
Google Files Bill of Costs for Oracle to Pay - $4,030,669 - lightspot
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120706111715256
======
grellas
The cost bill filed by Google underscores the intensity of this case and shows
that we caught only _surface glimpses_ of what surely were day-to-day
firefights keeping the lawyers and their minions going round-the-clock for an
intense year's worth of fighting.

A "cost bill" is not a bill for the attorneys' fees incurred in a case. Under
U.S. rules, the parties bear their own legal fees in most cases (and that is
the case here).

But federal court rules do permit a prevailing party to recover from the
losing party necessary costs incurred in dealing with document production and
similar matters in the litigation. The out-of-pocket bill here (not including
attorneys' fees) for Google to filter through 97 million documents and to
produce just over 3 million of them after careful assessment and screening:
about $2.9 million (mostly paid to electronic discovery service providers, who
surely found full-time employment in this case during this past year).

The bulk of the remaining bill for costs consists of nearly $1 million paid to
expert witnesses for their assistance in helping to prepare and present
Google's case.

In a case like this, Google's attorneys' fees had to run at least $10 million
_per month_ , at least during the intense phases of the case. I would
estimate, then, that total attorneys' fees in the case _easily_ exceeded $100
million and may well have done so _for Google alone_.

Big Law may be in the doldrums today in general but a case like this clearly
offers a big payday. The law firms here were all exemplary and undoubtedly
earned it. Still, the cost is staggering to contemplate for the casual outside
observer.

~~~
cookiecaper
They did _not_ earn it. Lawyers charge exorbitant prices because they can --
they have you by the balls, and you don't really have an option not to pay
them -- not because their services are actually worth $100 million+. I've
admired your posts for years here on HN, but it's not just staggering to a
"casual observer"; it's staggering to anyone with a sense of decency and
propriety.

~~~
pg
The high rates that top lawyers get paid are simply market rates. We pay them
too. Cheap lawyers are not a bargain.

Decency and propriety? What do you even mean by that? That you think the
proper rate for legal work should be lower than the current market rate? What
basis do you have for such a claim?

~~~
smallblacksun
>The high rates that top lawyers get paid are simply market rates

Market rates propped up by having the ability to restrict entry into the
market controlled by other lawyers.

~~~
djloche
I would argue that hiring lawyers is like hiring developers in SV. There are
many developers but if you want to hire A class developers, you have to pay A
class rates and compete with everyone else trying to hire A class developers.
Lawyers are no different. If you want to hire A class lawyers, you're going to
pay A class rates.

~~~
cookiecaper
The "A class rates" for developers rarely approach the _minimum rates_ for
legal services. The highest rate I've received from a consultancy was $200/hr,
and they were working in an extremely specialized area with literally the best
developers money could buy -- the only fundamental builders of that technology
that weren't on board at that company were those who refuse to take a job. I
know that Percona lists $300/hr as their rate, and we have the same story
here; extremely specialized field, developers that are and have been deeply
involved in the development of the technology for most of its lifetime.
Generalized high-powered development help typically maxes out in the
$100-$150/hr range, at least in my experience, and even that is difficult to
get outside of California.

$250+/hr is the common baseline rate in my area for real commercial legal
services (that is, more than emailing a template for a contract), _not_ the "A
class rate", and I would guess areas with higher cost of living are worse off.
I have associates that pay $450-$500+/hr for their legal help. I know of
lawyers that charge $750+/hr; that, you may say, is the "A class" rate for
lawyership. Note the disparity between development consultancies and legal
firms -- we max out _near a law firm's minimum rate_.

Comparison to other highly-skilled professionals, like developers, is indeed
valuable, but only further demonstrates the exorbitance of legal pricing.

~~~
debacle
Programmers outright _refuse_ to organize. Lawyers, like any other
_professional_ organization, are highly organized which impacts rates.

You can start coding for hire right out of high school, if you've done the
right prep work. It takes ~7 years before you can start practicing law.

