Judge to Oracle: "proceed with caution before overreaching again"

Website seems down, here is a cache version : http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YkwoGRQ...

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.

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.

"(...) 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.

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)

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.