banners and music blasting my ears out makes me so much less inclined to even consider a product...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Tom Forest, 21 Jun 2012 @ 8:41pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It's the 'a word from our sponsors' Samsung ad. If the mouse hovers over it music starts playing then 3 seconds later a large pop-up appears.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Brent (profile), 22 Jun 2012 @ 7:05am
  
  Re:
  Install AdBlock. I think its available on almost every browser now. I didn't even know this site had ads. (sorry techdirt)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2012 @ 11:05am
    
    Re: Re:
    It would be nice if those ad-blockers allowed text ads through. I don't mind a kilobyte or two for an ad, but javascript, images, let alone flash, are far too much of my resources to devote to selling me something. If I am looking, and if it is relevant, a correctly placed and well timed text ad might lead to me at least considering buying that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Smarta** (profile), 21 Jun 2012 @ 11:51am

Settle instead of lose?
Could it be Oracle just wanted to say in the future that they "settled" rather than lost? Losing outright would mean everyone could use snippets of code or whatever. Settling means they didn't actually lose, but they could seek damages from anyone else.

Not sure if I'm really reading this correctly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Almost Anonymous (profile), 21 Jun 2012 @ 1:11pm
  
  Re: Settle instead of lose?
  I don't buy that this is considered a settlement. As you noted, that could leave the door open for future lawsuits by Oracle, perhaps even against Google again. It just doesn't make sense for Google to convert what was clearly a major win, and an awesome precedent, into a whimpering settlement, so I don't think that's the case here. I think at most it is a way for Oracle to save a teeny tiny bit of face.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jun 2012 @ 11:59am

I think Oracle should get $0,000,000. They deserve the extra 0s for all the hard work they put into this lawsuit.

On a side note, I see the Oracle guy just bough a Hawaiian island. Are they going to be prepping their appeal from their new volcano based lair?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Disgusted, 21 Jun 2012 @ 9:50pm
  
  Re:
  So much for performance based pay. You can be stupid enough to captain your ship onto such obvious rocks, and yet well renumerated enough for those efforts that you can buy Hawaian Islands.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 21 Jun 2012 @ 12:17pm

Can you say 'legal precedent'?
Seems to me that what they're going for here is a legal precedent that shows that they 'won', by getting a settlement out of google.

If so it wouldn't matter that they didn't actually get any money out of the deal, they still have a case that they can go back to and point to the fact that they 'won', which would be worth much more money than they could expect from google at this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Oizo, 21 Jun 2012 @ 12:17pm

0 would be fine too
Was that $ really necessary in the title ? I mean, it doesn't matter anymore what unit it is it is the same in all of them. Pure american imperialsm we are witnessing here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Jun 2012 @ 12:22pm
  
  Re: 0 would be fine too
  it is necessary. if they said zero, you'd have no clue what they said they want zero amount of. so, yes, it is absolutely necessary. zero dollars = $0, not 0%, or 0degC. Plus its in the US, so if you're complaining that its the same as 0 EUR or 0 AU, etc, well, you're dumb, cause that's making it needlessly complicated. We're in the US, we'll use the US unit for representing money instead of them saying "0 generic dollars".
  
  honestly, this comment is kinda dumb from any and all angles. I'm sorry, but it is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jun 2012 @ 1:03pm
    
    Stupid question...
    Stupider answer.
    
    Zero dollars is not an amount of dollars, and it is absolutely and exactly equivalent to NOTHING at ALL.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - MrWilson, 21 Jun 2012 @ 1:10pm
      
      Re: Stupid question...
      Sure, it's just semantics, but it's significant in certain scenarios. If you had $12 and you spent $12, you now have $0. Just because having no money is the same as having nothing of some other unit, you still wouldn't say, "spending $12 of $12 leaves you with 0 frogs..." Unless you were just trying to be absurd.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jun 2012 @ 1:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Stupid question...
        If you spent the $12 on a frog exterminator you might say that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MrWilson, 21 Jun 2012 @ 3:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Stupid question...
        You're just trying to be absurd now! :-)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jun 2012 @ 1:38pm
      
      Re: Stupid question...
      Trust me when i say that you definitely want zero dollars to be an amount of dollars and not exactly equivalent to nothing.
      
      For instance if zero were a simple indication of nothing at all, exactly and absolutely nothing, then strange things like a lack of oxygen might crop up spontaneously.
      
      At that point i'd expect you'd find that zero dollars is significantly different than nothing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anomalous Coward, 22 Jun 2012 @ 8:46pm
      
      Re: Stupid question...
      Maybe Oracle should get NULL dollars.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doug D (profile), 21 Jun 2012 @ 12:23pm

Maybe Oracle is counting on the verdict being stored in an Oracle database somewhere -- their software can then corrupt the data in the AMOUNT column more easily if the rest of the row has the right structure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 21 Jun 2012 @ 1:01pm
  
  Re:
  "more easily"?
  
  You make it sound hard.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Jun 2012 @ 1:04pm
    
    "more easily" is the equivalent of...
    ...-1 harder.
    
    Anony-math in action!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jun 2012 @ 2:33pm

Oracle wants the precedent that they "won" the case for copyright infringment its to set up future lawsuits and ask for a ton of damages. In similar cases they can say ah we won so they can win another related case against a not so smart company. Not to mention they can also try to alter the damages later so long as they establish that Google "infringed". Really its a ploy to make it that Oracle "won" so they can use this in future lawsuits to troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 21 Jun 2012 @ 5:13pm

The Biggest Winner In All This Is David Boies
The guy seems to have built a successful career out of getting clients to pay him lots of money to lose cases for them: previously SCO, now Oracle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 21 Jun 2012 @ 8:31pm

They�re Not Asking For Zero Dollars ...
... they�re asking for zero billion dollars. You think this is the kind of $0 you can just whip out your wallet and not pay? Hell no. This is the kind of $0,000,000,000 that only big corporations and rich kids can afford to call up their bankers to not pay. This is not your ordinary-Joe-and-Jane petty-cash zero, this is your team-of-lawyers-and-financial-funds, special-letter-of-credit-delivered-by-armoured-car-courier, big-ass now-we�re-talking-real-money zero.

Mark my words, even in giving up damages, Oracle is determined to make it sting for Google to not pay this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]