Uncivil Law
@uncivillaw·160K subscribers·3.8K videos
Just how "full" are those full costs, anyway? Rimini v. Oracle
Posted
July 18, 2019
Views
173
Likes
12
Comments
1
Engagement
7.51%
July 18, 2019
173
12
1
7.51%
Every word spoken in this episode is indexed. Type any phrase to jump straight to the moment it was said.
Type any word or phrase that may have been spoken. Click a result to seek the player to that exact moment.
Try a name, a topic, or a quoted line
6:04Now PlayingAs part of a copyright dispute which Oracle won, Oracle asked for and was awarded attorney's costs and expert witness costs. These costs totaled $12 million (not all attorney's get paid this much, but hey, nice work if you can get it).
The rule at common law was that each party had to pay its own costs. This rule has been modified by statutes in most states and in federal law, but the degree to which it has been modified is different in different places.
The question here is whether the copyright statute's text that allows the awarding of "full" costs includes this $12 million dollars or not.
The court considers the default rules that apply, and then considers whether this text merely invokes those default rules, or whether it changes them.
So, who pays these attorneys - the bad guys, or the client? (The attorney always gets paid, don't be ridiculous - we are just trying to figure out by who).
We find out in today's case of Rimini v. Oracle.
Sentinel Indexing in Progress
Metadata and chapters are available. Claim extraction for this episode is pending.
All video content is delivered via YouTube embedded players in accordance with the YouTube Terms of Service. Sentinel provides research tools that promote discovery and accountability across political media.
