Oracle v. Google: "the value of this case keeps getting smaller and smaller"

Re:Oracle v. Google: "the value of this case keeps getting s... by linker3000 on Sunday February 19, 2012 @12:15PM (#3609732)

"The value of this case keeps getting smaller and smaller"

But the lawyers fees are still getting bigger and bigger.

Plus ça change.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Oracle v. Google: "the value of this case keeps getting s... by philiphodgen on Sunday February 19, 2012 @12:58PM (#3609846)

There are two reasons the value of the case gets smaller and smaller.

One is that the large assigned value at the beginning was a lie. When truth appears lies evaporate. (Usually).

The other is that Google's lawyers did their extremely difficult job--using their technical smiles they have methodically pruned an overgrown oak into a bonsai.

Look at both sides of the equation. What was paid? What is the value of what was bought?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Oracle v. Google: "the value of this case keeps getting s... by akashshah on Sunday February 19, 2012 @12:44PM (#3609802)

Wouldn't both companies have in house lawyers fighting the case? In which case the lawyer fees would be just their salaries?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Oracle v. Google: "the value of this case keeps getting s... by Jyaif on Sunday February 19, 2012 @12:49PM (#3609816)

Google uses Keker & Van Nest (it's in the article).

[ Parent | on HN ]