

Judge to Oracle: "proceed with caution before overreaching again" - grellas
http://patent-damages.com/2011/08/oracle-v-google-ndca-judge-alsup-rejects-nash-bargaining-solution-and-grants-google%E2%80%99s-motion-to-exclude-oracle%E2%80%99s-expert%E2%80%99s-report-and-testimony-advocating-1-4b-to-6-1b-in-d/

======
bjonathan
Website seems down, here is a cache version :
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YkwoGRQ...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YkwoGRQ2C2MJ:patent-
damages.com/2011/08/oracle-v-google-ndca-judge-alsup-rejects-nash-bargaining-
solution-and-grants-google%E2%80%99s-motion-to-exclude-
oracle%E2%80%99s-expert%E2%80%99s-report-and-testimony-
advocating-1-4b-to-6-1b-in-d/+http://patent-damages.com/2011/08/oracle-v-
google-ndca-judge-alsup-rejects-nash-bargaining-solution-and-grants-
google%25E2%2580%2599s-motion-to-exclude-
oracle%25E2%2580%2599s-expert%25E2%2580%2599s-report-and-testimony-
advocating-1-4b-to-6-1b-in-d/&hl=fr&gl=fr&strip=1)

------
div
It's refreshing to read about a judge giving a strong argumentation on a
fairly technical subject.

If it comes to the point where Oracle will have to show which patents are
being infringed, I wonder how they will hold up under the light of scrutiny.

~~~
sigzero
I would imagine pretty good or Oracle wouldn't have brought suit.

~~~
lambda_cube
You mean like when SCO sued IBM? If SCO didn't have a case they wouldn't have
brought suit, right?

------
wnoise
Oy. Every single allocation of surplus is Pareto efficient, and every single
allocation can result from the right Nash equilibrium. The 50/50 split of
surplus is in no way anymore justified then any other. You have to reach
outside game theory for that.

~~~
jigs_up
if you're going to speak on complex law issues, how about learning the
difference between then and than?

~~~
Natsu
The grandparent post's statements were related to game theory (the branch of
mathematics), not law.

------
JVerstry
"(...) Oracle must be aware that some of the unaddressed criticisms seem, at
least on one reading, to have merit, so it should proceed with caution (...)"
- It's with judges like these that we could sort the patent mess.

------
nkassis
Between 1.4 and 6.1B. That shows Oracle only valued sun for it patents it
could use against people like Google (they paid 8B for sun)

~~~
eric-hu
The lawyers that come up with these sums don't need a sense of money grounded
in the real world. See also: RIAA wants 75 trillion from limewire:
<http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202486102650>

~~~
nextparadigms
I wonder if it sounds ridiculous even to them, or they actually believe their
own claims.

~~~
pyre
Probably more like a negotiating tactic. The more that they ask for the more
the _actual_ amount awarded will be.

------
NHQ
The goal of bargaining is not usually to give the other party the best
possible (most profitable) outcome. Does this Nash BS take into account for
the bargainers that an agreement _not reached_ will favor neither, or perhaps
favor one less than the other. One party says to the other "your math is
hogwater, no deal! We'll still build it some other way, but you won't get
anything." Leverage is a simple machine.

