Java trial judge William Alsup has ordered Oracle to pay $1,130,350 for Google's court costs, mostly for a court-appointed expert witness.

Google, the "prevailing party," wanted $4,030,699, but the judge cut it back $2,900,349 refusing to accept its bill for third-party e-discovery.

Oracle failed to convince the court and the jury that Android infringes its patents and copyrights. The judge ultimately ruled that its APIs weren't copyrighted.

The judge's order recalls that "Oracle initially sought six billion dollars in damages and injunctive relief but recovered nothing after nearly two years of litigation and six weeks of trial."

His decision explains in stiff language why "Oracle has failed to overcome the presumption of awarding costs to Google."

"Oracle initially alleged infringement of seven patents and 132 claims but each claim ultimately was either dismissed with prejudice or found to be non-infringed by the jury. Oracle also lost on its primary copyright claim for Java APIs.

"While it is true that a copyright issue presented, copyrightability of APIs, was of great importance to the computer industry, this is not enough to deny costs. The media attention following this case was due in large part because Oracle crafted broad, and ultimately overreaching, claims of copyright infringement. A close follower of this case will know that Oracle did not place great importance on its copyright claims until after its asserted patents started disappearing upon PTO re-examination (indeed, Oracle's first damages report barely mentioned copyright claims). Oracle did not bring its API copyright claim for the benefit of addressing ‘a landmark issue of national importance,' but instead fell back on an overreaching (albeit somewhat novel) theory of copyright infringement for its own financial interests late in litigation. On these facts, Oracle has failed to overcome the presumption of awarding costs to Google."

Judge Alsup has also abandoned his search for evidence that the litigants paid journalists or bloggers to comment on the trial and reassured "both sides that no commentary has in any way influenced the court's orders and ruling herein save and except for any treatise or article expressly cited in an order or ruling." Unsatisfied with Google initial response, he asked twice.

See www.scribd.com/doc/104908807/Oracle-v-Google-Court-Fees.