>Details not in yet, but Oracle has essentially won their infringement case against Google over Java patents used in Android.

Interesting as to what is already considered a win - not only this thread,
but dozens around the net show different takes as to who really "won" ;-)

the jury card:
http://www.dailytech.com/Deadlocked+Jury+Shifts+Momentum+from+Oracle+to+Google+in+Android+Java+Trial/article24632.htm

[big] IF the damages are really only in the range of 150k$ for the source copy
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-07/google-s-android-infringed-oracle-s-java-jury-says.html

coming from 6Billion I'd consider this a win for Google.
Paying 16+k$ per line of copied/not clean implementation code falls squarely in my "throw the book" hope,
but that is 150k$ added to 15Mio lines of code, or 1 Cent per line.
Encourages really clean room practices and is a good result for Google
and programming attitude in general IMHO.

How would legal cost be awarded in the US ?
In germany the cost for all sides would be calculated on the amount asked for,
then split roughly according to the percentage really awarded - which would be a financial hit for Oracle,
as the legal cost would be much higher than the amount awarded.

On the API I am not sure about US law of all the possibilities currently open.
Interesting for me are the can of worms NOT opened in the trial:
How much of tha Java API is based on previous libraries ?
How much overlap is there with source code libraries of Dotnet for instance ?
[that I can understand - MS might just enter a licensing scheme with Oracle as lesser of 2 evil from their POV]

Interesting also the result to question 4:
Sun pussyfooting around the "openness" of Java around 2007 is still fresh in my mind.
There really were mixed signals coming from them at that time.
Similar to some companies today calling themselves/their product OS but keeping the back doors
hidden - nothing against making money by keeping parts not free,
but those parts IMHO should be spelled out in BIG letters.
I'd love to have Alsup decide that asking for money now would be bait and switch tactics not allowed.

And perhaps Alsup will decide API's are not copyrightable -
Even if the "Patend Expert Müller" agrues heavily that based on previous US decisions this is impossible.
That Alsup asks both parties for arguments including thoughts about the recent EU decision hiked my hope a bit.

>Let the appeals begin.
Probably unavoidable...

regards

thomas