Imagine Bob (figured name) took Fred’s (figured name) without Fred’s consent and used it to get on time to a business meeting that reported Bob $1 million, money which not have been made by Bob if he had been late to his meeting.
After the meeting, Bob was arrested by the police for having stolen Fred’s car. Bob had not damaged the car, and he opposed no resistance to his arrest. In fact, offered to pay for the gas he actually used. The car was worth $30,000.
Certainly Bob caused Fred some damage, as Fred was not able to use his own car for some time, until the police returned it.
Leaving aside the criminal aspect (the actual theft), would Fred really have any right to claim any of the $30,000, just because the actual usage of the car was a necessary step for Bob in the process of making the $1 million deal?
We would say, not being experts at law, that Bob should pay Fred for the actual gas, the insurance cost for the time Fred could not use his own car, and a certain compensation for any additional cost Fred could have had after his car theft: Transportation, phone calls, Fred’s earnings during hose days in case he needed his car for work, plus a certain additional amount for the hassle.
But probably it would be unfair to have Bob paying the $30,000 just because he used it to make the deal.
Last Friday Safra Catz cared to appear once again to give testimony in SAP-Oracle ongoing trial. And she gave another illustrative masterpiece of analogies which could be better understood by the jurors.
True that the oracle’s intellectual property has a value. True that it should not have been illegally acquired by TomorrowNow. But the fact it is valuable does not increase or diminish the harm made by SAP to Oracle, which is the fact being tried.
Fair to claim $1.6 billion at least, just because the cost of what SAP used was that much? By the way, it was the oracle who said it was worth $1.6 billion at least…
If SAP made $40 million with the 358 customers that were “safe-passaged” from the oracle, by selling projects at 50% discount on the oracle’s fees, it means that the oracle would have got $80 million at the max if having continued business with those customers.
$80 million, plus $120 million already agreed to be paid for attorney’s costs (no criminal charges dropped as well) seem much more reasonable a sentence to us.
Fred could have said, by the way, his car was worth $60,000, or $90,000, based on sentimental value as well… lots of time washing it in the driveway, lots of happy times spent in the back seat, perhaps… and eventual colourful cool tuning, why not.
Weak argumentation in our opinion to claim that much, Kitty… sorry, “Catz”.
No comments:
Post a Comment