Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 7th May 2012 20:09 UTC
Legal There's some movement in the Oracle-Google lawsuit today, but it's rather difficult to determine just what kind of movement. The jury was told by the judge Alsup to assume APIs are copyrightable - something Alsup still has to determine later during trial - and with that in mind, the judge ruled Google violated Oracle's copyright on Java. However, the jury did not come to an agreement on a rather crucial question: whether or not it was fair use. All in all, a rather meaningless verdict at this point, since it's incomplete. Also, what kind of nonsense is it for a judge to tell a jury to assume something is illegal? Am I the only one who thinks that's just complete insanity?
Permalink for comment 517296
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Sigh. Thom.
by cfgr on Mon 7th May 2012 21:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sigh. Thom."
Member since:

Well, I'm not a lawyer but I'd assume it's a way of multitasking.

To have an actual violation, we need to determine:
(1) is API copyrightable?
(2) if API is copyrightable, does Google violate it?

Or put in logic:
(1) A is true?
(2) (A => B) is true?

The jury concluded that implication (2) is valid, but that only means something when A is true. So once it's ruled that API's are in fact copyrightable then Google violated it and a new jury decision will not be needed.

Or it may be some legal trick I'm not aware of, it just seemed the most logical explanation to me.

It would be an interesting scenario where software is not a derived work in one continent but is considered as one in another. "This software may not be exported to Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, Syria and the United States of America."

Reply Parent Score: 3