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 517298
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Optimised for your pleasure!
by Brendan on Mon 7th May 2012 22:47 UTC
Member since:


For something like "if( (condition1) && (condition2) ) { return GUILTY; } else { return INNOCENT; }" where "condition1" is hard to figure out and "condition2" is easy to figure out; it is reasonable to determine if "condition2" is false first. If you're lucky and you may be able to return "INNOCENT" without ever evaluating "condition1" at all (and without setting a precedent when you'd rather avoid doing so).

- Brendan

Reply Score: 4