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 517300
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Sigh. Thom.
by ctl_alt_del on Mon 7th May 2012 23:01 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Sigh. Thom."
Member since:

If they'd found against would that mean the judge wouldn't have bothered with the judgement on law?

Bingo! The judge doesn't want to rule and potentially set any precedent of law unless it's required.

edit: My guess is the judge was thinking (hoping) the jury would find there was no copyright infringement or it was "fair use" or "de minimis".

Edited 2012-05-07 23:06 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6