Slashdot Mirror


After Android Trial, Google Demands $4M From Oracle

MikeatWired writes "Google is seeking $4 million from Oracle to cover the costs it incurred during this spring's epic legal battle over the Android mobile operating system, reports Caleb Garling. In a brief filed in federal court on Thursday night, Google lead counsel Robert Van Nest argued that Oracle is required to pay his company's legal costs because judge and jury ruled in favor of Google on almost every issue during the six-week trial. 'Google prevailed on a substantial part of the litigation,' read Google's brief. '[Oracle] recovered none of the relief it sought in this litigation. Accordingly, Google is the prevailing party and is entitled to recover costs.' Google has not publicly revealed an itemized list of its expenses, but the total bill included $2.9 million spent copying and organizing documents. According to the brief, the company juggled a mind-boggled 97 million documents during the case."

23 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. I hope Google gets that $4mil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Because it's the principle that matters!

  2. A cheaper alternative by ardmhacha · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Google has not publicly revealed an itemized list of its expenses, but the total bill included $2.9 million spent copying and organizing documents. According to the brief, the company juggled a mind-boggled 97 million documents during the case.""

    Couldn't they have just put them on some sort of server and used some kind to search software to allow access.

    1. Re:A cheaper alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yea, but the justice system demands stuff to be written on dead trees...

    2. Re:A cheaper alternative by hawguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Google has not publicly revealed an itemized list of its expenses, but the total bill included $2.9 million spent copying and organizing documents. According to the brief, the company juggled a mind-boggled 97 million documents during the case.""

      Couldn't they have just put them on some sort of server and used some kind to search software to allow access.

      I think it's hard to present electronic documents on a server as evidence since it's hard to prove that the documents weren't altered after being submitted. (not impossible, but verifying cryptographic checksums is not how the courts are used to working)

    3. Re:A cheaper alternative by martin-boundary · · Score: 4, Funny

      $2.9 million spent copying and organizing documents

      Nevermind that! I think I just saw a RIAA lawyer raise his head from a prey, and prick up his ears...

  3. Re:WTF by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    2.9 million in copying?

    I think I want to die.

    97M pages @ $2.9M = 3 cents/page. Pretty reasonable since "copying and organizing" presumably includes labor.

  4. Interesting... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It, unfortunately, isn't a huge surprise that some fairly epic paper-shuffling(and converting to TIFF, apparently) took place.

    What is a bit surprising, to me, is that according to Arstechnica Google had an external consulting firm handle part of the document search and digitization. I would have thought that Google knew a thing or two about that kind of thing...

    1. Re:Interesting... by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Forensic data analysis is a specialized niche, not something you want to throw an intern at.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  5. 97 million documents? by Trogre · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Forget Google - if even 1 percent of those 97 million documents actually needed to be printed out for this case then the entire freaking planet should sue Oracle and make them plant a new rainforest

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:97 million documents? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are various calculations on the Internet for how much paper you can get from a tree. They vary in their conclusions from about 8,000 sheets up to 100,000, mostly because they use different trees to start with. Given that some areas of the Amazon have 30,000 trees per square kilometre, or at least 240,000,000 pages, this court case used less than half a square kilometre of rainforest. I propose we start measuring large proceedings in square kilometres of northern Amazon, just to emphasize how drastic they are.

      We can then derive other fanciful metrics, like how many species are being destroyed in the process (as many Amazonian plants and animals have extremely small habitats.)

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    2. Re:97 million documents? by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't know about the US, but here in Australia, all paper is made from either recycled sources, or managed plantations. All lumber should be as well, but there are frequent allegations to the contrary.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  6. Google needs the money by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Funny

    Google needs the money, otherwise Larry might be forced to switch one of the campus sushi bars over to fried chicken.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  7. Software Patents by DaMattster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have to sit back and laugh very hard because software patents are almost mutually assured destruction. I find it fun to point out the hypocrisy of companies that rail against software patents while applying for them at the same time. Google does this ... we all know. Software patents, toughened copyright laws, and other related legal maneuvering has really just created a new legal industry of sue for profit. I thought the original intention of patents was really to protect and enhance manufacturing. Instead, it is being applied in a service industry. Patents were not meant to protect services but manufacturing ideas. No wonder our economy is in the toilet. We squabble over patented services while decimating manufacturing. Hell, we are even outsourcing our services now. What will be left?

    1. Re:Software Patents by jc42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I thought the original intention of patents was really to protect and enhance manufacturing.

      Nah; assorted historians have pointed out that the primary function of patent law has always been to block manufacturing and development. Really, the only thing you can do with a patent is deny others the legal right to build anything based on whatever your patent covers. In theory, you can also collect royalties from licenses, but this is historically insignificant compared to the use of patents to block whatever competitors are trying to manufacture.

      Historians have also pointed out that most patent holders have only rarely profited from owning a patent before the patent runs out. Typically they lose money paying for legal actions to block others' use of the patent. After it expires, however, they tend to profit because they're the experts on it, and can thus produce products based on it sooner than their competitors can.

