Brett Stuff
Judging the Judges
Term Year: 2018

Rimini Street, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Oracle USA, Inc., et al.

Summary Analysis

DATE: 2019-03-04
DOCKET: 17-1625
NAME: Rimini Street, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Oracle USA, Inc., et al.

   AUTHOR: Kavanaugh
   JOINING: Roberts, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch
   GOOD: Yes

Case Commentary

The Court held that Full [Court] Costs (in this case, since things may be different in different situations, seeing as how needlessly complicated the Legal System is) means:

In other words, Full [Court] Costs is equivalent to saying All Costs that meet the required definition of a Cost.

In other words (since as originally written the forgoing was needlessly complex and I felt the need to re-explain it one more time; but hopefully, that is no longer the case; but then again, just in case):

Full Costs == All Costs
All Costs == Any Item in a Predefined List of Costs
Cost == Any Item in Any List

∴ Full Cost == Total of All Costs from All Lists

I was about to say I would find it hard to imagine anything more boring and tedious. But listening to someone list off what they ate over the past few days would come close.
'And then, of course, I had Yogurt like I always do, while my husband had Raisin Bread Toast. Now, the thing to know about Raisin Bread Toast...'

Since I place a © symbol on every page I create, I think it should be clear by now that I am (being sarcastic by example; and therefore, you can be sure that I am most definitely and ideologically) Anti-Copyright... along with Anti-Patent, Anti-Trademark... and likely, whatever else you've got.

In other words, I am Anti-Copyright. Yes, I am. But as long as you get to own yours, I am going to own mine.

Or if you like, I'll turn Commie when you do. Um, you go first.

I have little to offer by way of a proof or argument, as to why Copyrights are toxic. Simply that (after a lifetime of consideration) I have come to believe that the Human Race (as a whole) would be much better off if Copyrights did not exist. And I don't see the harm (in any meaningful sense, probably would force them to be better people... or realize that they aren't) in reducing countless Billionaires to Millionaire status by eliminating their holdings in (and the very concept of) Intellectual Property Rights.

We could go back and forth about this for hours. But as I would likely treat your side of the argument as being as meritorious (and as interesting) as a listing of breakfast foods, there's little point.

As to Encouraging Innovation (the only Counter Argument, which I believe deserves further discussion), I can assure you that there are plenty of unread websites in the world (this one, at last count, being one of them), whose creators still sink effort into them, because that is what they do. And it is who they are. Thus, I do not believe Innovation will grind to a halt simply because of Reduced Remuneration. And as to those who are doing it (whatever it is: Art, Philosophy, Science, or whatever) only for the money, we actually may be better off (as a Society), if those money seekers simply stopped, got out of the way, and let those who intrinsically care about such things take over.

Of course, what do I know? If Fame and Fortune were completely out of the question, I might just be strolling around the neighbourhood right now, going for a walk, rather than pounding out another diatribe. And for it, the world might be a better place.
{Note: I am not advocating the elimination of Fame, only Fortune.}

The case at hand is about Costs (Court Costs, as I read it) and not Software Copyright Infringement. But I don't really care about Court Costs and would much rather delve into how the Copyright on Oracle's Software was Infringed in this particular case.

To the best of my knowledge, Rimini Street, Inc. was found guilty of:

So, the lesson I would learn from all this is the importance of having any Software License Holder work the buttons and tap the keys, themselves.

This may make it harder to work the Business Model in Question. But as much as I am Intellectually Anti-Copyright, I'm, also, not an Outlaw and have no desire to come even remotely close to the line.
'Well, yeah. If you want the enhancement of that Patch (which is intended for Subscribers only, I might add), I guess you're going to have to become a Subscriber. Oh! But, wait a second! At a Subscription Cost of $XXX,XXX.xx, there are a lot of other options out there that even after my ridiculously-high fee would come in cheaper. Why don't I outline some of those perfectly-legal solutions for you?'

Judging the Judges

Next Entry


Hey, this is why I use GNU, FLOSS, and Open Source Tooling.

Given the choice of building my ecosystem around proprietary or free, I'm going with free.

Also, I have no desire to get out of bed at 6AM just so I'm awake when the Feds kick down the door at 7AM.

I mean, if you don't break any laws, this shouldn't be an issue, right?


Why isn't anyone saying 'Right?'


Do you hear helicopters, outside?

© copyright 2019 Brett Paufler
A Personal Opinion/Editorial