Google Asks For $4 Million In Legal Fees From Oracle

from the sliding-backwards dept

Mon, Jul 9th 2012 8:29pm — Mike Masnick

Having lost its patent/copyright case against Google in somewhat spectacular fashion, Oracle is now facing the possibility of having to also pay Google over $4 million in legal fees. Google has submitted its calculation of legal fees that it's seeking from Oracle, and it totals up to $4,030,669. Of course, this case is heading for appeal, so this number may be meaningless. However, it does suggest that Oracle -- which once seemed to believe this case might bring it billions of dollars -- may quickly discover that it's costing an awful lot instead...

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

30 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

anon, 9 Jul 2012 @ 8:52pm

Where
yes where will they get the money from, well they will just have to find someone who has developed something similar to one of there other patents and sue them to make up for the millions they have lost.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2012 @ 9:18pm

4 mill for oracle is like 24cents to you or I.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2012 @ 9:22pm

Re:
but it sets an unfavorable precedent
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Digitalistically Speaking (profile), 9 Jul 2012 @ 9:24pm

Re:
I add my 2 cents to that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 9 Jul 2012 @ 9:36pm

4 million
I could twist this and say $4.3 million US is like a drop into the perverbial ocean of piss in Google's budget. They are a muti-billion dollar cooperation. Google asking this of Oracle shows they are just out to punish anyone for suing them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 9 Jul 2012 @ 9:57pm

Re: 4 million
Argument fail. 4 million may be 'a drop into the perverbial ocean' for them money wise, but it's still a good chunk of money they had to pay out for legal fees caused by a bogus lawsuit, so of course they'd want to get that money back.

Alternatively, they could be trying to set a precedent for there being an actual punishment for patent trolling, instead of the nothing(or if the judge is really mad, a sternly worded rebuke for bringing the case up) there is now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 9 Jul 2012 @ 10:02pm

Re: 4 million
And Oracle damn well should be punished. It was a frivolous lawsuit where Oracle was trying to use patents they bought to cash in on Google's success. The fewer lawsuits like this happen, the less innovation will be held back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2012 @ 10:05pm

Well I think Google should get its 4 mil for the frivolous lawsuit Oracle tried.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 9 Jul 2012 @ 10:10pm

Re: Re: 4 million
It was a jury trial. Both companies can afford the legal fees. If Google asked of this during the hearings, then there would have been precedent for punishing other patent trolls. This is more like a counter suit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Noah Callaway (profile), 9 Jul 2012 @ 10:10pm

Re: 4 million
I will twist it back. If it's a drop in the bucket, then Oracle has no reason to bother fighting it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
arcan, 9 Jul 2012 @ 10:15pm

Re: Re:
what unfavorable precedent? that basic functions can't be patented and copyrighted?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2012 @ 10:33pm

Whoop's
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2012 @ 2:29am

Re: Re: Re:
Everything can be patented. It is just a case of making the wording sufficiently vague, but at the same time seem specific. It is an art writing a good troll-patent, but it is not an impossible task to get it to be a court-winner, with the right judge etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Duke (profile), 10 Jul 2012 @ 2:38am

Only 4 million...
$4m for a first instance decision? And I thought legal costs in the UK were high. Come on, people, this is getting downright silly; whatever happened to justice being fair, blind, accessible and all those things?

Also, $2.9m of that is apparently "Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case." - That's one expensive photocopier they've got there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2012 @ 2:39am

Irrational
Anyone else remember when they were auctioning off those Nortel patents, and Google began bidding multiples of irrational numbers? I can't help but wonder if their new $4,030,669 amount is somehow linked to more creative math.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2012 @ 2:48am

Re:
Could I borrow 24 cents from Oracle, then?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2012 @ 3:54am

Re: Re: Re:
Yes. That's not what Oracle wants here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeremy Lyman (profile), 10 Jul 2012 @ 4:06am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oracle just forgot that you have to have something written down at all to make a valid claim.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2012 @ 4:18am

Re: Irrational
I'd doubt it, since this is not an arbitrary number invented by Google, but is simply the sum of their costs. Even if they are Google, I do not believe they were able to engineer their costs so the total would add up to an interesting number.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Berenerd (profile), 10 Jul 2012 @ 4:48am

Re: Only 4 million...
Every copy they get made for a court case has to be notarized which is quite expensive when you are talking how many copies they needed to make of the lines of code.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Some Other AC (profile), 10 Jul 2012 @ 5:32am

Re: Only 4 million...
Considering this article, I think it is quite reasonable...
http://www.geekshut.com/google-asks-for-4-million-in-legal-fees-from-oracle/2571
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 10 Jul 2012 @ 5:33am

Re: 4 million
You know the old saying take care of the dollars and the pennies will take care of themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
New Mexico Mark, 10 Jul 2012 @ 6:16am

Re: Irrational
The only way that might have a chance of working is if Google specifically chose to exclude certain legal expenses in order to bring the number down to an interesting one. Even then they'd be taking a chance on how a judge might interpret that action if discovered.

Usually judges and geek humor mix about as well as oil and water.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2012 @ 11:17am

How are costs awarded in a mixed judgement?
Does this mean Google could get costs for the portions of judgement they won on?

Doesn't the fact that Oracle won on statutory infringement offset this?

This whole thing seems like a PR exercise than a matter of law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2012 @ 11:55am

Re: Re: Re: 4 million
It is pretty standard to ask for lawyers fees in these things. Don't know why it matters to you, anyways. $4 mill is nothing to either of these companies. That's like a $40 speeding ticket for most everyone else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 10 Jul 2012 @ 12:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: 4 million
Hence my "it's a perverbial drop in an ocean of piss", as it is quite unnecessary for google to ask of this. No matter how someone twists it, is it really necessary to ask someone to pay your legal fees after a jury based civil trial where you not only won in a sufficient way? It should be a fine to the plantif for a frivolous lawsuit if the plantif looses. That fine goes to the court in the form of legal fees. Since they both refused to settle, it went to jury and neither of then should get the others' money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mason Wheeler, 10 Jul 2012 @ 1:04pm

Re: Re: 4 million
I thought it was the other way around...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 12 Jul 2012 @ 4:19am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 4 million
Because it cost Google unnecessary money, so why should they pay it, 'drop in the ocean' or not? Because it might make a patent troll think twice before picking on someone smaller?

$4 million may not be a lot to Google, but it might still be the cost of supporting some small 'free' service that people use and enjoy.

Is the economy so strong that we can encourage people to 'waste' $4 million?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 12 Jul 2012 @ 4:21am

Re: Re: Irrational
I'm sure a judge wouldn't have an issue with them *excluding* costs from their demand. It's only adding in frivolous ones that matters...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
r�f�rencement site web, 15 Nov 2012 @ 6:50am

Je me renseigne sur le r�f�rencement. Que pensez vous de ces �l�ments:. Les astuces webmarketing consistant � l'acquisition de trafic positionnant sur les requ�tes de recherche des les visiteurs web est connu en tant que r�f�rencement Internet. Des conseils ?

formation r�f�rencement http://goo.gl/R2rTd cours r�f�rencement web
[ link to this | view in thread ]