      The idea that patents are for providing income to the inventors is just a bit of legal propaganda to keep people confused enough to prevent improving the patent laws. In the real world, it hardly ever works for the patent holder's benefit. (But lawyers often make lots of money in legal patent battles. ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  8. Re:WTF by bertok · · Score: 4, Insightful

    97M pages at a generous 100kB per page is just under 10 TB, which costs about $1000 to store. Let be generous again, and multiply the cost of raw disk capacity by a factor of 100 to account for redundancy, hosting, rack space, and bandwidth... Nope, still only $100,000!

    So, yeah, $97M is a bit much. The only way I can think to account for such a ludicrously high cost would be if they used an archaic manual technology, like making crude pigment-based marks on dead trees! But that would be ludicrous, it would make justice impossible to afford for the common man! Such a system wouldn't be allowed in a modern society, right?

  9. Re:WTF by TreyGeek · · Score: 5, Informative

    This and a comment a few notches below reminds me of a story an old professor at my university told in an ethics class. He was an expert witness at trial where a state inspector was run over by a 'modern' paving machine. The defense lawyers requested a copy of the source code for the firmware in the machine. They came into the office one day to find on their fax machine pages and pages of printouts of the crap produced from opening the executable in Word. The executable, not the source code! Bottom line, when it comes to lawyers do not assume they have an ounce of common sense and depend upon them to charge you for their own mistakes.

  10. Re:WTF by ari_j · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Those 97 million pages didn't review, organize, and where necessary redact themselves. It doesn't matter what technology you use, if you care at all about the content it is expensive to deal with that many pages of written material. It's like proof-reading an early but complete draft of Atlas Shrugged 89,000 times over except with a subtle plot and only slightly better prose. It comes out to only $32.53 per reading of Atlas Shrugged, which is a better price than I would offer.

  11. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, yeah, $97M is a bit much.

    I assume you mean $2.9 million?

    Well, Oracle lost.

    it would make justice impossible to afford for the common man!

    No, this should be the punishment for a company that looses. Do you think that a company should be able to come up to you and request MILLIONS of documents? Do you think a company should come up to you send you legal request after legal request for documents? So what if fits on $50 hard drive? It's the labor to go through the 20 million pages. You don't want to be giving out the wrong pages that have something valuable on it not related that Oracle could steal. If the "Common Man" could read a PAGE PER SECOND every second of every day and NEVER EVER SLEEP it would take him 231 days to go through all that.

    Doesn't seem like any company should just be able to to do this without repercussion to me. That would make justice impossible for the common man.

  12. Re:WTF by Warhawke · · Score: 4, Funny

    I commend you for inventing my new favorite unit of measurement. "You'll find the average homework for this law class to measure around 2.3 AS per night." So what's the conversion rate for Atlas Shruggeds to Fountainheads?

  13. Re:WTF by adamchou · · Score: 4, Informative

    when it comes to lawyers do not assume they have an ounce of common sense and depend upon them to charge you for their own mistakes.

    don't always assume that what they're doing is out of ignorance.

    a friend of mine works for a boutique patent firm suing a larger company for violating their patent. when they asked for the source to a program that produces a ~30 line output, the larger company sent 10 gigs of source code, historic source code, accompanying documents, and other crap and told them to sift through it to find it. on top of that, they only had a month or so to go through all of it.

    my point is, sometimes, its a stall tactic to drive up costs and or to just add unnecessary complications for the other side

  14. Re:WTF by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Funny

    US$ 2.9 million in copying? That's only like 3 or 4 MP3's.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  15. Re:WTF by bertok · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's just totally false.

    Print is trivially forge-able. Literally, children can do it! Haven't you ever heard of some snotty kid altering their grade report so they wouldn't get punished by their parents?

    Meanwhile, a digital signature can be made so robust that nothing short of revolutionary new mathematics could be used to alter the data in any way.

    On top of that, there are entirely new kinds of things that can be done with digital data, that's just impossible with print.

    For example, escrow: It would be possible for a defendant to collect everything, and I mean *everything* that they have, encrypt and sign the data, and then hand it over. This ensures that the prosecution has a snapshot available at a point in time, before the defendant has had time to create forgeries. Then, based on the Judge's rulings, sections of the data can be unlocked and verified by providing the private keys for those sections at a later point. The prosecution, or the Judge, or whoever, can hold the data in escrow, without the defendant having to disclose anything unless required. However, no matter how long the legal process takes, the defendant won't have weeks or months to alter the originals, because they already handed over a snapshot at the very beginning.

    Digital is not just "not inferior" to print, it's vastly superior in every way. It's cheaper to store, cheaper to copy, and trivial to search. I can be digitally signed, encrypted, and timestamped. None of that is possible with print.

    I bet many people in the legal profession are smart enough to understand this. I bet that all of those in that subset are also smart enough to realize that they can continue to charge their exorbitant fees if they keep using antiquated dead-tree methods instead of modernizing.

  16. Re:WTF by Nemyst · · Score: 4, Informative

    I know this was supposed to be funny, but the "Informative" mod is depressing.

    Infinity/Infinity is undefined, just like 0/0 and Infinity/0.