I would argue that at least 50% of programmers out there are not 'highly-
skilled professionals,' being neither highly skilled nor professional.

~~~
cookiecaper
This isn't relevant at the price points we're discussing. I've never known a
16-year-old to get paid $100/hr for his consulting services -- they are
usually excited to take gigs at $15/hr, and the problem sets they encounter
are usually tractable for their as-yet basic skill set. I can say as an
individual who has made this progression from fresh-from-high-school
freelancer to full-scale consultancy owner, you really hit a ceiling once you
get around $50/hr. Unprofessional developers usually have significant
difficulty crossing that threshold, at least in my local market, and there are
not many absolutely incompetent developers floating around at higher rates.
Most of our peers that can remain in that price range are at least respectably
competent, even if we're still better than them.

------
jswanson
Whatever the result, the lawyers always win.

This is pocket change for Oracle. The real set back to them is the result of
the case.

And though it's good to see the aggressor in one of these lawsuits actually
lose, it's saddening to think that if Oracle or a pure patent troll went after
a company without 4 million to pay for a defensive suit, they would have won.

~~~
skystorm
Note that this does not actually include the attorneys' fees, though.

------
dmix
When I was a kid, I read comics or heard jokes where the punchline was about
everyones unanimous hatred for lawyers, I was always a bit confused.

But witnessing the last few yrs in the tech industry (in addition to politics
and divorce law), it's become very apparent to me _why_ thats the case.

~~~
BadassFractal
I still don't see how the lawyers are the bad guys here. The company knows
that the country's laws might allow it to weaken the competition. It wants to
avail itself of that option. The laywers are just the executors of that
action, the messengers if you will.

They're certainly happy to make a buck from the process, but unless they're
the ones to actually create the laws and keep them in place despite their
ridiculousness, they are not exactly to blame.

~~~
potatolicious
> _"they are not exactly to blame."_

Oh hell naw.

If someone leaves their car unlocked sitting by the curb with the keys in the
ignition, is it right to steal it? The fact that someone has (stupidly or
otherwise) created a situation that is _easy_ to take advantage of in no way
excuses the person that exploits it.

The fact that we have creating a patent and copyright law situation that
borders on the absurd is one thing, people actively seeking to profit from
this sorry state of affairs are as guilty as they come.

~~~
edanm
I think the point is that it is _Oracle_ trying to exploit the situation. Not
their lawyers.

------
mtgx
I can't imagine Oracle being too bothered by the sum itself, but it must be
pretty embarrassing for them to be the aggressors in this case, and ask for
billions in the beginning from Google, then to find out that they could only
get like $35 million at most, even if they do win, and finally to lose the
case, and themselves be the ones paying millions to Google.

------
SquareWheel
What are the chances that they will actually receive this?

~~~
tokenadult
_What are the chances that they will actually receive this?_

An order of the court will determine the final award of costs. Both sides get
to argue with the court about what's a reasonable award, but the judge
decides, and I can't imagine that Oracle wouldn't follow the court's order (as
it can well afford to do). Probably Google is initially asking for far more
than it actually expects to get after the judge reviews the bill of costs.

------
andyjsong
Man... I gotta get back into economic consulting... $986,978 in expert witness
fees.

~~~
quink
That's probably one percent of the total lawyering costs. Maybe get into that
:P

~~~
andyjsong
>That's probably one percent of the total lawyering costs. Maybe get into that
:P

I don't think you know how much expert witnesses charge and what they do.

------
nwmcsween
It's nice to see Oracle reinventing it self into SCO

~~~
ComputerGuru
It hasn't, though. Larry Ellison has shown time and time again that Oracle is
just about the bottom dollar. SCO was just a patent troll, but in Ellison's
Oracle, patent trolling/litigation is just another "wing" of the business of
making big bucks. Oracle did the math and thought it would be worth the
risk/investment of taking this all the way in anticipation of a possible
payout on the scale of billions of dollars, and it didn't pan out. That's what
makes this all the more annoying: this isn't their core business model,
they're _not_ SCO, but they choose to pursue this anyway.

~~~
taligent
I don't think you know much about Oracle. Aggressively defending their assets
through the courts is something Oracle has a long, long history of. Sometimes
they win. Sometimes they lose. But they almost never just let things slide.

Pretty sure Larry is wearing his kimono with swords by his side when he's
making the decision to "go to war".

